There may be a way to experimentally verify what is shown here theoretically. The leading edge of a wave traveling at c with respect to an emitting particle should have telltale precursor signals: the Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors. See Arnold Sommerfeld "Optics" and Leon Brillouin "Wave Propagation and Group Velocity".
Related websites are
Dear Stephen,
I have read your interesting paper. I did not understand every technical detail, but the main message I hopefully got, that is, the Lorentz Invariance in its relativistic version is too restrictive if applied to space and time.
I discovered a space-time-picture that is less restrictive, but its inner design follows nevertheless a specific type of Lorentz invariance, that is slightly different from the relativistic version. The underlying space-time-picture is geometrically composed of a SQUARE and a CIRCLE, both blueprints are closely entangled to each other.
This somehow archetypal space-time-picture implies some interesting features. One of the most important features is the existence of two faces of c; a feature, what I am calling the DUAL PARAMETRIZATION of C. It means, there is a particle-like face of the constancy of light - and there is a wave-like face, too. As both faces are formally parametrized in the same way, i.e. c = 1, it is almost impossible to recognize the particle-like face of c. It is still hidden.
The relativistic kinematics is actually insensitive with respect to this Dual Parametrization of c. It is not only compatible with the wave-like version of the constancy of light as it is stated in the second postulate of SRT, but it is also compatible with a particle-like version of the constancy of light c.
In his 1905b-paper Einstein has noted that the velocity of light V cannot be altered by composition with any subluminal velocity but he did not see its full meaning with respect to the speed of light. John Stachel was wondering about this. He asked himself: Why did Einstein not note this possibility though it must have been equally obvious to him.
Reference: Stachel, John. Einsteins Light-Quantum Hypothesis, or Why Did not Einstein Propose a Quantum Gas a Decade-and-a-Half Earlier? (Einstein. The formative Years, Einstein Studies 2000, p. 240)
This kinematical notion - if connected with a particle model of light - implies a far-reaching experimental consequence : Even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitting source, the speed of light would always be measured as c = 1.
Consequently, all experimental tests concerning the second postulate of SRT are not unambiguous. There is - at least in principle - the possibility that something different has been measured - a sort of a particle-like version of the constancy of light.
May be you find this view interesting..
Good Luck for your Essay.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Hello Helmut,
Thank you for your comments and consideration of the paper. I'll certainly read and ponder your essay. I'll likely post questions or comments in the forum area you have, but I might not be totally familiar with the concepts and literature that your essay is based on either.
Best of luck in the contest to you also,
Steve
Dear hoang cao hai,
One must admire the apparent enthusiasm behind your paper and the presentation of the generic message on all of the forums here. But some attention to detail (such as addressing each author personally) might go a long way in personal relationships even as it does in physics.
Best wishes,
Steve
I was asked by a reviewer from outside this forum for a clarification of how the theory could be verified.
In Special Relativity, light travels at c with respect to both the emitter and receiver.聽 (Space and time require redefinition if the mathematics is to work out).聽 However in a single Newtonian-Galilean coordinate system containing both emitter and receiver, if we were to suppose that light is emitted at c with respect to the emitter then the velocity of the electromagnetic wave must be c + v where v is the relative velocity between the particles. The receiving particle would encounter radiation moving at that speed.聽 However the effect of dispersion shifts the wavelength and frequency after the encounter with the receiving particle in such a manner that the frequency and wavelength are equivalent of what is calculated within Special Relativity.
The dispersion process has a bit of time lag due to the mass of the receiving particle. A very tiny bit of the unshifted EM wave slips through unmodified.聽 In other words, the receiving particle only starts to move in reaction to new field fluctuations as the wavefront passes by the particle. The motion of the receiving particle starts to produce new field fluctuations that add to the impinging radiation from the original radiating particle but a small amount of the original wave has already raced out ahead of mixed wave.
Sommerfeld and Brillouin called that very short signal a precursor or forerunner. The problem with detecting such a signal is that any particle with the same mass as the receiving particle that is interacting with the unmodified wave from a vacuum will not be able to register any measurement effects. A measurement of precursors would seem to require a measurement of the movement of particles with less mass where they lie behind the particle which generates the primary dispersive effects.
Steve
Steven
I agree a transform of Maxwell between frames as a Holy Grail. Your essay was wonderful to read and gave a better basis for my own findings, which I noticed Peter Jackson referred to above. My 'Cluster probes' shock crossing analysis merely agrees with his proposals, I hope you've studied the implications. Maxwells transition zone is identified by Peter as the nanoscale photoionized 'surface charge electrons' version of my Fig 2. I feel a whole new simpler unified and more consistent paradigm emerging, but it seems many haven't really noticed it. Or are they fearful?
Do please read and comment on mine, particularly the shock crossing analysis and spiral soiliton wave particle models shown in the fig's.
Regards
Rich
Hello Richard,
Thank you for your consideration. As I've posted in the forum for your essay, I also find your essay interesting and need to look further into the issues you bring up. I hope others will seriously consider what is brought up there.
Cheers,
Steve
I'd like to mention that one very important item in the bibliography for this essay is out of print and possibly difficult to obtain. That is Sir J. J. Thomson's monograph "Beyond the Electron".
The copyright has expired under UK and US copyright laws. I've done a quality optical scan of the book and have created a PDF file to easily view the contents.
Please send email if you would like a copy to: overgrip@hotmail.com
The book presents Thomson's findings in a very accessible way with many analogies expressed in a way that should be easy for a layman to understand.
Steve
Thank you Stephen for a sensible approach - linking velocity to energy in interpreting Maxwell's equations may be much closer to the physical situation in nature, than the artificial and abstract postulate of c= constant in Special Relativity. I wish you success.
Vladimir
Stephen wrote:
The value c is the only obvious velocity parameter embedded in the
Maxwell equations. It is derived from the combination of the vacuum permittivity
0 and vacuum permeability constants μ0, the former being effectively a conductance
facilitating parameter while the later is a resistance to the passage of energy through.....
Slightly different considerations apply to the so-called permittivity of free space, which historically has been regarded as a separate physical constant in some systems of measurement but not in others.
Title: On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann universes
Authors: Sumner, W. Q.
Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 429, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 491-498
Thank you for the reference to that interesting sounding paper Yuri. I hope to be able to read your essay also soon. There are so many papers here to read and consider!
With best wishes,
Steve
Dear Stephen,
You present an interesting, clearly written, and, I believe, timely paper. I believe that the whole issue of group symmetry in physics ought to be revisited very carefully and without prejudice. This is not to suggest that group symmetry is not an important concept in physics; to argue this would be rather absurd given the (partial) successes of relativity and the standard model. However, you point out one of several different very important instances in which group symmetry either does not completely account for the physical phenomena to which it is applied, or accounts for them in a less than natural manner.
Like you, I doubt the Lorentz group symmetry interpretation of covariance. Although my reasons and my approach are somewhat different, I admire the courage to question such a sacred pillar of modern physics. It is popular in modern physics to view group symmetry as the best (perhaps only!) way of expressing simplifying or unifying ideas, and this is very far from being true.
Thanks for the great read! Take care,
Ben Dribus
Thanks for the consideration and comments Ben. As I indicated in the forum for your essay, I think it will be very interesting to see the results of your work unfold.
Best,
Steve
Don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay
Dear Tom Phipps,
May I ask you to check whether or not my essay derives a largely correct and possibly important suspicion from your papers?
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Hello Eckard,
Your essay was more or less next on my list to read and consider. I'll very likely have comments to post in the forum for your essay soon.
With best wishes,
Steve
Hi Yuri,
I've rated the essay and commented on it in your forum. I'll no doubt return to read it again some time later.
Best of luck,
Steve
Thank you Steve.
I rated your essay maximum.
Hello Steve,
As far as I can judge, the mathematics of your essay is excellently readable without numbered equations. More importantly, it leads to conclusions that are relevant to the topic. Thomas Phipps also suggested to reinstall Hertzian convective time derivatives. Most likely he did not get aware of my posting after more than a month. I only quoted his 2012 Apeiron paper. Did you read his 1993 paper in Physics Essays?
Is the relationship (v_phase)(v_group)=c^2 really well known? I did not realize that Nimtz even mentioned it.
Anyway, I am looking forward reading your desired comments on at least one out of my five figures. Fig. 5 tries to reveal an experimental underpinning of your already fully convincing theoretical result.
Best (rate)
Eckard
