• [deleted]

  • Post #41

James,

I really thank you for reading my essay, and I'm very happy for your comment.

I'm also enjoyed when reading your essay, and I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. Also my solution for the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the proposed solution of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006 According to my solution to the Pioneer anomaly is gives us different approaches for explaining the Hubble's law, and General relativity depending on my Modified special relativity, depending on quantum theory. According to that wormholes in GR can be explained by the same explanation of quantum tunneling and entanglement and that gives new interpretation for faster than light. According to my MSRT in the case of measuring faster than light particles or a light beam depending on distance and time, there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality, and locally the the light speed is the same and equals to c. Locally no particle can exceed light speed in vacuum, and the problem in measuring the light faster than light will be existed in the measuring of time. What I proposed is agreed with the experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS and SN 1987a, and also with the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, and with what proposed in quantum field theory relative existence the proposed particles Tachyons and other phenomena relative to faster than light in quantum. I have many to say, and I'm ready for more discussion at any point.

Pushing 'Regarding the equation h=keC':

The magnitude of electric charge in the mks system of units is the magnitude of the time period it would take for light to travel the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom.

The magnitude of Planck's constant divided by Boltzmann's constant is the magnitude of the radius of the hydrogen atom.

James

Peter,

(...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).)

I hesitated to respond to this. It looks wrong. However, I know enough from reading your messages to presume that it is possible that I may be misunderstanding it. My view is that the energy of the light increases. When you say the energy is conserved and then follow it with (ergo blue light is more energetic than red), it appears to be a contradiction. Could you please address this? Thank you.

James

Azzam,

It seems our approaches are very different:

"... I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. ..."

I read your paper. Picking just one effect length contraction. I read your explanation. I also read in your reply to Peter that: "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."

Our treatment of time is very different. Also, in my work, the train will length contract. The contraction for the train is a real physical change. The Earth observer will measure that the train contracted.

Our approaches to explaining special relativity type effects are very different.

I also should say more about the effect on refractive index for light as it passes through the moving train. I think that we may not describe it in full in the same way. I will write a separate message addressed to both you and Peter.

James

Peter and Azzam,

Azzam stated that the refractive index for light passing through a moving train on the Earth would be greater than 1. I agreed in general, however, I think that we might not explain it the same way, so, I will explain my view:

Assume that the normal refractive index of the air in the train when stationary is the same as the air outside the train. The train is set into motion parallel to the surface of the Earth. The example problem is that the light enters the moving rain from any direction and passes through it.

The speed of the light enterring the train perpendicular to the train's velocity will move at the same speed of light as it did before enterring the train. Light that enters the train and moves in the same direction as the train's velocity will slow. As the angle of the light's velocity increases from perpendicular to parallel with the train's velocity, the light will show increasing negative acceleration. The light will be slowing and the refractive index will correspondingly be increasing.

James

The magnitude of magnetic permeability for a solid such as glass or steel is equal to the magnitude of the speed of sound in the material divided by the speed of light.

James

Azzam,

Our mathematical treatments of length contraction are different. The equation that I derived for length contraction is analogous in form and effect to Einstein's derivation for length contraction in special relativity.

James

The reason for pointing out these non-equations that work numerically, but, not for their units is: In my essay I introduce the idea that the units of physics went wrong right from the start with the adoption of kilograms as an indefinable unit. That section was followed by an example problem using new units and solving for a physical origin for the Universal Gravitational Constant.

These additional equations are more examples of the results that follow from correcting the units of physics. The current units, no matter what system is used, need to be replaced with units that are definable in the same terms as is empirical evidence. The units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.

Another point that can be made is that it is poor practice to set proportionality constants equal to unity. When new equations are formed to represent new knowledge, they should be formed from previously defined properties and units. The result of this practice is that the new information reveals itself in proportionality constants.

This is the reason, when I have previously referred to the magnitude of electric charge, I qualified my statement by acknowledging that the system of units used must be the mks system. While that system is not a universal system, it does give a firm empirically based definition for electric charge.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #49

Dear James and Paul,

While it is evident that there is motion in the Universe, there is no such a thing as speed. Motion cannot have a commencement or a cessation. Speed has to have a starting point and a stoppage point. Natural visible light does not move at all. Light only becomes visible when it collides with a surface, and light only travels at the same speed as the surface it adheres to. All lit surfaces travel at the same speed. You can fabricate a laser light and fabricate a light sensor and fabricate a timepiece and fabricate an experiment whereby you can switch the laser beam on from a supposedly fixed position and cause a beam to come to a complete stop on the fixed surface of the light sensor and precisely measure the time it took the laser beam to traverse the two fixed positions and you will come up with a different result every time you do so.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

Hi again Joe,

Thank you for your message. Our subject matter and viewpoints are very different. I like my own presentation. I am glad to see that you have taken advantage of the opportunity made available by FQXi to express your view. I don't wish to try to change it. There are others here who probably would enjoy comparing their view with yours. Perhaps you should post messages in your blog addressing your differences with the others and inviting them to respond. Best wishes.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #51

James,

I don't understand the last statement in your post, which is stated slightly differently in the last sentence of your essay. Are you suggesting that gravity is an electromagnetic (EM) force, and the field characteristics of light waves are the mechanism that represents the force of gravity?

The field orientations of light waves are transverse to the direction of propagation, and an attractive or repulsive force cannot be achieved in the direction of propagation. Precisely parallel and properly aligned transverse EM fields can attract or repel each other.

Light attracts repels

That experiment affirms that propagated EM fields act just like those in static laboratory tests, they attract or repel if properly aligned.

There is a very simple EM field configuration that can achieve an attractive only force in the axis of propagation, but I do not see anything in your essay that describes it. Additionally, the mechanism will have to accommodate the Newtonian "instantaneous action at a distance" which is necessary to keep the planetary orbits from becoming ever increasing spirals.

Frank Makinson,

Great message. You are questioning me for very good reason. Wow! Thank you. I need to think my response through carefully.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #53

James

There is no length contraction in SR. Einstein said so, and he ought to know.

Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 28:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it... 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"

Paul

On length contraction as defined in special relativity:

From Einstein's 1905 paper:

"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS

OF MOVING BODIES

By A. Einstein

June 30, 1905

...

"The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters."

...

2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

...

Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.

...

4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks

...

A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed from the stationary system--the form of an ellipsoid of revolution with the axes

...

Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio , i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening. For v=c all moving objects--viewed from the "stationary" system--shrivel up into plane figures.*2

..."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity[link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity]References 2. Albert Einstein (1905) ...English translation On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by George Barker Jeffery and Wilfrid Perrett (1923)

Frank,

This message is not yet an answer to your question. Its purpose is to set some context before attempting to answer.

When I said: "The variation of the speed of light replaces gravity.", it was part of giving credit to the variation of the speed of light for all effects. It accounts for all changes of velocity and for electric polarity.

Electric charge does not exist as a cause for electromagnetic properties. Rather, it is changed into a universally constant increment of time. That time increment is the time required for any photon anywhere at anytime to pass a given point.

The variability of the speed of light, combined with that increment of time in equations accounts for length contraction whether the object is moving parallel to the Earth or is approaching the Earth from above.

These changes to physics theory become possible as a result of taking the first step of defining mass and its units in the same terms, distance and time, as is empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity.

The reason why changes of velocity occur is that: Light seeks to have a constant speed rather than maintaining its variability. The difficulty light faces in achieving its goal is due to the limit of its speed and the delays in communication that result from that limit.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #56

James

That selection of quotes, though not particularly good ones, proves what I have been saying about length contraction. As with any quote, it has to be read in context, and it is preferably to find others, so what was meant is not open to question (whether it was physically correct or not is another issue).

In section 4 note the word moving in the title. The point was that everything must be deemed to be moving, so this refers to changing momentum (ie acceleration/ deceleration) caused by an imbalance in forces upon the object, which also causes the dimension in the line of motion to alter (allegedly). The object is not 'at rest' in those circumstances. The reference to spheres/ellipsoids is to Lorentz and his last explanation given as to how the mechanics of length contraction worked (which Poincare then had to adjust following ctiticism in July 1905). Lorentz 1904, para 8: "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion".

But, this has nothing to do with SR. This was what was written in 1905, not SR. You (and you are not the only one) are assuming that the two are the same, which they are not. With the inclusion of gravitational forces into the theory, and hence its affect on light (ie curvature, section 22 1916), Einstein just isolated what the circumstance would be without gravity, that was what was 'special'. And in this circumstance fixed bodies maintained their shape, light moved in straight lines, and only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion occurred. He said so:

Einstein, 1916 (Foundation) section A sub sec 1 para 3:

"Thus the special theory of relativity does not depart from classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo"

Einstein, 1916 (SR & GR), section 18:

"...the special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion.. ...provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...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"

Einstein, 1916 (SR & GR), section 28:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists... 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"

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #57

Paul,

My message was not an invitation for you to misinform persons about your belief system here in my blog. It was meant for others to read so that they would not think that you know what you are talking about.

To others:

"In section 4 note the word moving in the title. The point was that everything must be deemed to be moving, so this refers to changing momentum (ie acceleration/ deceleration) caused by an imbalance in forces upon the object, which also causes the dimension in the line of motion to alter (allegedly). ..."

The word 'moving' does not refer to acceleration of the object nor does it involve the application of force. The rest of his message is also full of misunderstandings. Do not be misled by Paul. Please ignore his messages should anymore show up here. His belief system has no relevance to what is discussed in my essay or my messages.

James

Getting this thread back on track: Special relativity involves both length contraction and time dilation. That 1905 paper includes the derivation of equations for both. Special relativity does not involve forces or changes of momentum or changes of velocity. The equations derived by Einstein in his 1905 paper use velocity. Anyone who understands elementary physics knows that velocity is constant unchanging motion in a single direction.

Azzam has presented a new interpretation for length contraction. My message to him had the purpose of pointing out that our mathematical treatments of length contraction are different. "The equation that I derived for length contraction is analogous in form and effect to Einstein's derivation for length contraction in special relativity." This statement says exactly what I want it to say.

James

Hi Frank,

I am struggling with writing a response to your question. Whereas I found little difficulty in putting forth a reasonably short explanation for electromagnetism, gravity is not so straight forward and simple. I am working on it. This exercise is valuable in making clear to myself that I have something coherent to say. :) I can say, in short form, that gravitational effects are not the result of light either attracting or repelling other light.

My view begins with visualizing photons of various frequencies arriving from all directions to the location of a particle of matter. This point of view can be approximated at the start by imagining two photons arriving from only two directions, one above the particle and the other from below the particle. Those photons out in free space would have equal energies. However, the influence of the Earth is to cause their speeds to vary. The photon moving upward has an increasing speed. The photon moving downward has a decreasing speed.

When these two photons arrive simultaneously at the particle of matter, even though their frequencies would be identical in free space, their frequencies vary slightly because of their slight differences in speed. The photon arriving from below will have a slightly greater energy than the photon arriving from above. My contention will be that it is that slight difference in energies caused by the Earth's effect on the speed of light that produces the force of gravity.

I recognize the gross inadequacy of this simple explanation. My challenge is to write a more detailed explanation. It may require writing a paper and provide a link to it. But, lets see first if I can write it. This message was meant to give an indication of some of what that explanation would entail. It hopefully gives you a chance to determine sooner rather than later whether or not you think this concept has merit and interest.

Thank you again for your question.

James

James

You asked; "When you say the energy is conserved and then follow it with (ergo blue light is more energetic than red), it appears to be a contradiction. Could you please address this?"

Sure. You must think kinetically for the implications of interactions; The number of waves (of = amplitude) dictates the energy. The same wave number (say 10 peaks) so the same energy is compressed into a smaller space/time with blue shifted light. Propagation speed is constant so Ergo, the energy of blue light is greater per unit time. It is the 'evolution of interaction' (progressive acceleration) on entering a new co-moving medium that causes waves to Doppler shift.

Analogy. Say 1 person = 10kw. A line of people walk past at one per second; In a 10 second period you will find 100kw.

Now stand bedside a moving pavement (representing a moving atmosphere). If heading the same way; the frequency they pass you is still 1 per second, (=100kw) but the wavelength is increased (red shifted). If going the other way, they are compressed (blue shifted) but STILL only pass you at 1m/sec!! = 100kw. So the energy is conserved.

Interestingly walking speed (c) is also conserved locally, as is the wavefunction.

It is wavelength lambda that is not conserved.

If you, the observer, also move onto the moving pavement (accelerate, or 'change frames') you will find their REAL walking speed conserved (co-variant c) but frequency altered to balance wavelength, this conserves the constant f - f x lambda as well as energy E.

A brilliant person may need to read that twice. The rest of use three times!!

[You may find an non real c plus v (non observable in a vacuum) but only 'apparent', or 'imaginary ('Minkowski') as it is not real, in your frame or in 'Proper Time'.] Real detection of real speed requires interaction with a lens.

I'm sure you'll see it. The implications are trickier but fundamental. (my own essay should appear any time).

Best wishes

Peter