Dear Helmut,
You wrote: "He [Einstein] decided for the wave-like face of c and against its particle-like face."
Actually he decided against both. Both the wave model and the particle model of light (represented by Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's emission theory) predict that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer.
Pentcho Valev
Dear Helmut,
I like your essay for it points out very clearly one of the erroneous concepts in physics the dual nature of light. Sometimes it looks like a particle and sometimes it looks like a wave depending upon the experiment we perform. Congratulations for one of the few who point out that the emperor has on no clothes.
I am interested in this subject also and consider light to be a phenomena that is non continuous. If you are curious check out: www.digitalwavetheory.com, the section on the mechanics of digital waves.
Best of Luck,
Don Limuti
Dear Don,
thank you very much for your comment.
I have visited your website with your highly interesting approach. From a philosophical point I do not agree, because I am convinced that the most fundamental level of reality (i.e. the existence of a transcendent sphere) is essentially determined by physical parameter of ZERO and INFINITY, otherwise this sphere (metaphysically called the ONE) could not be transcendent.
That is the fundamental way I am looking at the universe: How must the Universe be organized if its ultimate foundation shall not be visible resp. observable from any point inside the Universe?
To formulate TRANSCENDENCE in a physical meaningful sense we have thus to take into account extremal values like ZERO and INFINITY. The existence of the ONE implies f.e. specific spatial boundary conditions, like R = 0, R = oo.
But from a physical point concerning the immanent part of reality (i.e. the observable UNIVERSE) your approach makes sense. Therefore I have made a top rating for your essay.
Furthermore, to make a little contribution to your approach, I like to recommend deBroglie's --thermodynamics of the isolated particle-- that he had developed after 1960. It offers the possibility to conncect physics and information theory/entropy which might be an interesting piece of theory for your digitalwave-approach.
In the book QUANTA / [by] J. Andrade e Silva and G. Lochak; translated from the French by Patrick Moore, preface by Louis de Broglie a non-technical overview of this THERMODYNAMICS OF AN ISOLATED PARTICLE is given.
I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Helmut,
Let us return to Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
"...velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
This presupposes an observer/receiver who measures the same speed of light no matter how the emitting body moves. There is only one alternative: the observer does not measure the same speed of light when the emitting body changes its state of motion.
So either the postulate is true, or its negation is. The postulate cannot be "half-true" as you claim - the law of excluded middle forbids this.
Pentcho Valev
Dear Helmut Hanson,
On another thread you wrote:"I think, we still tend to solve this riddle by make a decision in favour of one of these two possibilities and against the other one... But perhaps every one-sided view (including in its most subtle and sophisticated version) is a fundamentally limited view, that does not cover REALITY in its totality."
That caught my attention as it is very relevant to the ideas I have been trying to communicate about reality in physics, and it inspired me to read your essay.
I found it very interesting , readable and relevant to the contest. Well done. I think you may be "seeing further" than many of the other contest entrants. I am sure the "light" does have at least a duel nature. It is what it is unobserved, it carries potential data, and it becomes what we make if it. That might make more sense in the context of the explanatory framework I am using, summarised in diagram 1.in my essay .There is a high resolution version in my essay thread.
Good luck to you in the contest. Kind regards Georgina.
Dear Helmut,
You make a good point that the speed of "classical particles" such as projectiles through a material medium depends on the speed of the source, whereas the speed of "classical waves" such as sound does not. Thus, in proposing "wave-particle duality," it does seem as if one is immediately faced with the question of which type of behavior, source-dependence or independence, should be expected.
I suppose the converse question could be asked about de Broglie's matter waves, since they correspond to particles with source-dependent speed.
It seems that in the vacuum, this does not create a problem for light in special relativity, because the sum of the speeds of a source and a classical particle emitted from a source cannot exceed c anyway, as you point out in equation 4. However, this does seem to create a potential problem for the motion of light in a material medium, such as water, where we know the speed is less than c. Here, source-independence fails for classical particles.
I am glad you pointed this out. I had not thought about it this way before.
By the way, in the beginning of your essay, you describe covariance (i.e. Lorentz invariance) in terms of group symmetry. Of course, this is the standard understanding, but my belief is that ultimately the symmetry interpretation of covariance will have to be replaced by a more general idea about order (this arises in the relativity of simultaneity, for instance, where the order of two events depends on the frame of reference). If you are interested, you might look at my essay here.
Thanks for the enjoyable read, and good luck in the contest! Take care,
Ben Dribus
Dear P.,
you are completely right. Just to uncover this contradiction was one of the main purposes of my essay. I wanted to show, that the principal core of special relativity is semantically inconsistent if all deducable consequences are really deduced.
The invariance of the speed of light is certainly the most counterintuitive aspect of SR. No one really understood why the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the OBSERVER.
Mathematically this aspect is expressed by the relativistic composition law of velocity, in particular by the composition of the speed of light c with a subluminal (!) speed, that is, c = c v/(1 cv/c^2).
The same particular law can consistently be applied to a particle model of light. Accordingly, the speed of light is always the same regardless of the motion of the SOURCE. This conclusion may be equally counterintuitive like the Invariance of the Speed of Light but it is nonetheless in full agreement with special relativity.
This result allows for a relativistic emission theory theory of light. Taken together with classical kinematics, an emission theory makes the velocity of light usually different in different inertial frames of reference; but Einsteins result shows that relativistic kinematics eliminates this problem. Since emission theories of light were traditionally associated with particle models, this meant that a particle model of light is compatible with special-relativistic kinematics.
see also: Stachel, John; Einsteins Light-Quantum Hypothesis, or Why Didn_t Einstein Propose a Quantum Gas a Decade-and-a-Half Earlier? In: Einstein_The formative Years, 1879_1909, Einstein Studies 2000, p. 240
But this possibility has far-reaching consequences with respect to the internal consistency of Special Relativity: It means that f.e. the deSitter-Experiment can relativistically (!) be interpreted in two different way: the speed of light c depends on the motion of the source resp. the speed of light c does not depend on the motion of the source. Both relativistic interpretations are in principle possible.
In other words, Special Relativitiy has obviously a blind spot if its principal core is completely unfolded.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Dear Ben,
I like your approach, because it is based on principle. The most important question is indeed: What is really fundamental?
The answer of this question decides how physics will develop in future times. You have identified six crucial principles, f.e. background-independence.
Actually this is - as conceived by me - the most important one. Looking for a preferred frame of reference is still an active field of search, especially in connection with the Microwave-Background-Radiation.
I have a specific idea about this background. This background is by its very nature of metaphysical origin. It is just that transcendent sphere for which we are looking for more than two thousand years in vain. This background, that Platon called the ONE, determines essentially the space-time-structure; a structure, which looks very much like a MANDALA. This structure possesses in fact a sort of general Lorentz Invariance for which you are looking, too. This Lorentz Invariance is slightly different from the relativistic one - just these subtle differences makes this general invariance highly interesting.
May be you will have a look...
http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen
I wish you good luck for your paper as well as for your work.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Dear Georgina,
thank you very much for your kind words. I agree, our way of thinking is the key to everything. It is thus highly important, to fix the traps in which we can be captured. I like to recommend you to go on with your work. An explanatory framework as you have developed it in diagram no. 1 is of a great support in our journey to truth.
I wish you good luck for your paper and for your work.
Kind Regards
Helmut
see below; under: Dear P.. Sorry Dear Pentcho, it wrote this while traveling. In a moment of irritation I pushed the button, and so, only a "Dear P.," was the result.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Helmut,
You wrote: "No one really understood why the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the OBSERVER."
The derivation of the frequency shift (moving observer) implies that the speed of light relative to the observer simply cannot be constant:
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. The new frequency, f'=c'/(lambda)=(c+v)/(lambda), is consistent with c'=c+v.
You get maximum rating from me, Helmut.
Pentcho Valev
Dear Pentchov,
may be your high rating is a little bit too early.
First the bad news.
As you know I am convinced of a Dual Parametrization of c, which means, the constancy of the speed of light c is given twice and not once, as it is still claimed by special relativity.
It is just the existence of this hidden second face of c that makes most physicists (not you) erronuously believe, that the speed of light c is absolutely valid.
And clearly, if the basic equation c = 1 is repeatedly confirmed under different circumstances you might almost unavoidably come to this conclusion. Given two faces of c, equally parametrized in the same way, that is, c = 1, it might be difficult to recognize the specific cases in which this elementary equation (the constancy of the speed of light) does not hold.
To summarize this situation, we could say, the speed of light is more constant than you believe, but it is at the same time less constant than the community believes.
And now the good news. There are parts of the universe, in which the speed of light c is probably not a constant and in which your thesis - a shift in frequency implies shift in speed of light - might be meaningful.
Look at the paper: Amplified Doppler Shift observed in diffraction images as function of the COBE Ether Drift Direction.
According to the physicist R.A. Augusto et al. the main objective of this paper is to present experimental results on an --one-way light path-- laser diffraction experiment mounted in the shell of the TUPI muon telescope and that shows clearly that the speed of light depends on the propagation direction. The effect is observed as a amplified Doppler shift in the diffraction images as function of the laser beam alignment relative to the Earths velocity vector. It shows that the speed of light is not a constant, but it depends on direction and polarization.
I think you are touching this part of the universe. Here something is happening, that is described by the scientific community - as you always claiming - wrongly or at least unsufficiently.
It is a highly sensitive point regarding special relativity comparable to the Michelson-Morley experiment. I agree with you most physicists might think they are right, but they are fooled by Nature.
As the internal machinery of the universe is not visible in all parts as we usually expect, just this fact makes it difficult to decide between the main stream view and your view. Both views have good reasons to hold their position, but the answer lies somewhere in between the two.
However, your work helps me a lot to clarify some positions of my own work. Consequently, your paper and your instinct serves a top rating.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Helmut wrote:
"To give an example that is directly referring to your position: The minimal and the maximal speed limit of a Universe with a transcendent foundation (!) have to be: v = 0 and v = oo. This demand is indeed logically unavoidable."
My model
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
Cmax/Cmin=10^40
just correspond Dirac Big Number
Helmut
please rate my essay impartially
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Helmut,
I wrote: "Let us return to Einstein's 1905 light postulate: "...velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." This presupposes an observer/receiver who measures the same speed of light no matter how the emitting body moves. There is only one alternative: the observer does not measure the same speed of light when the emitting body changes its state of motion. So either the postulate is true, or its negation is. The postulate cannot be "half-true" as you claim - the law of excluded middle forbids this."
You replied: "you are completely right. Just to uncover this contradiction was one of the main purposes of my essay."
The way you "uncover this contradiction" is not satisfactory in my view but still you are courageous enough to question Einstein's 1905 false light postulate - which is the most serious crime in today's science - so I gave you maximum rating.
Pentcho Valev
Dear Pentcho,
it is not quite clear, what is really critized. What is meant by the Light Postulate? Einstein's original version as published in 1905? Or the Principle of the Invariance of the Speed of Light as it is often used today? The latter one is a sort of myth about Special Relativity. (See: Two Myths about Special Relativity, Am. J. Phys. 74 (3), March 2006, Ralph Baierlein), which opens a line of reasoning that cuts the roots with light. And by doing this it mystifies the nature of the Constancy of the Speed of Light. It strengthen the Principle of Relativity and it weakens the quantum mechanical foundation of light.
In the original Einsteinian Light Postulate the connection with light is still alive, whereas in the latter derived version this connection is cutted off. In a typical contemporary textbook it is said, that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source and of the observer. Both independencies are treated like the two sides of the one and same coin, but they are fundamentally different. The Dual Parametrization of c gives us the opportunity to uncover this principal misuse.
Wolfgang Pauli once said: What God has united men should not separate. The opposite is equally valid: What God has separated men should not unite.
You are right my way to uncover this internal fault of special relativity is indeed not satisfactory because it is not based on an elaborated theory. I am conscious of it. It is only the attempt to become familiar with aspects of reality which are not covered by special relativity in a sufficient way.
I hope that you do not lose your deep interest in physics.
Kind Regards
Helmut
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.
Dear Sergey,
why did you rate my essay? Without any argument or reason your rating is simply senseless. There is no message or statement. As far as I understand this contest we all are looking for new approaches to old stuff. So, we are working at the boundaries where philosophy and physics meet and no one can be sure to have the truth. We all need constructive criticism.. A rating as such is not very useful.
Regards
Helmut
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.
Dear Sergey,
I am not so much concerned in my or your rating. For me the FQXI-Contest is an opportunity to present ideas that cannot be presented otherwise. I am thus mainly interested in a dialogue with other participants.
However, I wish you good luck for the contest.
Regards
Helmut
