Fix Physics! – Reverse Engineer Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, Get Rid of Outdated Assumptions, Consolidate, and Reconstruct on New First Principles by Vladimir F. Tamari

If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, as Vladimir and Juan claim, does it vary with the speed of the observer in gravitation-free space? The answer is "yes":

"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

The stationary observer measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v. The equivalence principle converts the stationary observer into an observer "traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver". This observer also measures the speed of light to be c'=c-v.

Pentcho Valev

Yes, when light comes here on earth its speed is still decreasing per above expression.

No, the gravitational redshift is not given by the decreased speed. Note that during its travel from the source to the detector, the photon's kinetic energy varies so as to ensure conservation of energy. When the photon gets absorbed by the detector it disappears completely, so its total energy gets transferred to the detector rather than the kinetic energy alone. The photon's total energy (and its frequency) remains constant during its travel, so the attraction of photons to massive bodies does not play any role in the gravitational red shift. The true origin of the red shift is the variation of energy levels in the source and/or in the detector if they are placed in the gravitational field.

Moreover, the above result is obtained from the Hamiltonian for a photon in a gravitational field. For a massive body (e.g. atom) in a gravitational field the Hamiltonian is, in a first approximation,

[math]H = H_0 \left( 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}\right)[/math]

Which gives the well-tested red-shift formula

[math]\frac{\Delta E}{\Delta E_0 } = 1 - \frac{GM}{rc^2}[/math]

Dear Vladimir

You make me realize I should have paid more attention to Young and Eddington. I do so elsewhere http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/4/014 but not in relation to Riemann. Thanks for making me think more deeply about the issues.

Your essay was sometime out of league but always fascinating, original and creative. Hope more thinkers adopt your style. Beauty is not a scientific add-on but a necessary requirement.

"The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

Correct but this implies that physics has been long dead, Vladimir:

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

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."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for comparing me with a "skilled matador" although I must introduce the next disclaimer: "No theories or cats were harmed in my essay" :-)

GR is based in a geometrisation principle, which states that gravitation can be completely understood in geometrical terms. This is the source of the well-known problems of GR, including the impossibility to quantize it.

The field theory of gravity (FTG) abandons this geometrisation principle and embraces an unification principle where gravity is described as a force (although the gravitational force is more complex than the electromagnetic force of course). Geometrical gravity (GR) is an approximation to physical gravity (FTG), somehow as geometrical optics is an approximation to physical optics. Below I attach images of light bending as spacetime curvature (GR) vs light bending as gravitational force (FTG). Feel free to reuse them in your future works if you like them.

Finally, I must say that I agree about abandoning the point photons. My point of view is similar to that by Feynman. As stated in my essay. I could not write about other topics because of the size-limit for this contest!Attachment #1: flatspacetime.gifAttachment #2: curvedspacetime.gif

Vladimir,

You contradict yourself:

You wrote: "The simple and elegant equivalence principle (gravity = acceleration) had to carry the excessive baggage of SR with its unphysical and unrealistic postulate that c is constant. That twisted the whole universe into a complicated and unphysical geometrical pattern."

But then you wrote: "But do not worry, in the area of physics that you seem most concerned with, even in my theory in the absence of gravity or other fields measured lengths contracts and clock time dilates, so in effect c remains constant."

Perhaps, if Einstein's speed-of-light postulate is "unphysical and unrealistic", then its consequences - length contraction and time dilation - are just theoretical artifacts that correspond to nothing in the real world?

Pentcho Valev

Dear Mr Vladimir,

I wholly subscribe to your views expressed in the essay 'Fix Physics . . '. I agree that A paradigm shift in physics is now overdue and assumptions such as 'photon-as-particle' 'quantum probability' and 'flexible space-time' are required to be understood in a better context. I also agree with the statement 'present day physics appears grossly and unnecessarily complicated'.

I agree with statement 'Physics was not invented (or discovered) in one go, but was built, one assumption on top of another.' Now it is time to fix it at foundations itself. The foundations define the dynamics or change that occurs in universe. Force and its reaction are drivers of the change. Behind these drivers is the conservation concept. In PicoPhysics we are improving this concept by making a distinction between Konservation and Conservation. This small distinction re-enforces the contemporary physics by integrating all of it together into a single statement (Postulate) called unary law.

You have posed a proper question - If simpler explanations can be found shouldn't they be adopted?

The answer to same is very complex. FQXI is giving us a platform, where we can speak our mind and we are all thankful for the same. For new radical thinking - there are multiple barriers to surpass. Language itself is a problem in expressing something fundamentally different. I have always found language to be a challenge to express thought process of PicoPhysics

Fix Physics

PicoPhysics View: Physics has developed thru generalization of human intuition into concepts and statements valid in different environment. Later the scope of these concepts is made conditional, making room for continuous improvement as human knowledge of nature gathered steam. So the truth and validity of concepts and statements of contemporary Physics can not be denied as at there base is human intuition based on observed facts of nature. It can be qualified and new ground level set for concepts and statements developed. PicoPhysics is an effort in this direction.

The reconstruction of first principles is thus a need of the times as contemporary physics gradually failing to keep pace with continuously increasing human knowledge about universe.

Mis-match assumptions 'photon-as-particle' 'quantum probability' and 'flexible space-time' are required to be understood in a better context.

As a PicoPhysicist, I would like to answer questions raised by you;

Q1: ARE MATTER, SPACE & RADIATION MADE OF DIFFERENT STUFF?

Yes, while matter and radiation are geo-forms of Knergy, space is independent of Knergy.

Q2: DOES TIME REALLY EXIST?

Yes, It exist as a dimension of Knergy. This dimension is mapped onto space in the drift direction and provides meaning to word 'Contain' of unary law. However Samay is chronological dimension and defines the gap between instants and simultaneity.

Q3: IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT ACTUALLY CONSTANT, SPACETIME FLEXIBLE & THE ETHER NONEXISTENT?

Yes, qualified - needs to account for space heterogeneity introduced by presence of matter in the vicinity. Presence of matter increases space density and apparent reduction in speed of light.

Q4: DOES GRAVITY REALLY WARP SPACE AND TIME?

Question is not relevant to PicoPhysics. Gravitation is due to heterogeneity of space. For gravitation force to exist a space density gradient is a pre-requisite. Greater is the gradient; greater is deviation of light towards higher density (lower radius of curvature).

Q5: IS THE PHOTON A PARTICLE & DO PARTICLES GENERATE WAVE FIELDS?

Yes, Photon is a particle composed of unit Knergy.

Yes, it creates a disturbance in space it traverses due to consumption of space by Knergy. The disturbance propagates with the photon, and appears as a pulse.

Q6: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF QUANTUM PROBABILITY,

UNCERTAINTY & ENTANGLEMENT ?

When in an interaction, a transfer of Knergy is involved, it happens between period identified between two states of the system. Exact instant when it happens is unpredictable. To intuitive visualization of interaction - position of reactants or time of exchange is undefined during the period. Uncertainty principle is an expression of this phenomenon. A rejection of Knergy Quanta by receiver results in Entanglement - an interaction without final change of Knergy of reacting particles.

Q7: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS FOR THE STANDARD MODEL?

As of now, PicoPhysics do not understand Standard Model. Its model of particle is based on confinement of Knergy in repetitive circular motion due to unary interaction (Refraction) resulting from self-sustaining Knergy distribution.

Q8: Are Dark Energy and Dark Matter the same as a repulsive Universal

Dielectric ether?

No, Dark Energy or Matter is low density distribution of Knergy, such that consumption of space by Knergy present equals the generation rate of free space. This practically isolates the dark energy from affecting other Knergy identities. (Dark Energy does not interact with others by gravitation).

Q9: If the Ether is made of repulsive particles would the Big Bang start not from a point, but a volume cluster of these particles?

This question is not relevant. As the universe is in a continuous equilibrium state, where some matter is being formed out of dark energy and other is transformed into dark energy. Knergy follows something like a matter cycle - changing its form from Dark energy, Elementary Particles, Matter, Astronomical objects, Photons, Cosmic Back Ground Radiations, Dark Matter. The matter cycle begins and ends with Dark Matter as most stable form of existence of Knergy.

Originally, I thought I would provide a glimpse of my comments on other excellent essays suggested by you. But after reading your essay, I thought otherwise. But my comments are available with discussion on individual essay.

Thanks and best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Contains Knergy'.

Dear Vladmir,

I belive you will appreciate the answers to your questions are resulting from an integrated thought process based on Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy.

I read your paper, as it has much better readability. There are some others who are fit for publication in Physics Review and written for, by and readable to contemporary scientists.

I will appreciate if you can evaluate my comments on other papers pointed by you as significant contributions in the competition.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Contain Knergy'.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for your further explanation. It's good to know that our perspectives are aligned and I'll read more from your website to get a better understanding. Your question is important but I'm afraid it's not so simple to give an answer right away. I'm not aware of any literature treating the issue outside of the GR paradigm. I just checked Penfield and Haus "Electrodynamics of Moving Media" and though there is a very brief discussion of gravity I see no analysis of how electrodynamics is affected.

Permittivity and permeability for a medium are derived from the dispersion relations. i.e., the equations for determining them would be derived in a similar manner as the Lorentz-Lorenz formula. To do that, I'd use a similar procedure to what is shown in my essay for the interaction of an electron with incident fields, but would add to the Lorentz force law a force equation for the difference of gravitational force on 2 sides of the electron.

Without doing the work, I think you would find that yes, there would be a change in the effective permittivity and permeability values in the vicinity of an object of strong gravitational fields. But that is a very preliminary assessment.

Cheers,

Steve

Vladimir,

You wrote: " When objecting to the constancy of the speed of light I should always add that I believe there is a *maximum* speed of light c in a vacuum free of gravity and e/m fields, but that light slows down in denser media such as a gravitational field, air, water or glass etc."

The problem is different. See this:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

"In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed observer is c.

"A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving observer becomes c'=c+v.

Is c'=c+v correct, Vladimir?

Pentcho Valev