Faster than Light

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

"the refractive index of water is 1.33, meaning that light travels 1.33 times slower in water than it does in vacuum".

I quoted this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index and apologize for erroneously writing "refractory" instead of "refractive".

You asked: "who specified a refractive index of more than one??"

Is there at all a material with n=1 or an immaterial body?

You wrote:"If you assumed that then the whole thing would become nonsense."

While I am avoiding such insulting utterance, yes, you got it.

You wrote: **I specified; "assume new refractive index same as the old."**

The new index (1.3) of water must not be assumed the same as the old (1) one of vacuum.

You wrote; "we're showing it's effect is independent".

Since I consider the question decided who is wrong, I would merely like to show you that your spelling is often difficult to read for those like me whose command of English is shaky. I guess you meant its effect (the effect of the index) and not "it is effect".

I feel sad and sorry for being unable to hide your weak points.

Yours, Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

2. Then, for good old reliable Galilean relativity. Take this apt analogy from Galileo Galilei's ship...

"Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you there ... a large bowl of water ...; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe carefully how the ...drops fall into the vessel beneath; When you have observed all these things carefully..., have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or standing still. The droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. ...And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it, and to the air also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.".

It is clear that aberration will occur above deck with ship in motion. From Galileo's analogy, NO aberration can originate below deck. However, for light coming from above, traversing a transparent deck to the main cabin below all the aberration would have occurred above but can be observed below deck. For example, the spot in the deck leaking water to the main cabin below would be seen by those below deck to have shifted, BUT THAT SHIFT OCCURRED ABOVE DECK. The direction of shift is same both above and below deck, i.e. where the bowl receiving drops of water is same, even if not the same displacement. I think this should allay Peter J's anxiety about directional inconsistency due to dragging, which I think led to the innovation of optical coupling to resolve the dilemma. In Galileo's ship, Aberration is not caused by dragging. On the contrary, it is absence of dragging that causes aberration.

To conclude, Bradley's aberration demonstrates that any possible light carrying earth-bound medium does not extend to the stars. The presence of earth-bound dark matter will not affect the direction of aberration. It may be possible to use trigonometry, to find out the altitude of the earth-bound matter layer. Absence of any aberration of light from a light source below deck, say on the ceiling of the main cabin,(i.e. on earth surface), when aberration is seen from light source above deck, like the star, Gamma Draconis can get inspiration from Galileo's ship analogy.

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

You asked: "Have you ever player 'pass the parcel'?" No. I even don't understand what you meant with player. Is a player a person who plays? Is it something like a gadget? Please avoid unnecessary obstacles if you seriously intend discussing scientific matter.

Eckard

pjackson

Akinbo,

A rare breath of logical fresh air! OK the descriptive tightrope did get shakey at the end, but it takes time for all the mists to clear and the ship to reach safe haven.

In the case of the magneto/iono(plasma)sphere it MAY of course be considered as 'dragged' by Earth as it orbits with us. It's therefore confusing to refer to 'absence of dragging' as the cause in the ship case, which isn't directly comparable.

The actual mechanism for the rotation of the optical axis is shown in last years essay. You'll need grey matter at full volume.; Imagine a wavefront approaching and 'charging' an absorbing sphere. When the sphere is at rest the charge is symmetrical. But when the sphere is moving left to right the charge is asymmetric. Now consider the same interaction from the sphere rest frame. The wave is moving to the left as it interacts, so the charge axis is TILTED, and the sphere sees this as the true axis, so re-emits on the same axis. Voila.

It's called JM rotation, and is exposed by invisibility optics showing that optical axis is NOT LINKED to wavefront plane of propagation (see the essay).

That 'discrete field' (DFM) dynamic is the only way Stellar Aberration can be derived from waves. The ballistic umbrella solution is childish nonsense and anyway violates SR.

Finally; Don't forget it takes time, so distance to complete the job, unless the medium is dense like a lens. That's why Miller found decreasing effect with altitude, why M&M's findings were NOT quite "Null!" and why we always find atmospheric multirefringence and scintillation.

Peter

And PS; what have you done with the italic button!?

pjackson

Eckard,

You haven't lived!! 'Pass the parcel' is a game where say 10 players form a circle facing inwards, a parcel wrapped with many layers is given to one by 'person A' who is outside the ring, then it's passed on around the circle. When the music stops.... but if you want to know the rest Google it as it's irrelevant.

In our case the parcel is passed on at a fixed speed 'c'. So 'person A' sees the parcel moving at c and describing a circle.

Now if everyone in the circle stars walking, together, across the room at v maintaining the ring, the parcel is still being passed at c in the frame of the ring. However, our observer 'Person A' sees the parcel take quite different track and speed!

So this is the apparent effect I invoked. Each person in the ring represents a particle, (the 'ring' isn't important at it works in all geometries) and each absorbs the 'photon' and passes it on at c. But that c is 'THEIR OWN' c, not c wrt person A!! or indeed wrt ANY other arbitrary moving person (observer frame).

So there are TWO cases of 'speed' for the parcel. There is speed wrt the ring, which is propagation speed c, and there is also APPARENT speed for any arbitrary observer in relative motion.

Now once you've successfully visualised that you can revert and see the great importance.

I hope!

Peter

pjackson

Eckard,

Why bring in water?!?

"Is there at all a material with n=1 or an immaterial body?"

Yes of course. Plasma is n=1. A cloud of gas is pretty close too. That's why the cloud of dense space plasma the VLBA found could only be detected in the vacuum due to the effect on light of it's motion (from wave-particle coupling). See my much posted link above or Google it)

See the post I've just written about the parcel. From 'Person A's' frame (ours) the parcel is moving with the ring or bunch of 'players'.

Now Eckard; When I say "if you assumed that then the whole thing would become nonsense." There is absolutely NO implied criticism of you! It's a simple logical scientific fact. It is the 'THING' (conclusion) that can only become "nonsense"!!

However. You're very good at insults about my 'weak points' when its YOU making the big errors. There is NO WATER, there never was!! I specified n=1, but instead you insist you know better! If you just follow what I write you will understand.

SO: back to the important bit; The kinetic effect of the MOTION of the new medium (plasma cloud say) is entirely independent of its refractive index. It causes almost ALL the anomalous kinetically related effects we find, numbering probably somewhere in the 20's.

You will find this new physics may just include SR and GR.

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

"Why water?" I referred to Wikipedia, and they did choose water as to explain refraction. A refraction is known to occur at a surface where n is changing. Well, the surface of glass in vacuum or air did fit better to a moving body you consider. You repeatedly attributed n=1 to plasma without providing an accessible reference for this or at least specifying what kind of plasma you are referring to. I guess, it is problematic to confine a plasma in empty space like a body with a defined surface, and I wonder also if the index of refraction for gas or plasma does exactly equate one.

Anyway, you wrote "assume new refractive index same as the old" and I see your assertion that the speed of light in the second medium does locally equate c obviously at odds with how refraction is understood. Electromagnetic waves propagate with a velocity that depends on the epsilon of the medium which tends to be much larger than epsilon_0. Without a jump of the index at the surface of refraction there is perhaps no refraction. At the surface from glass to vacuum, the speed of light does undoubtedly jump from a smaller value to c.

Eckard

pjackson

Eckard,

Plasma refractive index is LESS than 1. But becomes 1 and just over with evolution to protons, ions and bound melocular gas. index given on wiki; Wiki, Plasma.

A bit more local info here; Std SPIM. Free electrons/positrons/protons do however have exceptionally high COUPLING co-efficient with light.

It is then 'invisible' ('dark') spectroscopically. So back to a dense cloud of plasma moving through space. As the recent VLBA findings confirm, with ZERO effect from the refractive index (a red herring in this case) light is refracted due to the lateral motion of the cloud.

This is because the COUPLING with light is entirely independent of the effect SLOWING IT DOWN. In the 'coupling' case then the main effect is KINETIC.

As in the 'moving ring' of people, the parcel is not 'slowed' by any interaction but IS affected. It's not only a lateral effect. If the cloud (or circle) is moving 'away' from us the light is also slowed and Doppler shifted (as found from rotating cluster haloes).

BUT; It's the implications that are massive. The plasma particles all re-emit at the LOCAL cloud (ring) speed c. This then slows or speeds up arriving light to c in the new co-moving reference (inertial) system.

Now just apply that to the free electron surface TZ of all matter, ('near/far field zone', 'surface charge, plasmons' etc etc) and CSL is suddenly implicit.

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

"Plasma refractive index is LESS than 1"?

I didn't find such statement in any of the sources you gave.

"becomes 1 and just over with evolution to protons, ions and bound melocular gas". Do you ascribe refraction to single particles.

If so, can you please provide references that clearly confirm your ideas?

I still imagine the far field of light propagating in empty space with a speed that refers to space and is given by its electric and magnetic parameters while it does not directly depend on the velocities of emitter or receiver. The near field does not propagate at all.

Incidentally, after you elsewhere understandably explained your play with parcels, I have just to comment that I don't feel obliged to deal with apparent speed.

Eckard

pjackson

Eckard,

The plasma dielectric constant is below n=1 at high frequencies when unmagnetised. (Constant E = 1-w2p/w2). It's often considered 'imaginary' as it implies superluminal motion. i.e; sfsu.edu. ..But it's irrelevant.

But you need to avid distraction by such 'red herrings'. Simply consider two clouds of particles or bodies of n = 1.1 if you prefer, moving at v wrt each other.

Light propagates within each at ~c wrt each rest frame as the local datum. i.e. on Earth it is ~c wrt Earth. But ONLY wrt Earth. On Mars it is ~c WRT Mars.

You say; "I don't feel obliged to deal with apparent speed." That's a natural reaction, which has been the 'assumption' used in all present science. But at least we're at step one; You know it 'exists as a concept at least. Now to show that it is important as we can 'observe' it, so be fooled by it, as in the pulses of apparently up to 46c found in superluminal jets by measuring 'angular change' rate. Superluminal Quasar jet pulses.

Now consider driving your car at 30kps; (frme K - we'll call it 'c') head on into a truck doing 25kps (K', = v). Neither of you are propagating at over 'c'. Both of you have a valid PROPAGATION velocity, entirely independently of each other and of ALL other arbitrary vehicles and frames elsewhere.

However, when you interact with the truck you will, I promise, find the 'apparent' c+v becomes a REAL relative speed which you MUST "deal with"! (don't try it on the way home, please take my word on that!)

We must then, and this is indeed new physics, learn to discern between the cases of propagation in the local background (1. 'Proper') speed, and also 2.; Arbitrary 'relative' speed, but which is only arbitrary UNTIL a physical interaction, when it changes to case 1!

That is why light, on interaction with an approaching lens, instantly slows, not ONLY due to refractive index c/n, but also by v, to c/n wrt the lens rest frame, just as your car would slow to use the trucks rest frame K' as it's new datum.

This IS important. The difference between 30 or 55kph is often life or death.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, Eckard,

There was one relativity principle, Galilean relativity before Einstein introduced Special relativity to resolve what experimentally seemed inconsistent with Galilean relativity. Peter is introducing a third. The problem is that Peter's is more complex than Galilean relativity. It includes all kinds of special optical effects, like kinetic inverse reaction, etc. Before we can accept this new type of relativity, Peter has to tell us exactly where Galilean relativity has failed. I am trying to illustrate the Stellar aberration topic and will post my drawing over the weekend for both of you to criticize. To round up I was happy that Peter noted that aberration is independent of refractive index. This conforms with Sir Airy's experiment when he observed that filling his telescope with water had no effect on amount of observed aberration.

Regards,

Akinbo

This is a topic I thought Pentcho would be interested in being a critic of Einsteiniana but I see he has moved on to Complexity.

*I don't know what caused the italicization error in my post but I guess if the words italicized are many this could make the whole post to be in italics.

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

Don't fool yourself. G. Nimtz did so persistently. Having observed a fictitious component of light propagating with a speed in excess of c, he claimed having demonstrated transmission of signals with a speed in excess of c. However, c in vacuum is constant and is the fastest possible speed of signals. Phase speed and group speed may be different from each other. Likewise it is misleading to speak of n smaller than one.

You seem to be victim of other fallacies too. Given, all cars on a street respect a maximal speed. Then they can crash frontal with twice that speed if one adds their speeds. Does this justify to add velocities of light? No.

You are arguing, c wrt Mars is different from c wrt earth. This would be the case if light did propagate in a medium or there was an acoustic signal propagating in a common medium.

I assume instead a common space, usually without a fix point zero to refer to. Relevant are merely the distances between let's say an emitter on Mars at the moment of emission and a receiver on earth at the moment of arrival. Other frames of reference are not required. It does not at all matter how this distance might be in shifting motion relative to anything else. What may c wrt earth mean? The answer is given by Michelson's 1881 and 1925 experiments.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, Eckard

Take a look at my illustration of Bradley's stellar aberration. Do you have any criticism?

I think the area of Peter's concern is the dynamics at the interface between the deck and main cabin below deck, which I marked red in the illustration. While there may be something of interest there, for which Peter has introduced mechanisms like 'optical coupling', kinetic inverse reaction, 'absorption and re-emission', I think we should just leave Galileo's ship the way it is. Afterall, if drops of water and sound waves can undergo aberration above deck and none below without those mechanisms, why use them when it comes to light?

AkinboAttachment #1: Illustration_of_Bradleys_Stellar_Aberration.pdf

pjackson

Akinbo,

Umbrellas and falling raindrops famously can't handle waves. That's the ony reason the disproved 'ballistic' theory of light holds on by it's fingertips to keep confounding us.

Unfortunately your diagrammatic set up then also doesn't address the actual situation either. As you say, the telescope in the bowels of the ship would have to point vertically to pick up the light. That is ALL light. You referred earlier to "re-inventing the wheel" The very first requirement is that it at least remains round!

There are also various interesting azimuthal variations to aberration which must be accounted for.

I suggested you read my last years essay, and looked at the last few figures. You clearly haven't done so yet as you'd be much more up to speed. Beware of writing off things that have taken much careful consideration and development without proper thought or justification. If I was the type to be insulted I surely would!

once you have done, you need to then consider the approaching wavefront, and at least TWO points on it, so you can see the relation between the 'wavefront normal' (perpendicular) and the optical axis (observed apparent 'source' position).

Only once the problem is clear will the possible valid solutions be constrained and the required mechanism identified. Plenty have tried to tread that path before and failed. The key is in understanding the Fig's I show.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Eckard,

You are not 'reading' what I write. I did not propose to ADD velocities of light. 'Velocity' requires 'propagation' (as SR specifies) which is a LOCAL mechanism, and is between and wrt matter particles NOT 'aether' OK?

Now consider your car driving at night on the other side of the road to the truck, both with headlights on. Do you really propose that, just because the truck exists, the light from your headlights slows down on leaving the lens!?? That is the only possibly logically correct analysis of the criticism you seem to suggest.

In fact of course the light from both sets of headlights propagates at ~c (n=1.0003) in the air. As shown by high powered lasers fired AT each other at the same phase, it is only when they physically MEET that interesting things occur! Until then they do RELATIVE c+v, but that is NOT a propagation speed!! There is then a 2nd case, abitrary 'relative speed' to also account for.

We can create electrons and also gamma and X-rays simply due to the Doppler shift effect on wavelength from such beam/beam interactions. i.e. the light has to SLOW on meeting to then propagate relatively in it's new environment at ~c.

Ehrenstein Gamma 1997,

X-Ray production. Nature 2013.

The light from the truck headlights hitting your screen does the same. it's slowed by TWO factors, the glass n (~1.55), and the cars v. THAT is new physics, so will be rejected by mainstream journeymen.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,

No insult intended. There is also the possibility of some physics occurring at the impact spot I colored red (e.g. JM rotation with optical axis not linked to wavefront plane of propagation). This however does not remove anything from Galilean relativity. It even buttresses it, so no need inventing a new dynamical principle.

How and in which area is DFM superior to Galilean relativity? What can DFM explain that Galilean relativity has no mechanism of explaining taking ALL "actors in the drama" into account? If Stokes, Michelson, Morley, Einstein, Galileo, Bradley, et al, were aware and were living at the time when it was discovered that there is an abundance of dark matter over ordinary matter in a ratio 4:1 and our earth is located in the middle of the foggiest zone of its galactic abundance and that it does interact gravitationally and can be an earth-bound medium, would Special relativity and FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction ever have being contemplated?

Without going back to read your essay again since I have done so before, what is your brief, non-technical response to the question in bold?

Regards,

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Peter J,

I disagree. You wrote: "propagation is a local mechanism and is a local mechanism and is between and wrt matter particles not aether OK?" (I avoided copying your italics).

In case of sound, energy is indeed locally propagated between subsequent parts of a medium. I consider em waves in empty space propagating wrt the distance between the positions of emitter at the moment of emission and of the receiver at the moment of arrival.

This view does slightly differ from aether theory in that it doesn't refer to an absolute position in space but just to a difference. Therefore it is consistent with Michelson's 1881/1887 null result.

My view does also differ from all emission theories including Pentcho's, yours and even some indications for emission-theoretic thinking is Einstein's theory. The latter is not a surprise to me. Einstein preferred emission theory before he published SR in 1905. Perhaps you did correctly understand that wave speeds must not be added within a common medium. I am arguing that it is also not reasonable to add the velocity v of an emitter or receiver to the velocity c of a wave unless v refers to the medium in which the wave propagates. Models with bullets shot from moving vehicles are inappropriate exemplifications of emission theory.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard,

You say, "I consider em waves in empty space propagating wrt the distance between the positions of emitter at the moment of emission and of the receiver at the moment of arrival" and that "I follow Michelson.... and interpret his null result as indicating that there is no stationary in space light carrying medium". I agree with your conclusion, but...Suppose, there is indeed a matter medium that can carry light waves, will that affect your position?

I don't know how to say this in German, Some "food for thought for you":

Do you know that our Sun's observed rotational velocity about our Galaxy at 225km/s is more than its escape velocity given the amount of luminous matter within its gravitational orbit, yet it has not escaped from the galaxy? Based on this discrepancy, it is proposed that what is actually orbiting the galaxy 25000 light years from our Galaxy's centre is dark matter and the Sun's motion is merely tracking that motion? If a whole Sun, is being carried around the Galaxy in this way, can a tiny blue planet of the Sun be aloof and immune from being involved in this scenario? Can this abundant luminiferous matter conspire to spare our planet and refuse to interact gravitationally with it?

See here for the Sun's position in the middle of the foggiest part of our Galaxy's suggested dark matter distribution. And read more on Wikipedia .

Moral: Dark matter remains a beautiful bride in physics but embraced abroad only to be rejected at home.

Regards,

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Akinbo,

Aren't dark matter, MoND, DNAg, etc. possibly premature shots in the dark? And even if there is really dark matter, why should something that is dark be able to carry light?

I prefer to share Otto de Guericke's experimentalist attitude.

And I am glad if you understood that we need not concluding from Michelson's null result that either the emission theory or the Lorentz/Einstein theory must be correct.

I wonder, why did physicist who understand gauge theory overlook that it makes a difference whether one considers space just changing mutual distances or a lattice with a reference point?

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard,

'DARK' just means NOT SHINING. It may not be the most appropriate adjective to describe it. In that sense, Vacuum is dark, Air is dark and Glass is dark as well and all carry light.

Premature shots in the dark? Maybe.

But when you review the accumulating evidence and the amount of solutions to missing links in our physical theory, you may become convinced there can be no other way. For example, why is the Sun not escaping from the Milky Way since its velocity is above the escape velocity at its 25000 light years radius from galactic centre? What of the amount of light bending observed due to an intervening galaxy? There other evidence in the literature on the topic.

Then, must all existing forms of matter be shining in stars and luminous clouds?

I agree premature, but in case it is real you must have no further reason to exclude this Actor from the drama surrounding us.

Akinbo

« Previous Page Next Page »