Faster than Light

pjackson

Guys,

The solution is simple; Privaleged frames are ok, an 'absolute' (single) background frame isn't. Einstein only showed the latter is untenable, not Local backgrounds.

In the June 24th issue of the RAS A&G Ma and Scott analysed 'peculiar velocities' and the resultant hierarchy. A propagation speed is max c in the LOCAL background inertial system ('frame'). That system has a maximum velocity c in and wrt it's own local background system, on and on.

The Earth has no maximum speed wrt any other system than the heliosphere, which has a vmax in the galaxy, which has a vmax in the local group, which has a vmax through the cluster, on and up. Light has a vmax within Earth's system the same as in all others, but the speeds are not comparable. Only 'propagation speeds' (AE) are limited to c. The rest are just relative.

The ancient Tau 'I Ching' is 'CHANGE'. Propagation speeds of light moving between systems ('Discrete Fields') then CHANGES at the boundaries to maintain propagation speed c. Rationalizing that 'Truth Function' Logical hierarchy seems somehow beyond those so far; "..not intelligent enough" but it takes small effort. Indeed sound propagates between moving media in exactly the same way. Christian Doppler found the same evidence for both.

That's you 'datum' for speed Akinbo; the local background rest frame, implemented by the particles. 'Privilege' always was 'layered' not absolute (DFM).

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

No Tom,

With interpreted I didn't mean interpreted in terms of SR. Instead I argue: Once

a frame of reference got the privilege to be chosen, this precludes a different one to be to simultaneously be chosen the object under consideration. Such doubled perspective belongs to G. Cantor and to Einstein.

Let me restrict the consideration to the most simple case: Two points A and B are simultaneously located at the line IR of real numbers which has an origin at its zero Z. The distance from A to B equals to A-Z minus B-Z. It is obviously invariant against the joint move of A and B relative to Z. Michelson's 1881/87 experiment demonstrated this.

Michelson's Sagnac experiment was different in so far, it's rotation flipped the sign and therefore the difference from A-B to B-A.

Did G.Cantor really discover his transfinite numbers? Already cardinal Franzelin rejected Cantor's naive fabrication of an infinitum creatum sive transfinitum. Up to now, Cantor's alephs didn't prove reasonable except for the property to be infinite (aleph_0) and the fictitious entity of all elements of an infinite series (aleph_1) which mutually exclude each other unless one accepts taking two contradictory points of view at a time, see above.

What about abstract mathematical notions like a singular point, an ideal line, an ideal area, the imaginary unit, the quality of being infinite and the limit of an infinite series, I enjoyed them through my life as mathematical tools, not as items that may be equated with physical reality.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"With interpreted I didn't mean interpreted in terms of SR. Instead I argue: Once a frame of reference got the privilege to be chosen, this precludes a different one to be to simultaneously be chosen the object under consideration."

No it doesn't. Each observer's measurement results are both valid from their respective frames of reference. Their measurement results of simultaneous events may differ; the events are, however, demonstrably objective. No privileged frame, no difference in the fundamental physics.

Thomas Ray

" ... this is where some experts in relativity add to the confusion plaguing physics because they may not agree with this interpretation, preferring to say that in ALL circumstances and at ALL locations, the value of light speed the professor will measure is the same and it is independent of 'where' the measurement is taken place ..."

No one argues that, Akinbo. The only important theoretical aspect of light speed is that it is a constant. The standard for this constant is a measurement taken in a spatial vacuum far from a gravity source. Though there is no space completely empty of radiation and gravitational field influences, at near zero spacetime curvature, it doesn't matter.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

I agree with you on that there is no reason to doubt that the velocity of light is constant if any influence of matter can be neglected.

I also agree on that there is no privileged frame of reference in space.

However, I maintain: "Once a frame of reference got the privilege to be chosen, this precludes a different one to be to simultaneously be chosen the object under consideration."

You argued: "Each observer's measurement results are both valid from their respective frames of reference. Their measurement results of simultaneous events may differ; the events are, however, demonstrably objective."

I see possible mistakes in the words valid measurement, simultaneous, and demonstrably objective. Assumed simultaneity is the key. May we agree on how to clarify this question? I already suggested restricting consideration to A and B on IR.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Thanks Tom, I now see your position clearly. "No one argues that, Akinbo" means no one in his right senses (sorry to use that) can argue that. I fully agree. What will you now do if you find out that this is what the argument has been for the last 100 years. When those in Einsteiniana say light speed is a constant, I am sure you sometimes see the qualification or adjective 'universal' with it, not just constant as you rightly posted, but constant to all observers at all locations. And talking about, "Though there is no space completely empty of radiation and gravitational field influences, at near zero spacetime curvature, it doesn't matter", yes it would matter over astronomical distances. Over shorter distances, yes, it doesn't matter. But over astronomical distances the tiny difference in light speed, can affect and cause measurable differences in arrival times.

Eckard,

"I agree with you on that there is no reason to doubt that the velocity of light is constant if any influence of matter can be neglected".

When the value of light speed was announced as 299792458m/s, please check whether the influence of Earth matter was neglected or included. And as you say, is it possible to measure this value on Earth, where influence of matter can be neglected?

Akinbo

[deleted]

Alan,

The 10,000x ftl cited is shown to be nonsense classically in my essay. I thought I'd better flag that up here to refute the claim in your link above. The rationale is simple (read their simplistic description first). Spooky! Quantum Action (claimed) 10,000 Times Faster Than Light.

Visualise a particle as a simple spinning disc. The North pole may be to your left or right (at random). Now split it and send one hemisphere one way to Alice and one the other, to Bob.

In their simplistic scenario (actually incomplete); On arrival, if Alice finds anticlockwise spin, Bob will then find clockwise, and vice versa. Is superluminal communication needed?

Now consider each hemisphere. It is 'ALL' say clockwise? Of course not! the 'back' is now spinning anticlockwise! (and vice versa). Now that spin IS conserved if you simply swap the poles by rotating 180 degrees on the y or z axis. That's what happens if absorbed and re-emitted by an electron spinning that way, consistent with quantum optics experiments (and 'spin flip').

QM assumed that couldn't be done. ALL the rest of the spooky nonsense of QM is thereby resolved. (see the derivation of the cosine curve from OAM latitude distribution in the essay.

On Helices; Remember the helix is a 'path', which is represented by waves in 2D. If you explain that better to Akinbo he'll see the light and find he has no objection. Reality is of course 3D not the 2D analogue. My reference to the Planck electron finding shows the helix following a helical path (your 'snake'), but as just two gauges of many.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Assumed simultaneity is the key. May we agree on how to clarify this question?"

I don't know, Eckard. It's the question that special relativity already answers: All physics is local. That is, all results in all observers' reference frames are valid, and none are privileged.

"I already suggested restricting consideration to A and B on IR."

I don't understand what you mean.

Thomas Ray

" ... over astronomical distances the tiny difference in light speed, can affect and cause measurable differences in arrival times."

What you're missing, Akinbo, is that the time-distance relation is continuous. Just as no time passes for a particle of light -- a photon -- in its journey from one end of the universe to the other, no time passes for a beam of light. The measured constant speed of light in a vacuum is the value that it is born with.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter, I can't find the thread of our discussion yesterday, the one calling for a truce and about LT... But I woke up with this analogy, perhaps that's what you have been trying to say: If a runner runs alongside a moving bus at some speed, when he hops unto the bus, he staggers for a moment before acquiring the speed of the bus. That is, his speed changes to that of the bus. Taking the runner as light, perhaps the mechanisms you labour to describe is how light staggers for a moment before acquiring the speed of its new frame of reference. If my analogy is correct, that is a worthwhile endeavour. It is however not Lorentz transformation. Galileo explains he different frames of motion and that a transition takes place. Galileo however does not explain the 'staggering moment' before the new uniform motion is acquired. Correct me if my analogy is wrong.

Tom,

"Just as no time passes for a particle of light -- a photon -- in its journey from one end of the universe to the other, no time passes for a beam of light. The measured constant speed of light in a vacuum is the value that it is born with"

A member of this community, Armin Shirazi points out an 'existence paradox' associated with this position. If no time passes for a photon, then the question of a photon being emitted at a time 0 and absorbed at a time, t cannot happen. Photon's will not exist because doing so will make them have a duration. If Armin is reading this, he may explain further.

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

"If no time passes for a photon, then the question of a photon being emitted at a time 0 and absorbed at a time, t cannot happen."

Sure it can. And does, by the principle of least action:

The action principle for the Lagrangian (a function of the coordinates and velocities) L = L(q_i, q-dot_i) is

delta (Action) = delta of the integral 0 --> 1 L(q_i,q-dot_i) d t = 0

One can find it explained in Susskind-Hrabovsky, The Theoretical Minimum. I recommend this book as the best primer in classical physics since Einstein-Infeld, The Evolution of Physics.

[deleted]

Akinbo,

All cosmology becomes nonsense if photons don't experience time. Astronomy is all based on spectroscopy and delta lambda, which gives the absorption history of each particular 'photon' of light (or WHATEVER wavelength) analysed. Each is different, most can be matched well to it's journey. Reverting to old myth and legend fudged to cover the anomalies will only continue to confound us.

THE BUS. You got close but stumbled at the last minute and fell off! Forget the LT for a moment the runner doesn't 'stumble' when he jumps on the bus, he is 'accelerated' into the new rest frame. Just think about that alone for a while to embed it. (And remember 'deceleration' is also properly 'acceleration').

Now that is simply the 'Galilean Transformation'; an 'acceleration'. All very simple and entirely logical yes? (and light ON the bus always propagates at c wrt the bus, as we know).

Ok. Now on to the LT, which is also simple but a DIFFERENT and additional effect only becoming a factor at high relative speeds.

For this the bus is rapidly approaching a line of say 5 runners 1 metre apart who each jump on in turn. The 1 metre gaps then clearly reduce. That is 'Doppler blue shift' (shorter wavelength). OK so far?

Bit when the bus is going VERY fast there's clearly a problem as wavelength can only reduce so much! The runners will be squashed together as they jump on the bus. The last two may even just bounce off! Are you following? There is a minimum possible wavelength (gamma). If the transform requires a shorter wavelength then the light simply can't penetrate! The excess energy is emitted as heat (i.e. check out the nose plasma bow shock of the shuttle on re-entry, where even radio waves can't penetrate! That's why the plasma density at gamma is called 'optical breakdown mode'.

That is the LT, an additional factor added to the GT as a 'power curve' when relative speed approaches c. Now if you did the homework I set it would be clear as a bell and I wouldn't have to repeat all this over and over! (lol)

Imagine the electrons trying to oscillate but not having the elbow room. If they can't oscillate then light cant get through. The propagation speed of light ('between' particles that is) is then set by a 'rev limiter' the min electron wavelength gamma (electron refractive index is n=1, same as the 'vacuum').

I recommend you should really read that lot again to ensure it gets assimilated! If you can't find the logic of any parts or would like to see the mass of consistent evidence do just ask. (Is that Tom I hear having a confounded fit!?)

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Also all astronomy, astrophysics and logic. T'was me.

Peter

Thomas Ray

"All cosmology becomes nonsense if photons don't experience time."

Only if one has no idea how classical physics, and particularly the principle of least action, work. If you could understand the equation I posted, you would know.

Thomas Ray

If you understand Doug Singleton's essay, you can see that classical and quantum least action may have implications for social behavior as well -- the most novel idea I have ever seen on FQXi both in concept and presentation!

And maybe this will help, too.

[deleted]

No Tom,

As I tried to explain in my essay, clocks belonging to A and B, respectively which are in steady motion with velocity v relative to each other can easily be synchronized at the moment when they had or will have the same position in space, i.e. at the same point on the line IR (blackboard bold R) of real numbers.

Einstein in 1905 ignored that unbiased synchronization. Instead he adopted so called Poincaré synchronization, a method that is suited if the distance between A and B doesn't change when he considered a light signal from A to B and return to A. Given A is moving towards B then common sense tells us: The path from B return to A' got meanwhile shorter than the path from A to B. Einstein defined: The time the light needs as to go from A to B equals to the time it needs as to go from B to A.

Nowadays, such silly method is called a conventional one. While it has the apparent advantages to provide a surprizing interpretation of the Lorentz factor and to explain Michelson's 1881/87 experiment, it requires to abandon the good old notion of ubiquitous common time.

What don't you understand?

Eckard

I don't know, Eckard. It's the question that special relativity already answers: All physics is local. That is, all results in all observers' reference frames are valid, and none are privileged.

"I already suggested restricting consideration to A and B on IR."

I don't understand what you mean.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Holonomic and non-dissipative social behavior? Did you intend revealing a weakness of the essay?

I ignored what you wrote: "It's the question that special relativity already answers: All physics is local. That is, all results in all observers' reference frames are valid, and none are privileged."

You are using buzzwords instead of either accepting or refuting my arguments. As an engineer, I wonder if e.g. ideal electric, magnetic, and gravitation fields are local. Perhaps you meant that energy cannot propagate faster than with c?

Also it remains obscure to me what you meant with results.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"As an engineer, I wonder if e.g. ideal electric, magnetic, and gravitation fields are local."

Field influences are infinite. Measured effects of those influences are local.

"Perhaps you meant that energy cannot propagate faster than with c?"

Of course. No physical influence can.

"Also it remains obscure to me what you meant with results."

Observations. Measurements.

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

While the issues of Poincaré synchronization and of an allegedly a priori existing spacetime let me doubt that SR is correct, it seems to me being evident that mass increases as a function of squared velocity divided by c^2. Wasn't this already found out before Einstein?

Also, I am ready to imagine "steady" motion of a treated as "rigid" body actually consisting of oscillations of many parts and its speed therefore restricted to less than c.

Eckard

[deleted]

" ... it seems to me being evident that mass increases as a function of squared velocity divided by c^2. Wasn't this already found out before Einstein?"

It was known that potential energy increases as a function of velocity proportional to the mass. It was not known that the limit of the energy increase is the speed of light constant, such that mass and energy are interchangeable quantities. One of the early fears in setting off a nuclear chain reaction, was that the phenomenon would be infinite, i.e., so long as matter is available, the explosion would continue to convert all mass into energy. We know now -- thanks to special relativity -- that the atomic binding energy is the only potential for conversion to pure energy (gamma radiation). The same phenomenon that assures atomic stability on the quantum scale, assures gravitational stability on the cosmic scale; the speed of physical influences is limited to the speed of light.

What the quadratic relation between mass and energy tells us, is that physical phenomena are self limiting. Everything physical is finite and local.

"Also, I am ready to imagine 'steady' motion of a treated as 'rigid' body actually consisting of oscillations of many parts and its speed therefore restricted to less than c."

There are no actually rigid bodies, so your imagination does align with the physical facts. A rigid transformation in spacetime -- Lorentz transformation -- is the mathematical artifact that uses the constant c to confirm the uniformity of physical facts for observers in different states of motion relative to a given event. Were c not a constant, we could not be sure that the same physical laws apply to observers in different inertial systems.

Best,

Tom

« Previous Page Next Page »