Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature? by Helmut Hansen

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Pentcho,

my answer is clearly YES.

Let me say something personal: As far as I understand your work and your approach, you are looking at the universe from a purely classical resp. Newtonian point of view. That implies a specific understanding how velocities have to add up.

As long as you stick to this classical paradigm you will not succeed, because the Universe is not following that simple logic you are pointing to: YES or NO. There may be specific cases in which the Universe seems to take a classical resp. Newtonian appearance, but beneath that surface it operates along an EITHER-OR logic. Nature is moving just in that middle you want to exclude in radical way, because classical resp. Aristotelian logic tells that.

That is my message to you. However, I wish you good luck for your work.

Kind Regards

Helmut