Faster than Light

[deleted]

"It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

A joke? No. Steve Carlip is more than serious - this is exactly what Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicts:

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2)... (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

So we have doublethink in Big Brother's world but triplethink in Divine Albert's world: In a gravitational field the speed of light is (1) constant, (2) just as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects and (3) twice as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Solving All Problems in Theoretical Physics at Once

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

The crucial question is "Is that true?" and the answer "no" solves all problems in theoretical physics at once. More precisely, there is nothing to solve simply because theoretical physics is not science anymore. Bryan Wallace has reached essentially the same conclusion:

"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Einstein knew and even confessed in 1954 that his false light postulate had ruined physics but ciphered his confession:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Clues showing that "cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" means "cannot be based on the postulates of special relativity":

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments have confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. A question comes to mind: If the speed of light is really variable, like the speed of cannonballs, will Einsteinians abandon Divine Albert's Divine Theory? Answer: Of course not. Subtle practitioners of doublethink have proved that the variability of the speed of light can by no means tarnish the Divine Theory:

Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité!"

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..."

Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

The wavelength remains unchanged and the apparent speed of the waves, that is, the speed seen by the observer, increases (v'=v+u) when the observer moves towards the wave source. The main point in my essay was that this is valid for all waves, including light waves:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

pjackson

Petcho

How can the distance between wave peaks not change on absorption by the matter of a moving 'inertial system'! It's impossible. Nobody is listening to you Pentcho as you don't use logic. They would if you did. You're way off base and barking up the wrong tree.

If there is no observer, then the waves just carry on with no delta.

If the waves MISS a moving observer, he does not observe them.

When waves INTERACT with the observer they change speed and wavelength (so inversely frequency). Ergo; All moving observers always find c, via the changed 'observable' f.

If you keep telling people that, instead of propagating confusion, they may eventually understand and forget they thought you were a fool.

I'm only trying to help advancement of logical understanding.

Peter

[deleted]

Test for Sanity in Divine Albert's World

Scientists are shown an observer who is initially stationary but then starts moving away from the light source with speed v.

INSANE scientists see the light waves overtaking the observer at a slower rate:

c' = c - v

and deduce that the frequency varies accordingly:

f'/f = c'/c = (c - v)/c

SANE scientists see the light waves overtaking the observer at the same rate (Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity):

c' = c

and deduce the same frequency shift:

f'/f = (c - v)/c

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Another Test for Sanity in Divine Albert's World

Scientists watch a video where the speed of light is shown to vary exactly like the speed of cannonballs.

INSANE scientists start thinking about Newton's emission theory of light. Perhaps this theory is correct after all?

SANE scientists exercise themselves in crimestop and do not start thinking about Newton's emission theory of light:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

A third test for sanity in Divine Albert's world:

Scientists get informed that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments have confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Albert Einstein institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

INSANE scientists are puzzled. Perhaps the emission theory is correct after all?

SANE scientists exercise themselves in crimestop and get convinced in the end that Newton's emission theory of light is absolutely wrong:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

pjackson

Pentcho.

You suggest the insane see c' = c-v. Yet surely only a fool would think anybody can 'see' light passing by and 'overtaking the observer,' so not being detected.

Please explain how this is possible.

The only evidence we can 'see' is scattered light from any charged particles it DOES interact with. Do you suggest that does something other than c?? I suggest only a fool could do so.

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

When one measures natural phenomena, e.g. the shift in the number of wavecrests that hit the observer on the front side, one must be sure that the measured shift characterises the light objectively, irrespectively of what happens to the light in the measuring device or in the brain of the observer. This is just science based on realism: experimental methods are good or bad in virtue of how the world is independently of ourselves.

In other words, any valid measurement must characterise light that is passing by, not light that has undergone some interaction with the observer. If that is not the case, then the method is simply incorrect.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Pentcho, the interaction is what allows observation to occur. How else can you measure it?

[deleted]

Georgina,

Yes the interaction between light and detector is what allows observation to occur but the effects of this interaction do not influence the final result in correct measurements. When runners cross the finish line, the interaction between light and detector is not taken into account and yet times are correctly measured. In the Michelson-Morley experiment, what is essential is the pattern of interference between the two beams, not the interaction between the beams and the eyepiece.

Pentcho Valev

pjackson

Pentcho,

Georgina is correct, and her thinking is far more advanced that that you're using.

An interaction is always essential to find a real, not 'apparent/relative' speed.

In the MMX the interaction with the backboard is essential to find the result. I can prove this. Take the backboard away and measure the results. I promise you won't be able to find any. The result will be, as Minkowski said (1905) 'imaginary'. Which is NOT REAL! Now have backboards in motion during interaction, I promise you the results for advancing and retreating boards will be different.

It is a deeply important new understanding which must replace our old foolish assumptions if we're to sort out the mess.

Peter

pjackson

Pentcho

The 'measurement problem' of QM deals precisely with that subject. It proves you cannot physically measure anything without physical interaction, and that that interaction must affect the result of the measurement. i.e. the detector must be part of the system measured. It is 'continuous spontaneous localisation (which should replace the other meaning of CSL!) You are still using an old and very wrong, if still common, contrary assumption.

The latest Nobel's were given for the first ever possible systems for 'weak measurement' at a quantum level, which would not effect the result. They are not yet proved.

The only other way of measuring is by trigonometry. That then only gives 'apparent' not real results. i.e. the speed a pair of birds passing you depends of the speed of your jet. It is not it's real 'flight' or 'propagation speed', which has a fixed maximum nothing to do with you. You have no importance until you meet. Live with it!

It only gains something to do with you when you interact. Like the birds! Georgina is absolutely correct pointing out that this gives it a different 'reality'. The waves passing through the jet on interaction with the birds will be very close together in relation to what you'd have found if at rest in the medium of propagation (say they flew into your hot air balloon).

Wavelength is the same. You can't see light until detection. It is only 'apparent' not 'propagation' speed until detection. You must open doors in your mind you forgot were even there and re-appraise old beliefs to let the truth in.

Peter

[deleted]

Einsteinian Fraud in a Nutshell

Any statement in the following quotation is a deliberate fraud:

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

The truth:

John Norton: "[link:www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf]That [Maxwell] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer.[/link]"

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Einsteinian Fraud in a Nutshell

Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Pentcho Valev

Thomas Ray

"Why does E = mc^2?"

Because the binding energy of an atomic nucleus mass defect precisely accounts for the missing mass-energy of a classical measurement.

"Why should we care?"

1. Knowledge 2. See no. 1

[deleted]

Tom,

It appears to me that you are saying that E=mc^2 because it works. I think that answer misses the crux of the question. We know it works. The crux for me is the conditions, properties, variables, etc. that exist before the solution and its success are known. What makes the predictions of E=-mc^2 possible? In other words: The success of E=mc^2 validates what besides or before itself?

I am asking for the answer that reflects its success back onto that which predicted it. It follows from special relativity. The question: Why does E=mc^2?, for me, is asking: Does E=mc^2 validate special relativity?, or, Does it also validate something, or somethings, that are different from special relativity?

It certainly can be argued that it validates special relativity. But what about it guarantees exclusivity? In other words, the choices made for the derivation of special relativity solidly support the success of E=mc^2. Is the reverse also true?, or, Can the reverse process show that the choices made in special relativity are not the only choices that solidly support the success of E=mc^2?

The important question for me is: Does E=mc^2 work because special relativity is correct? The answer may seem simple as: Yes special relativity is correct. I don't think it is that simple. I think that the answer to the original question requires the answerer to show that the derivation of E=mc^2 is exclusive to the derivation of special relativity.

James

Thomas Ray

"It appears to me that you are saying that E=mc^2 because it works."

It's an equation that describes a physical phenomenon, James. It wouldn't be true unless it works.

"I think that the answer to the original question requires the answerer to show that the derivation of E=mc^2 is exclusive to the derivation of special relativity."

Do you know another theory that predicts E = mc^2? The equation, in fact, is the *conclusion* of special relativity, not independent of the theory. The theory, though, is independent of the physcial phenomenon, which is why it can be shown true by experimental correspondence.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

The answer has to be better than that. Or, perhaps Bell's theorem is proven true because it went unchallenged for so long? Joy has challenged it. I think that he would say it has been disproven. Tom, I was looking for something stronger, perhaps a mathematical proof or ideas for one that excludes the possibility of reverse engineering E=mc^2 for the purpose of uncovering any other possible derivations.

With regard to: Do I know any other theory that predicts E=mc^2 the answer is yes I do. You have read about that theory in my essays and maybe you have glanced at my website. I don't know how much you absorbed. Do you know how I derived E=mc^2 without relativity theory? Actually, it doesn't really matter if you do. The question had to do with establishing rigorously that E=mc^2 verifies special relativity theory while ruling out and excluding the possibility of other rigorous derivations that may be in oppositon to relativity theory.

James

Thomas Ray

James, I find it impossible to understand: "I was looking for something stronger, perhaps a mathematical proof or ideas for one that excludes the possibility of reverse engineering E=mc^2 for the purpose of uncovering any other possible derivations."

There is no 'reverse engineering' Einstein's result. As a result in mathematical physics, i.e., a mathematical expression of a purported physical fact, the argument advances equation by equation to a closed logical judgment. It isn't a mathematical theorem; it can't be proved -- it can only be validated by correspondence to experimental result. Which it has been, many times over. Joy's program is no different in principle -- a mathematical framework to test against a physical experiment.

"The question had to do with establishing rigorously that E=mc^2 verifies special relativity theory while ruling out and excluding the possibility of other rigorous derivations that may be in oppositon to relativity theory."

Scientific theories are never verified, only falsified. Conceivably, there can be some experiment which does not result in the equality of energy and mass. It's the experimental result that carries the physical truth of the mathematical statement, not the mathematical derivation. In fact, a physicist doesn't even have to understand the derivation -- it could have been made up from whole cloth. It was centuries, in fact, before Newton's calculus, which was applied freely and successfully to physical problems, was put on firm mathematical footing.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Then perhaps this will be understandable. Choices are made right from the start of theoretical physics. The fact that choices can even exist puts into question whether or not there are other possible paths to successful results. If it is your contention that other choices are not viable because results verify the chosen path, then I say "no way" and that is not an opinion. So long as choices exist there are other potential paths. I emphasized the obvious when I have written that the choice to make mass an indefinable property was a guess.

Theoretical physics consists of making guesses about the nature of cause. Those guesses do not fail to make successful predictions so long as the guesses fit with the patterns of changes of velocity that constitute empirical evidence. Competent theorists would clearly ensure that such would be the case. No one knows what cause is including you. All representations of cause represent guesswork by theorist. Theorists exist because of the unknown.

The question about: Why does E=mc^2 is not answered by either of us acknowlodging that it works. There wsas a path to it, and, there may be more than one path backward from it. It is important for theoretical physics to explore both the path to it and any possible paths back from it because the path to it included accepting guesses about the nature of cause.

James

[deleted]

Hi Thomas,

You said, "Why does E = mc^2?" Because the binding energy of an atomic nucleus mass defect precisely accounts for the missing mass-energy of a classical measurement. "Why should we care?"

1. Knowledge 2. See no. 1

I would say that you put your finger on the problem with physics. The importance of knowledge is dependent upon who you ask. To me, knowledge is a means to an end, not an end of itself. In my view, the whole reason we pursue knowledge is so that we can enhance of capability. We pursue enhanced capability so that we can serve the needs of our civilization; serve the needs of others. I believe that we should be pursuing the gravity drive. I believe there is a way to use light to induce space-time curvature. It would greatly help our civilization (our planet) to develop the gravity propulsion drive. I promise you that if we acheived it, it would usher in an era of world prosperity not seen since the industrial revolution.

Is it wrong to prioritize technical capability over the pursuit of knowledge?

Thomas Ray

"Theoretical physics consists of making guesses about the nature of cause."

No argument from me on that, James. I have often said that theorizing is the art of good guessing.

"No one knows what cause is including you."

I'm not bothered by that, though. Chalk it up to lack of ambition.

"The question about: Why does E=mc^2 is not answered by either of us acknowlodging that it works."

It's enough of an answer to suit me.

"There wsas a path to it, and, there may be more than one path backward from it."

Maybe. What one has to keep in mind, though, is that the path is not linear. In these forums, much is made of the speed of light constant, when actually -- from a physical point of view -- it is entirely meaningless. That E = m is sufficient; the constant only provides a rational way to measure the equivalence. The constant c is a limiting factor -- that's the reason, in fact, that "special" relativity is called by that name; the theory is limited to the special case of uniform motion. The general case of accelerated motion extends to classical gravity.

"It is important for theoretical physics to explore both the path to it and any possible paths back from it because the path to it included accepting guesses about the nature of cause."

James, I'm afraid any path one takes will include guesses about the nature of cause. I don't see any reason to torture oneself over it.

Tom

Thomas Ray

Hi Jason,

"To me, knowledge is a means to an end, not an end of itself."

My view is opposite, Jason. In fact, I even see a moral issue in making knowledge the means to an end -- technology is a two-edged sword; not all of its applications are for the benefit of the race.

"Is it wrong to prioritize technical capability over the pursuit of knowledge?"

I think most scientists would agree that the end does not justify the means. As long as we have freedom of conscience, it is up to individuals to judge the right and wrong of how knowledge is applied.

Tom

[deleted]

Hi Tom,

You said, "I think most scientists would agree that the end does not justify the means. As long as we have freedom of conscience, it is up to individuals to judge the right and wrong of how knowledge is applied. "

I understand and accept that some physicists pursue knowledge because knowledge itself is fun. It's also good for our civilization that others pursue knowledge so as to unlock its benefits. In my view, the physics community has a vast abundance of knowledge, but they can't make out the nature of space, space-time and the vacuum in such a way as to bring QM and GR together. It's like a snowstorm of information, and you can't see the ground, the path you're on, or your destination. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think the path and destination that physics will take looks like this. We figure out the ontological nature of the medium that causes us to observe QM and SR/GR. It leads to a way to manipulate space-time, to curve it.

Gotta go, I'll explain more later.

[deleted]

Tom,

The stress energy tensor is the part of the Einstein equations that causes space-time to curve. I assume there is some kine of "free energy universe" relationship between space-time curvature and mass-energy. The presence of mass-energy distorts space-time in some equilibrium response that results in zero net energy. If all we have to work with are the Einstein equations, then we have no idea how to curve space-time without using huge quantities of mass and energy.

Some day in the future, the physics community will discover that it is possible to curve space-time without using the stress energy tensor or huge amounts of energy. This will establish the foundation of gravity drives and warp drives. I think that is the direction that physics will ultimately take.

« Previous Page Next Page »