The Variability of the Speed of Light by James A. Putnam

James,

As light approaches the Earth, its frequency increases exactly as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: f'=f(1+gh/c^2). The emission theory also says that this increase is due to the fact that the speed of light increases in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

Let us assume that you are right and the speed of light actually decreases rather than increases. Then it is highly improbable that the emission theory's prediction, f'=f(1+gh/c^2), would continue to hold true. And it IS true, as the Pound-Rebka experiment showed. The only reasonable conclusion, in my view, is that you are wrong. As light approaches the Earth, its speed INCREASES, as predicted by both Newton's emission theory and Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

James

Light is a definitive, physically existent effect in photons, which is created as the result of an interaction of certain physically existent photons with a specific physically existent state of any given matter. Precisely how this all works is irrelevant at the generic level. The relevant point being that for every given physically existent state of anything, there are many, specific, identical, physically existent states of the effect (ie light). Once created, these all have an independent physical existence (ie each light from another, and all lights from the matter). These effects (ie lights) travel, sometimes being received by an observer. And this occurrence repeats, with a subsequent existent state of the matter, thereby rendering a sequence of different effects.

So, irrespective of whatever happens to the light as it approaches other matter, that can have no effect on the matter which existed, (and which the light 'represents'-in the context of the sensing system know as sight), that was involved in the interaction which resulted in its creation.

If this did occur, ie light is slowed as it approaches matter, then there would be an effect in the observation of reality (ie the matter).

Whilst the gravity effect of the 'recipent' matter could have an effect on the 'emitting' matter, the question arises as to why this just happens to be an opposite and equal effect to that which the 'recipient' matter has on light? How does it happen that two different causal factors have the opposite but equal effect on different types of entity?

The assertion: ""Since photons hold atoms together, it is postulated that length contraction of bodies of matter results from the length contraction of photons", involves a number of presumptions. Apart from which, light is not photons, it is an effect in photons. Furthermore, the two effects are not directly comparable, because they are not physically existent at the same point in time. There was a point in time when the matter had a given physically existent state. At that point in time, light was also created as a result of an interaction with that state. That light then continues to exist (by some means) as it travels, ie over time. And it is in this duration that it is, possibly, affected (ie slowed) by the other matter it is travelling towards. The physically existent state of the matter, represented by that light, ceased to exist as of the next point in time. Alteration occurred, and it was superseded by another, different, state, which reacts with different photons, creating different light.

The constancy of light is a function of the way it is created, ie an atomic interaction, and the nature of its physical existence. It is always the same reaction, therefore light always originates at the same speed. And, like any other entity, it will continue at that speed unless impeded upon in some way, and its movement is independent of the 'emitting' object, and the 'recipient' object (which may be an observer, or it may be a brick wall, etc). This is what constancy means, ie invariability/independence. To calibrate it, ie assess a value for its rate of movement, then some other entity must be deemed as the reference. By definition, any reference will suffice, as everything is moving, it is just that some are more practical as references than others. Movement being the comparison of spatial position and the rate of alteration thereof. For comparability, other assessments of movement must be made wrt the same reference.

In other words, as with any entity (which all move), of which light is just another, its calibrated speed will be a differential. The fact that it is the physically existent entity which enables sight, is irrelevant, this does not endow light with any form of 'special' feature. There is then, no need to invoke some explanation for 'constant' light speed, because whenever it is measured, it has not got one. So, whether or not the observer is "aware that the gravitational potential energy is varying", he does not measure "the speed of light as the constant C". A solution is being postulated for a problem which does not exist.

"the length of photons shrinks such that the time required for every photon everywhere in the universe to pass a given point is a universal constant". This means that the effect is omnipresent, or there is, effectively, no effect, because irrespective of the nature of the matter being approached, it has the same effect (ie slowing it) on light.

"The length of a photon is set as equal to the radius of the hydrogen atom" This may or may not be so, but it does not follow that "is the value that corresponds with the universal constant time period". Because there is no such thing in existence. What physically corresponds with the concept of time is the rate at which any given change occurs. 'Photons passing a given point' is but just one example of change. As with movement, and any other such attribute, there is no absolute, only differential established by comparison. Timing, being the method whereby the comparison of frequencies of change is compared (ie measured). Assuming that this is how light works anyway, ie it is not, for example, the transference of the effect from photon to photon, rather like a chain reaction.

Finally, as discussed very recently, again, Einstein's original theory had nothing to do with time, observers, etc, etc. This was a flawed explanation as to what was said to be occurring (which might, of itself, be incorrect) which was already in train before the 1905 paper was written, and culminated in the model: spacetime.

Paul

James

I don't suppose you would care to point out where it is irrelevant? And what exacly is wrong with being long-not that it was that long?

As Joe said above: "light is real"

Paul

James

I stopped reading after equation (8) on top of page 2, reason is:

Between equations (5) and (6) you argue that the right hand side of the equation the minus should be a plus because of the convention you chose. For the same reason the plus on the left hand side of the equation should then change to a minus. Your onesided logic I do not understand, I let it pass but then from equation (7) to (8) I again have a problem. I have learned that the integral from 0 to r of (GM/r^2)dr equals (infinity - GM/r), why are you ignoring the infinity?

Please explain so that I can carry on reading.

best regards - Anne

I think if we accept the variability of the speed of light in GR, then we must apply the concept on the SR because Einstein first formulate the SR, and basis on the SR he formulated GR. In my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 I adopted that the light beam which is passing through a moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface is equivalent to passing to a medium of refractive index greater than 1. I generalized this concept on GR in order to solve the Pioneer anomaly, the velocity of the light beam or any particle must also decreased when passing through the gravitational field for an observer faraway from this field. I got an exact solution for the Pioneer anomaly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

furthermore by adopting this principle in my MSRT and MGR, I could solve all problems regarded to quantum and relativity see my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 and by this paper I solved all the related problems of quantum tunneling, entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a

Azzim

Impressive, but how does that work when the beam is propagating in the same direction of the train.

It would seem to require a refractive index smaller than 1.

In your theory does the observer on the embankment see 'light particles' moving. or scattered light from the medium particles in the train frame?

Peter

James

I haven't yet managed to read your essay but look forward to it. Best of luck.

I agree with your response to Pentcho, but may I also add, that in considering a wave function. when propagation speed slows due to greater interactions with matter (approaching Earth or near the sun) the wave pattern is blue shifted, which yes, may be considered to 'shorten' the photon, but also conserves the energy. the wavenumber and amplitude do not change, i.e. E is constant. (ergo blue light is more energetic than red).

This ontology is consistent with the refractive basis of the empirical additions required for accuracy of the NOVAS algorithms for stellar aberration declinations.

I believe that supports the conceptual basis of your thesis. No doubt you may see it differently, but is it inconsistent?

Peter

James: You say that the length of a photon is diminishing with its speed. A photon has no mass and no charge, what is the length of a photon ? Or you are meaning the wavelength ? If it is wavelength then we are talking the probability where the photon as a particle has to be found isn't it ? Sorry for my stupid questions.

Wilhelmus

Peter,

Thank you very much for your comment. As proposed in 1949, "Postulate versus Observation in the Special. Theory of Relativity by H. P. ROBERTSON". the light speed inside the moving train relative to an stationary observer on the earth surface is depended only on the absolute value of the velocity of the train. thus according to my MSRT http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 the speed of light inside the moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface will be c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5. In my MSRT I proposed the stationary observer of earth will measure the length of the moving train to be the same as if it was stationary. The length of the moving train will not contracted for the earth observer. The concept of the length contraction according to my MSRT is existed in my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 and by this definition I can apply it on gravity and modify the GR of Einstein, then solving all the problems regarded to quantum gravity and GR. I solved the Pioneer anomaly by adopting this definition. see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 Furthermore, solving all problems in physics regarded to faster than light, quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and Sn 1987a

James

"The value of the speed of light is taken to be very close to C in magnitude and is approsimated to be C at the surface of the Earth"

The speed of light is a constant, unless impeded in some way (and you postulate one particular possibility of that), ie anywhere. The value of this speed is entirely dependent on the reference point chosen to effect the comparison of movement, and hence derive a value. All entities are moving, speed/movement are just differentials. And light is no different, it is an entity, moving.

Paul

Azzam

Length contraction was conceived of as being an actual alteration in the size of matter (particularly in one direction). It became explainable in terms of observation because of a number of confusions around the variables constitute and how they relate. However, in terms of the observation (seeing) of reality, as opposed to reality itself (which ought to be understood!), there may happen to be effects occurring which affect measurement. But, in trying to discern what that may or may not be, light must be considered as just another entity, moving. Which is what it is. It has no 'mysterious' properties, it just happens to be what enables us to see.

Paul

Paul

Have you read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

You will see what is the meaning of the length contraction according to the MSRT, it is depending on the the recent experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement. this explanation for the length contraction is different from Einstein depending on the observer is participating in formation the phenomenon, contradicted what was adopted in formulation of the SR.

My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The fundamentals of theory are redefined and higher level theory is built upon that new foundation. The guiding principle is that: Unity has always existed right from the beginning of the universe, and, that that unity should be clearly seen in physics theory right from its theoretical beginning.

It is presumed that this unity requires that there be a single cause for all effects for all time. In order to establish whether or not there is just one single cause, the theory is developed without introducing other multiple fundamental causes or forces. One is all that is implemented for the whole body of work thus far.

The essay puts forward the variation of the speed of light as that cause for all effects. The general body of work, from which the essay draws, has been accomplished while relying solely upon that cause. For example, there is no fundamental force of gravity, nor is there a property of electric charge. There are no other sources of cause beyond the variation of the speed of light.

The process i followed from the beginning for developing this approach to theory is represented in my essay in the section on 'Mass'. The process begins with: All properties whose existences are inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible and definable in the same terms as is that evidence. Distance and time are the properties in which empirical evidence is formed. The evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. Velocity is expressed in terms of distance and time. All other properties are defined using combinations of distance and time only.

This practice prevents the introduction of arbitrary definitions. The first such arbitrary definition was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. It was not defined in terms of distance and time. Its units kilograms are not defined in terms of meters and seconds. therefore, it is introduced as a property that is not expressible in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. This act and its consequences permeate today's physics theory. This new theoretical approach removes both that act and its consequences. Almost all of theory is forced to change.

The body of work is still ongoing and quantum effects must still be accounted for. Some basic problems, such as establishing atomic electron energy levels has been done without the use of wave mechanics. There has been no need thus far to introduce a wave nature. Perhaps it will become needed at some point, but, it does not yet exist in this theoretical work. A mathematical basis for our concept of frequency is developed using only the photon model introduced in the essay. It appears as part of an energy equation that replaces Einstein's energy equation.

While many question remain to be answered, the body of work done thus far is extensive and self-contained using only one cause and only units of meters and seconds. The essay represents, in an introductory manner this new body of work. I can defend only the work that has been completed and presented publicly. There is plenty of that. It includes redefining electromagnetism, relativity theory, and thermodynamics at their introductory levels.

James