Faster than Light

Variable speed of light camouflaged:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html

Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

The relevant observer is omitted from this (dishonest, in my view) answer. "Someone falling into the well" does indeed see the speed of light stay the same but he also sees the frequency stay the same. Therefore the falling person cannot be "the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a proper rest frame". Rather, there is another legitimate observer, stationary in the gravitational field, who measures both the frequency and the speed of light to vary. A nice comparison of the two observers is given here:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/general_relativity.html

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Dear Sophie Hebden,

Can you please read my essay regarded to faster than light http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 . I think we can discuss and cooperate with this issue. My interpretation regarded to faster than light is agreed with the experimental results of quantum theory. According to the latest result of OPERA and Icarus, the neutrinos did not move faster than light, but the problem was with measuring the time separation of the event. I agree with this result of the OPERA and ICARUS, and I predicted by this result in my essay before the result of the experiment. I can also apply my interpretation regarded to the wormholes in the general relativity. The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. This interpretation is agreed with what I predicted in my paper regarded to quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, OPERA, Icarus, and SN1987a. But the difference between me and Einstein, Einstein depended on the length contraction, But in my interpretation on the time contraction or time speeding up, which is verified experimentally in quantum physics. Please just read my paper, and then you will see how I could solve all the problems in physics regarded to faster than light, Also we can apply what I proposed on what are called Tachyons. What I proposed solving the contraction between Quantum field theory and relativity.

Azzam

Why all these potential complications. Light is an effect created by interaction which travels, ie it is a physically existent entity just like any thing else. We (and all organisms) happen to use it, on receipt, to 'see'. Things could travel faster than light, but it would not be able to differentiate (ie 'show') that. In the same way hat there may be things that do not interact with photons and create light, but they exist.

Whether light is the fastest is purely a matter of fact, it either is, or is not, ie it is not a function of its acquired functional role with the evolution of sensing. Establishing that is, of course, a different matter.

Paul

Pual

The main idea of my MSRT is to answer about the main question in physics, that is; the objective existence of the phenomenon as Einstein proposed in his special relativity theory, or the observer is participating in the formation of the phenomenon. This is the lost key in order to reach to the unified theory. Since quantum theory is built on the experimental results, and it produced contrary of what the relativity theory was built on (the objective existence of the phenomenon). I think it is required to modify the relativity theory of Einstein according to the concepts of quantum theory. This is what I did in my MSRT. I adopted the concept of quantum theory (Copenhagen School) that the observer has the main formation of the phenomenon, and by this concept I found the modification in the special relativity theory will be more conceptual than mathematical. If you review my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 you will find the modification in special relativity is related to how I understand the length contraction and time dilation which is produced by special relativity according to the concepts of quantum theory. From that everything in physics can be solved. Relative the speed of light according to MSRT, locally for any observer the speed of light is constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum. But what is different from the special relativity is the rate of occurring the events, which is depending on the vacuum energy of the system existed on. For example, events on the moving train is occurring in a slower rate than the same events that occurring on the earth surface, also events are occurring on a negative vacuum energy comparing to the vacuum energy of the earth surface in a faster rate than on the earth surface. In a negative vacuum energy, chemical reactions are performed in a time separation less than in a normal situation as in quantum tunneling, that is not meaning it performed with speed greater than the speed of light in vacuum, as it is thought regarded to quantum tunneling experiments, locally, in the negative vacuum energy comparing to the vacuum energy of the earth surface, the speed of light is equal to the speed of light in vacuum same as for me on the earth surface, but because of the events are occurring in a faster rate comparing to the same event on the earth surface, I found the light beam or any particle will pass the distance of negative vacuum energy in a less time separation, and this gives the possibility of measuring a particle or light beam to travel faster than light in vacuum depending on distance and time as what happened in OPERA, ICARUS, and SN1987a, and proved experimentally in Quantum tunneling and entanglements. Determining the negativity of the vacuum energy is given by quantum field theory and this problem is still an open problem between quantum field theory and general relativity. This problem is solved by what I proposed in MSRT, and then wormholes can be interpreted also according to what I proposed in http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Also tachyons, which are proposed theoretically as particles moving with speed greater than the speed can be interpreted as what I proposed.

Pentcho

We forget frequency f is only a derivative, of time and lambda. I suggest this is important. Consider;

Do you know any observer that can 'observe' without also being a 'detector'?

Do you know of any detectors that are not made of 'matter', i.e one that can interact without a lens medium or reflector.??

I hope not too difficult.- So we have established that to 'detect', so be able to calculate a 'frequency', we must always first have an interaction with a medium. Yes? This may seem unfamiliar as it's been forgotten. Including by uncle Albert.

In this case the Barlow formula, while giving the correct result, is actually wrong in terms of accurately describing the process. When meeting a moving (at v) observer (and being 'detected') the light is first entering a co-moving medium, where wavelength lambda is thus Doppler shifted, to give the new f.

We all know the laws of physics and Fresnel's refractive index of a medium. Take a glass lens. n = 1.55. The light entering the lens medium then changes speed by both n and relative v, to always end up doing c/n in the co-moving medium. (This is simply because the interface moves as the wave peaks arrive). Yes?

This is the bit Albert missed, and we all have also missed.; Light has changed speed by two independent factors. Both n and v. Check again, carefully. You must have the ability to challenge and overcome deep long held assumptions to accept it.

c = f Lambda is a constant (conservation laws) To an observer in the new frame Lambda and f have changed in balance to conserve local c. (and energy E).

An observer in the emitter frame NOT changing to the new frame cannot then interact so cannot measure lambda. He may then see 'apparent' c+v, and will discern no change to f (no Doppler shift).

I am suggesting that this is where and precisely WHY SR is incorrect. It is a 'discrete field' model, of media with assignable kinetic states.

Can you logically falsify? (just using old 'beliefs' is not of course logic).

Peter

Dear Peter,

You are correct. understanding the speed of light in special relativity theory according to laws of Optics is solving the contradiction between the resulted results which are proven experimentally of special relativity and quantum. Quantum is dealing with the speed of light through mediums by the refractive, in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 the gamma factor which is related to time dilation and length contraction in special relativity is equivalent to the refractive index in optics. in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 you will see how can be unified between quantum theory and special and general relativity, and then solving the most unsolved problems in physics

Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased":

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

Clever Einsteinians know that nothing can save special relativity from the moving observer. So head in the sand is the only reasonable reaction.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Brendan Foster,

Why should the censorship be so brutal? Relativity is doomed anyway.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

As regards the Double Slit experiment, the one in which the electron is slowed down to a "single bombardment" over time, with the resultant familiar screen wave pattern, here is my explanation:

Per CIG of course (www.CIGTheory.com), the electron becomes spatial and part of it goes through one slit, part through the other. The wavefront interferes with itself through both constructive and destructive interferrence. For any given wavefront through each slit, there exists the greatest probability that the amplitudes will be maximum at the center of the screen, and so the collapse (the wave function colllapse is real) will most often be at the center. At times, however, the amplitude is greatest at areas other than the center and this leads to the pattern we are accustomed to.

Anytime the electron is observed, it must again collapse from its spatial state (the degree to which it is spatial depends on its rate of travel), to its "particle state".

As far as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, first I have to sharpen my pencil.

Does anyone want to give it a try, using CIG? Go ahead, there's nothing to lose, except maybe an electron.

doug

Azzam

Be careful about SR. This is just a theoretical circumstance, where there is no gravity, hence objects are fixed in size, there is only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, light travels in straight lines, and Euclidean maths applies. Another way of putting this is that SR is not the same as all that which was written in 1905.

And, Einstein said this, not Paul Reed:

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 18: "...provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for reasons which will become evident at a later stage"

Einstein: SR & GR, 1916, section 28: "In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity".

Einstein: Foundation of GR 1916, section 3: "...the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation".

So, put simply, there is no "objective existence" in SR, because it is a circumstance that does not exist, as such. It is just a theoretical 'sub-set' of GR in which the causal factor (ie gravity) is hypothetically removed. It can occur, effectively, when gravitational forces incurred by any given object are counterbalanced, in which case, the object retains a constant motion (which may be different wrt another object with constant speed) and a fixed shape, according to the theory. There is no length contraction in SR. There is no time dilation, this is a function of the misconceptualisation of time. Existence occurs at any given point in time, alteration happens, we can time the rate at which alteration occurs.

The observer cannot have any effect on phenomena, because sensing involves the receipt of physically existent phenomena. And anyway, what is received is a physically existent effect caused by interaction with the phenomena (reality) in question (aka light, noise, vibration, etc). The reality has ceased to exist before the observer senses the result of an interaction with it. Sensing having evolved to utilise these effects and enable organisms to have an awareness of reality.

Paul

Peter

Light is just another entity, it is 'something' (ie an effect in photons) and it moves. Precisely what is happening is irrelevant at this generic level. Now, as with all things, all of which are moving, the issue is to have a reference with respect to which one can calibrate that movement. Any reference will suffice, but must then be maintained to ensure comparability. The quirk here is that light is the physically existent phenomenon which enables us to 'see'. But, leaving aside practical difficulties, that does not mean 'observation' has some function in its speed. The observer receives the light, it is independent of him (or her).

Paul

Doug

But one does not 'observe the electron' (or indeed anything else). One receives an effect resulting from an interaction with it.

Paul

The Michelson-Morley experiment and the speed of light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

So the emission theory's tenet that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c ± v) is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter (c'=c) is also compatible. Is this double compatibility possible? No it isn't. The truth is somewhat different: In 1887 (the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) only c'=c ± v is compatible with the experiment; c'=c is not. Then the length contraction hypothesis and the subsequent development reversed the interpretation: c'=c become gloriously confirmed by the experiment while c'=c ± v collapsed in deepest humiliation:

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

GR must be modified conceptually according to MSRT. In my paper relative to solving the Pioneer anomaly is indicating light speed is decreased when passing through the gravitation field according to the equation c'=c(1-(2*G*M/c^2*r), and then the velocity of any particle must be decreased when passing through the gravitational field according to the equation V'=V(1-(2*G*M/c^2*r). This result can be produced by the Schwarzschild geometry. But the difference is how to understand the speed of light in GR. Einstein in order to keep the light speed is constant in all frames of reference. If you review my solution for the pioneer anomaly according to this principle, we get an exact solution. see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

this proposed solution is more accurate than the proposed solution depending on the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly. see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

Azzam

Maybe calculations (if not explanations) about effects on light speed in GR (the 'real' world, as opposed to SR where there is no effect) need revision, I do not know. But why do you want to keep light speed constant in all frames of reference? [Noting that the concept of frames has nothing to do with observation, per se. It is to do with having a reference against which to compute speed]. Light is just 'something' moving. So its calibrated speed will differ depending on what other moving 'something' one chooses as the reference. Also, as it is 'something' moving, it may be subject to interference by environmental factors (eg state of what it is moving through, gravitational forces of nearby matter) during its travel.

Paul

Pentcho,

Have you read and do you see any validity in CIG Theory? (www.CIGTheory.com)

If not, where has the rationale gone wrong?

And, can you tell me then where the new "space" comes from in my "balloon experiment", posted on this site?

Can you, taking the CIG philosophy of independent and isolated stellar masses (and quantum particles), turning into their own spacetime field densities with newly unfolded quantities (volumes) of Space, apply the theory to other areas of physics/cosmology beyond those solutions I have offered?

For instance, what are its implications on the Flatness Problem?

Also, please confirm that you undersatnd the theory.

THX

doug

Azzam, Paul.

I agree much in optics is not yet applied to theory, and is needed for consistent comprehension. I'm not sure I interpreted your post fully but I believe I understand it and agree. I consider the train and it's contents a 'discrete field' kinetically, as a frame equivalent to all others. I'll try to get to your papers. Have you yet seen mine on a similar basis, the discrete field model (DFM). If you wish to, perhaps tart with an early one; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022 See also the below;

Paul. I believe Bohr taught Heisenberg a good lesson when nearly failing his thesis, that to consider light via a lens he must fully understand how a lens worked. Consider this. we can only 'observe' light by 'interacting' with it. That means the particles of a detector, made of 'matter' so a dielectric 'medium', absorbing the light energy on interaction and re-emitting it (standard atomic scattering). It's wavelength is then changed by detector motion, ergo so then is it's derivative 'frequency'. Time dilation and length contraction are then reduced to Doppler effects, and the LT clarified as a resistance curve.

In this case the 'reference point' must always be the detector. The only question then remaining is, and it is an important one, how do we judge the relative speed of something with which we are NOT directly interacting. Of course by direct interaction with (being consistent) the 'scattering' emissions of the particles of the medium the original signal IS interacting with.

This falsifies your suggestion that observation has no effect on speed. Speed in any lens medium is always c/n in the local kinetic state of the lens. If that v is different to the 'incident medium' the propagation speed thus changes by v as well as c. That is quite revolutionary but logically consistent. Unfortunately, like the elephant in the room discussed earlier, it seems to have been too big to be seen. Can you now see it?

Peter

Paul,

Have read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 the answer there.

to understand the constancy of the speed of light for all frames of reference let's study this thought experiment related to twins paradox.

Sara and Sally are twins. Sally decided to take a trip by her spacecraft. At the first day of Sara's pregnancy, Sally started her trip. The spacecraft was moving with speed 0.87c. Now after Sally computed 4.5 months according to her spacecraft moving clock, she returned to earth. According to SR, when Sally returned to earth after 4.5 months according to her clock she would find the time passed on the earth is not 4.5 months as she was thinking, it is 9 months, and Sally would find Sara with her baby. according to Sally, Sara got her baby in 4.5 months, but for Sara, she got her baby in 9 months. This is verified experimentally (time dilation). What is making the contradiction between quantum and relativity is; how does Sally during the trip see the clock motion of Sara on the earth surface. According to SR -during the motion- Sally will see the clock motion of Sara on the earth slower than her clock motion, From that the contradiction between the calculations of quantum theory and relativity existed. and from that it is postulated what are called tachyons, are particles moving with speed greater than the speed of light and own negative mass in order to understand and solving the contradiction between quantum and relativity. According to MSRT, Sally during her motion will see the clock of Sara on the earth is moving in a similar rate of her clock motion (not slower than her clock), and then when she returned to earth, she was thinking Sara is pregnant by 4.5 months before she stopped her spacecraft. But, when she stopped her spacecraft, she would find Sara has a baby and the time passed on the earth is 9 months, not 4.5 months. The history of Sara on the earth between the interval 4.5 months and 9 months were not received by Sally. Sally was living in her present events were done by Sara on the past relative to Sara. Sally will be surprised how Sara got her baby in 4.5 months. for Sally it is violation of causality, but for Sara it is not...right? From that according to the recent laws of physics depending on the SR, the conflict between quantum and relativity comes, and how it is interpreting faster than light. the feeling of Sally on elapsing the time moments during the motion is the same feeling if she is stationary on the earth, that means the speed of light is the same locally and equals the light speed in vacuum. but what is different how is measuring the light speed not locally which is depending the vacuum energy of the moving frame as you will see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

CIG theory introduces a new science of pressure (newly created space based on traveling masssive particles).

Could someone calculate that it [ ] is [ x ] is not possible for (in our example, a deflated balloon) a deflated balloon to enlarge when heated, based on the current view of particle bombardment against the balloon walls as the sole cause for expansion. Does the particle mass and acceleration (F=ma) , when taken in its accumulated form, create enough force to actually press outward on the balloon's wall, to inflate it? Please take a worst case scenario (e.g. a heavy walled balloon). My guess is it doesn't, and therefore another explanation would be necessary to explain the phenomenom (Enter CIG theory!).

I know that there is a lot of math involved, and, for professors, maybe this could be for your students, as a project. Perhaps give it to three separate groups of students, and compare their independent results. Dinner is on me if they prove CIG Theory.

Can you investigate, please. New science of pressure! Interesting!

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

The speed of light is integral to CIG Theory and so there is relevance for a posting on this site.

thank you

doug