Domenico,

The mirror problem resolves with c in the medium frame both on approach and after reflection, because the 'transition zone' must of course work both ways. It is equivalent to a 'fluid dynamic coupling' of inertial frames. At the boundary there are electrons at rest in BOTH media frames, with turbulence between, but all re-emitting at their own c. This applies to ALL media. Only the extinction distance changes (with 'birefringence' apparent during the change).

I think this has proved too difficult dynamic visualisation of most readers, so introducing theoretical speculative neutrino's would just confuse more. We need to assimilate the concept that there is BOTH real and APPARENT speed, so apparent superluminal speed is allowed with no violation of c.

At the (twin-slit) back screen, there is no co-motion, so the (probably part re-blended) arriving 'photon' or wave energy charges the particles, and as each reaches threshold energy it re-emits, forming the small 'dot' pattern. The intensity of combined interacting waves from the 'slit edge' emissions changes across the screen according to Huygens construction to form the interference pattern. This can simply be shown in simple experiments I've done myself. By moving the back screen position during the experiment. A 3D interference picture can then be built up in the space behind the slits. You may have read this last year; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Does this accord with your thoughts? What it does seem to do is unify all physics and derive curved space time from QM by changing the optical axis of re-emissions ('refraction'). Is that emerging for you, or can you see any shortcomings?

Also the little maths I give has been challenged. Do you have a view on that?

Many thanks, and Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #155

    Peter,

    I recognize that you are well prepared to defend your view. I have read about it over and over:

    "I think this has proved too difficult dynamic visualisation of most readers, so introducing theoretical speculative neutrino's would just confuse more. We need to assimilate the concept that there is BOTH real and APPARENT speed, so apparent superluminal speed is allowed with no violation of c."

    I don't think that I have having a problem visualizing it. But there remains something that I have asked in past and feel uncertain about of your answer:

    Does relativity's length contraction consist only of remote appearances due to effects which occur upon the photons, doing the reporting, during their travels including their arrivals? In other words, does the original object suffer length contraction as a real local physical effect before the reporting photons begin their travels and undergo their own changes? Is length contraction only a remote visual effect?

    Time and talk may have blurred my memory about your position. But, I do find myself reading your messages and today at least am uncertain about your answer. Thank you.

    James

    James

    Lengths contract by an intuitive Doppler shift process due to the non zero distance between components of matter. It does NOT then apply at all to 'idealised rigid bodies', either real or apparently. Luckily there is no such thing as a completely rigid body, but there are degrees of compressibility.

    The non-zero time of interaction during media co-motion is the key. Imagine a compressible body on collision course with a medium. When they interact the spaces between the particles close up = length contraction. Now back to SR; Say a light pulse or string of photons lasts 1/10th sec (or is 30,000km 'long'). If it enters a co-moving medium of n=~1 approaching at v= 3,000km/sec it will compress, or 'contract' by 10%, agreed? As the propagation speed is still ~c, to an observer at rest in the new medium the length of TIME of the pulse in his frame will also have reduced by 10%.

    This is purely a Doppler effect, but on wavelength lambda. Frequency is only a derivative of lambda and speed, so follows inversely due to conserved c in all frames. (I identify the quantum mechanism = all re-emission at c).

    Now a different case; An observer staying at rest in the first frame watching two light pulses distance D apart enter the other frame (the co-moving medium). This is again intuitive. He will see the same thing; the distance between the pulses contracted. No tricks, fully intuitive and real, except of the course the SPEED of the pulses in the other medium is then only apparent, not real.

    Finally the case of the light reaching an observer. Consider the observers lens a 'medium', which it is, and this is then precisely the same as the first case. Lambda changes subject to observer medium motion. So all real physical changes.

    This simple reality implements CSL via the quantum mechanism and axiom of absorption (at any closing speed) but re-emission at local c. Ergo, physics is unified with causal Local Reality, and neither QM or SR have any paradoxes.

    I'm a little dismayed so few seem to be able to assimilate that from the essential components in the essay . Was there anything above exceptionally difficult to understand, or that you're not comfortable with?

    If so do point them out, if not, any ideas how it can better be communicated?

    Best wishes

    Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #157

      Peter,

      Ok, I think what I have been missing in my question is that I am not asking about special relativity. I am interested in what happens in the real world. If there is a long straight closed tube with a vacuum inside it, and, that tube is lying stationary on the surface of the Earth, and, an object inside that tube is moving through it at very high speed relative to the tube and Earth, will that object experience length contraction as a real physical effect due to its velocity relative to the tube and Earth? What happens to photons afterwards is not a point of confusion. I picture the object as a thin rod with its length parallel to the tube.

      James

      dear Peter

      this is just to say that I enjoyed reading your essay

      as you expected (your post on the blog for my own essay) I found in it some intriguing physical intuitions and a little theatre, all combined in enjoyable reading material

      best wishes for the competition

      Giovanni

      James

      No. It would not contract. Either in reality or apparently.

      I think you misunderstood my previous reply. I was also certainly not discussing special relativity but only the real world. The real mechanisms I describe produce all the effects we observe.

      Someone once drew up theory to try to try to explain the apparent paradoxes in those observations (i.e. CSL). The real mechanistic solution bears little resemblance to that theory, and shows there were b=never any real paradoxes, just m=limited comprehension.

      This is important as it also makes sense of QM, meaning that all classical observed effects are fully explained by (known but better interpreted) quantum mechanisms. Is this is too big for physics to assimilate?

      Peter

      PS Back to your rod. There are two varying cases. If the rod is accelerated it will contract during acceleration (not much if it's rigid). And if the observer is at rest as the rod moves further into the distance, then there will be an 'apparent' contraction, which we call 'perspective'. Both these, like the primary cases in my last post, should be intuitive. Are you in agreement?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #160

      Peter,

      Ok I am clear about your view. Thank you.

      James

      • [deleted]

      • Post #161

      I am interested, and I am thinking, on the macroscopic interaction of the macroscopic objects (lens, mirrors, screen, etc.) with quantum object (for example light): each measure in physics is obtained, in general, using macroscopic object.

      I think that the quantum effects can be obtained from the noise in the screen (different phases in the screen electron) of the double slit experiment.

      I see in your article a study of the interaction of the photons with the macroscopic object to justify the constant speed of the light: I see this like a maximum interference (interaction) between electrons and photons; I don't know if this point is true, but it is very interesting.

      I know that different velocity of the light in the different medias is due to the emission-absorption of the photons (between two collision the light velocity is constant) but these interactions don't happen for the neutrinos; so in a media we can have a signal that are more quickly of the light in the media.

      I see interesting points in your essay.

      I shall read your the arxiv article.

      Saluti

      Domenico

      Dear Peter,

      I'm just now realizing that there is a way to experimentally verify the validity of one aspect of what you've written and what has been shown mathematically in my essay. Please see the recent post for details.

      Steve

        Stephen

        Interesting "there's nothing preventing "apparent" motion faster than聽c", (your blog Wolfram link) when it seems such a big deal to most that they can't rationalise or assimilate it, or the important consequences.

        I've also had challenges about my use and definition of 'signal velocity', so the Sommerfeld and Brillouin use and 'definition' is helpful.

        There are indeed already a number of experiments verifying this, including the finding of light reflecting from a moving mirror at c wrt the vacuum not the mirror. I have no lab, but do let me know what you have in mind. I have suggested some other experiments in a paper on the Kantor falsification accepted and due out soon. Send me an email (address above) and I'll pop something through to discuss.

        Many thanks

        Peter

        Tom,

        I'd missed your post. Excellent question, but simple solution; The asymmetry is purely a Doppler shift of the 'distance' between emission/waves/photons. The total energy is thus conserved; i.e. If the new medium is in rapid motion towards the source, yes the re-emission at c uses less energy per emission, but the emissions (wave peaks) are closer together. This explains why blue light is more energetic. I wouldn't use the word 'accelerate' for light, but the effect is the same.

        Also, the mechanics CAN be symmetrical. Consider the boundary mechanism as a dynamic fluid coupling. One side of the fluid is at rest in one frame, the other side co-moving, so at rest in the other frame. The whole fluid 'body' in between is in turbulence (Navier-Stokes) due to the constant (M-Hydro-D) mixing process.

        Now as all electrons are essentially the same, with the same rate and type of 'spin', are they likely to re-emit charge energy at arbitrarily different speeds wrt themselves? or all at c? If 'Harmonic Resonance' is valid, so if at c set by the spin, (the only logical choice), then all light passing through the transition zone (TZ) either way can only emerge at the local c. No violation of any laws!. And it's true we "can't differentiate the phenonemon from a constant speed of light", but that's what we've been searching for, the SR postulates are now rendered logically derived direct from a quantum mechanism. That is a massive deal, it's Unification of the two sides of physics!

        The only asymmetry of the PMD (charge) delay comes with lateral relative motion, explaining a whole host of kinetic anomalies, and implementing curved space-time by confirming what Heisenberg suspected but couldn't rationalise, that uncertainty has something to do with diffraction. And all not only without needing 'ether', but also removing any bar to local 'ether' frames as part of the hierarchical system.

        There are vast implications not referred in the paper, and I was unambitious enough not to try to squeeze in any more detail of how gravity might emerge or the pre-big bang state. But all do agree with your (1 per universe) ultimate frame, and the invalidity of Bells great clanger (I just thought of that, is it original??)

        Best wishes

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #165

        Dear Peter,

        This is for your kind information that my recent article published yesterday in the 'arxiv' along with my two colleagues (http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3765) has, I feel,something to do with your DFM.

        I hope you grasp the significance of the article to your DFM and reply back.

        Best regards,

        Sreenath.

        Sreenath

        I'm delighted at the verification the new arxiv paper offers. This also seems consistent with the 1955 Jauch and Rohrlich (QED) verification of the relative energy loss from bremsstrahlung radiation from the 'Compton effect' of acceleration due to interaction. I had no room to include the Marmet quantification which was; 2.73x10^-21 (K^-2).

        Frankly I have not yet deeply considered the relevance or realtionships there or with my own work so your thought would be appreciated. How consistent do you think it may be with the interaction quantification in my essay?

        I might even slip a small citation of your derivation into my present main paper draft.

        Many thanks

        Peter

        Dear Peter

        Apologies - I have only just seen your message above. You always ask challenging and interesting questions. Alas my modus operandi is to work intermittently on various 'projects' - an idea in physics, a painting, some other project...and it takes me a lot of time to re-gather my wits for each new task! For me to understand birefringence in terms of my posited ether lattice will take some doing but if my theory works it "should" somehow explain the effect.

        As one of our colleagues in last year's contest used to sign off

        Have Fun... it is a good wish!

        Vladimir

        • [deleted]

        • Post #168

        Hi Peter,

        A nice overview of assumptions that are taken for granted and how they relate to the trouble with physics. It was a pleasure to read.

        Thanks for pointing out how assumption 5 relates to my essay. I show that objects are cut off from attaining the speed c via an unexpected quantum mechanical effect and not the Lorentz transform. But even more astounding special relativity is still intact.

        Thanks for visiting my essay blog and helping my cause.

        Good luck in the contest,

        Don L.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #169

        Peter,

        The frequency of the light waves as measured by a stationary observer is f=c/L, and by an observer moving with speed v towards the light source f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. Also, in the frame of the moving observer, the formula f'=c'/L' is valid.

        These are textbook formulas - if you accept them, please answer the following questions:

        c' = ? ; L' = ?

        Thanks, Pentcho Valev

          • [deleted]

          • Post #170

          Heaven Breasts and Heaven Calculus

          http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0072

          Since the birth of mankind, human beings have been looking for the origin of life. The fact that human history is the history of warfare and cannibalism proves that humans have not identified their origin. Humanity is still in the dark phase of lower animals. Humans can see the phenomenon of life only on Earth, and humans' vision does not exceed the one of lower animals. However, it is a fact that human beings have inherited the most advanced gene of life. Humans should be able to answer the following questions: Is the Universe hierarchical? What is Heaven? Is Heaven the origin of life? Is Heaven a higher order of life? For more than a decade, I have done an in-depth study on barred galaxy structure. Today (September 17, 2012) I suddenly discovered that the characteristic structure of barred spiral galaxies resembles the breasts of human female essentially. If the rational structure conjecture presented in the article is proved then Sun must be a mirror of the universe, and mankind is exactly the image on earth of the Heaven.

          http://galaxyanatomy.com

          • [deleted]

          • Post #171

          You cannot derive c' and L' from f=c/L, f'=c'/L' and f'=(c+v)/L, can you Peter?

          Pentcho Valev

          Pentcho

          I can indeed. As f is a derivative, from f=c/L we may then find c = fL. We then consider the case, as found in reality, that on entering a new medium, wavelength L changes.

          Now there is more than one observer case, as I pointed out on your string. But to keep it simple to start with, for an observer who CHANGES frame (observes in the emitter frame K then accelerates into the detector frame K') we may consistently obtain delta L and delta f to give c' = f'L'. We also then have f'=c'/L'. In other words wavelength and frequency can change inversely which conserves local c. Which is precisely as we find with Doppler shift, but misinterpret as we forget f is a mathematical derivative using a 'speed' (and thus time) not a 'real' physical quality.

          In the other case of an observer who remains in the emitter frame, he will find apparent c+v (but not by actual interaction with the original emission).

          Logic must be applied to mathematics as well as to nature. In logic I claim my Mr Spock trumps your belief led Captain Jim!

          Peter

          PS; The case of an observer accelerating from detector frame K' to emitter frame K in the opposite direction to the light gets VERY interesting, he does not interact with the original light pulse at all (except when both are accelerating). can you now work out what speed he finds the PASSING pulses apparently doing (wrt him) both before and after accelerating? I admit is IS initially quite testing, but once grasped is far more intuitive than the present nonsense!

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #173

          Peter,

          You forget f'=(c+v)/L but that is the gist of the story. For all waves other than light waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, he finds that:

          - the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

          - the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

          - the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

          For light waves, the observer finds that:

          - the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L

          Since the measured frequency shifts in exactly the same way for all waves (light waves included), it is reasonable to conclude that the mechanism is the same: the shift in frequency is due to the shift in the speed of the waves. That is, for light waves, just like for any other waves:

          - the speed of the waves shifts from c to c'=c+v

          - the wavelength does not change (L'=L)

          Pentcho Valev