Much Ado About Nothing by Peter Jackson

Peter,

I would be very much interested (and perhaps others) on the papers you referenced.

Thanks (and for the advice on the +, drove me crazy!)

Jeff

Peter,

So far, I have only skimmed over your paper, but I would like to make a few initial comments.

In your essay, you ask: "How is the constant speed of light (CSL) logically explained?" You also stated "Assumption 2. Frequency is real..."

For Einstein these two points were closely linked, and represented a rather intractable problem. His solution to the problem was, in effect, to DEFINE the speed of light to be constant. Why?

Consider the idealized case of a single frequency light wave. The light waves coming from most objects of astrophysical interest, first arrived at earth long before any observer existed to measure the characteristics of the wave's leading edge, such as how many meters it traveled in a measured number of seconds. And the trailing edge has still not arrived, so it cannot be measured either. In other words, the wave is always there. In other words, it never "moves" at all. Furthermore, most such objects produce waves that have a constant amplitude. In other words, the only actual observable, that ever changes, is the wave's phase. By computing the derivative of the phase, one obtains an inferred frequency.

There are three possible reasons for the phase to change as a function of time. First, the source of the wave may be doing something that creates a wave with those phase characteristics. Second, relative motion between the source and the observer may create those phase characteristics. Third, the wave travels through a medium, that induces a phase change. Einstein's problem, was that there is no way to decide between the first two phenomenon, or any combination of the two, for the case noted above. Furthermore, he believed the third to be of no importance, in a "vacuum".

From an intuitive, causal point-of-view, one "should" define the frequency to be a constant, and equal to the frequency created by the source, and then "blame" any resulting observable phase changes as due to the relative motion. But Einstein had no way of determining what the created frequency was. So instead, he defined the relative speed of the wave to be the constant, and "blamed" any resulting peculiar, observable phase changes on a peculiar "Addition of Velocities" law. This choice was also a logical choice, given Maxwell's computation of a constant speed of light. But, of course, that computation is tied to the fact that the source is at rest with respect to itself, so no motion induced phase changes need to be considered.

As you have suggested, since frequency, wavelength and propagation speed are all coupled, once you fix one, as a constant, the others have to bend accordingly.

Peter,

I am aware of the binary star evidence and the much older moons of Jupiter evidence. But there remains the problem of the difference between phase velocity and group velocity.

Peter

I remembered your post

" My last years essay was a top 10 finalist but not a winner (a crime perhaps?). Fair? and expert? I don't now, but the Solution, of course."

I often watching community rating and wondering when i see lady among leaders

Her submission was Sep. 6, 2012

Peter

Accepting the reality of space as a medium not big discovery

Major question to guess all picture one cycle

I see the Universe only this way

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

Now i understand your sarcasm...

Hi Peter,

I'm looking now at the Doppler equations in your essay near the end. First of all, I should point out that a couple of posters have asserted that the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is due to refraction. That's close but not quite true. Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds. The proper description of the origin of the Lorentz [math]\gamma[/math] factor is dispersion.

I've not yet seen what I consider a rigorous derivation of the relativistic Doppler effect and haven't had the time to develop one myself yet. So what will follow is only a preliminary analysis. I'll post again shortly as I need to hop off a train on my way to work now.

Cheers,

Steve

Stephen,

What dispersion at c locally achieves in my model is a differential in the speed of energy propagation within different spaces (frames), by implementing a boundary interface mechanism so that different parts of waves progress at different speeds.

The key here is that relative closing, or APPROACH velocity, is v + v, so therefore also c + v, but that at the moment of interaction (detection, or 'absorption'), because the absorbing boundary particles can only emit at c, then the speed is changed to the NEW, particles own, c. This then fully meets your (agreed) requirement"

"Refraction requires there to be a differential in the speed of energy propagation between different points, or some type of boundary interface so that different parts of the wave progress at different speeds."

It is so simple and self apparent that it seems it does take a massive intellect and visualization skills to assimilate and rationalise, though I was pretty sure you were already most of the way there.

But the Lorentz transformation does 'fall by the wayside' except as a close replica of, for instance, the synchrotron frequency curve of a bunch of protons being accelerated towards c in the LHC. This curve closely matches the increasing electricity bill they face during the acceleration process. At almost c almost infinite energy is needed.

If we study the increasing 'virtual electron' (pE) density around the bunch, and look at the oscilloscope reading, it is quite intuitive that we CAN discern a 'speed' in the vacuum, and that the LT curve is a resistance 'power' curve.

The LT itself is then simply the acceleration between media in different states of motion (frames), or rather it's effects.

All this is embedded quite deeply in my essay, and each part of the essay evidences a crucial component of the ontological construction. It seems that just a cursory read, or using old assumptions, will mean it's missed.

The essay shows just the tip of the iceberg, which seems to me to be about the biggest advance ever in physics, so I suppose if it was that easy to initially comprehend it would have been done in the 1800's. Or am I missing something.

I hope you didn't hop off the moving train just behind someone else, the Doppler effect of the LT would have compressed the pair of you, leaving you a bit bluer!

Peter

Very good Essay, Peter. I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

Peter,

The following "simple answer" of yours is absurd (and accordingly catapulted your essay to the top of the community rating list):

"If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."

Pentcho Valev

Dear Peter,

You have written yet another essay in defence of SR and I appreciate your saga regarding that.BTW,please go through the essay of Benjamin F. Dribus who, like your DFM, wants to use 'quantized reference frames' inorder to describe reality.

Please,go through my essay too and send in your comments to my forum.

(http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.)

Warm regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Fortunately I hopped off the train last, well behind everyone else. However the train had just come to a stop so that the dwindling Eddy currents sparked into a micro wormhole catapulting me several tens of minutes into the future where I could safely step out ahead of everyone else ;^)

I'll have to peek more at your paper...

Steve

And this is both absurd and mysterious (the combination is highly valued by Einsteinians):

"In SR only one case was assumed for observing 'speed' with constant c. We describe a second case, where c is unaffected but where an 'apparent' speed c+/-v is also allowed."

Pentcho Valev