The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva

Ms. Vasilyeva,

Maxwell's ether theory says 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. What do YOU say?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

This is my community rating on your essay.

Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:

Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.

Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.

The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two assumptions so we have to change them. The simplest change that restores the compatibility with the null result is as follows:

Assumption 1 is replaced by Assumption 1': The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source.

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

but i have my own view

see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413#addPost

Ms. Vasilyeva, you wrote: "Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant."

Is the speed of light "the property of space" in the same way in which the speed of sound is the property of air? If yes, the speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer, and your community rating may plummet.

Best regards, Pentcho

Hi M.V. Your essay was a fun read, and I think the picture you have of how things work is better than many. I agree that forces and particles should both be described in terms of spacetime geometry (topological solitons of some type), and also that large extra dimensions may be involved. I think you would enjoy reading about the bouncing droplet system -- it is a lot like your flatland. If you have no journal access send me an email, otherwise some references are given in my essay.

Andrew

Hi M. V. V.,

You wrote "fear of resurrecting old ether theories". Why fear? Is your suggestion a new ether theory? Was Einstein correct when he resurrected the ether in 1920 except for admitting it as preferred system of reference? I

n the discussion you repeatedly used "lol". I doubt that this is a persuading style. Don't some arguments e.g. by Pentcho Valev and Frank Makinson rather deserve a factual reply?

You called space a paradox. Galileo's pupil Torricelli and Guericke demonstrated that a spatio vacuo (without air) actually exists. Two kinds of experiments by the latter led to the industrial revolution and the study of electricity. Guericke tried to understand forces between distant bodies. I see justified curiosity but no paradox in this case.

Cantor's transfinite cardinalities and Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) led into many paradoxes even if their supporter tend to deny them and your ideas are nonetheless based on SR if spacetime is based on SR.

Einstein in 1905 tacitly referred to Lorentz. Lorentz adopted Potier's correction to Michelson's first experiment.

Meanwhile, some experts questioned that the null-result of MMX disproves the existence of an absolute space alias ether alias preferred frame of reference. I quoted some of them in my essay. My own humble contribution is my Fig. 5. Feel challenged to either provide a different explanation or resurrect absolute space.

Using the expression "in time" you seem to fatalistically believe that there are future worldlines in reality.

At least I appreciate that you understand light propagating within the medium space.

Eckard

Ms. Vasilyeva,

I appreciate Eckard responding about ether, he explains it better than I can. I read an article some time ago where a person stated that the arguments used for the need of a Higgs boson, and its related field, were essentially the same arguments used for the need of "aether".

Your last comment contained: "I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay)." Topic 1539 contains the term "energeum", and the essay develop the characteristics of this "stuff" to fill up the quantum vacuum.

I find it inconceivable that contemporary physicists never bother to explain why space, essentially a vacuum, has permittivity and permeability, measurable characteristics. I am beginning to think that it is deliberately ignored. I don't believe the scientific community realizes that EM waves cannot propagate without the presence of a medium that posseses permittivity and permeability, which could be described as a "neutral field" that permeates all space and matter.

And, Einstein, Minkowski and all the other scientists of that era were totally ignorant that electromagnetic (EM) waves, over a wide spectrum, were pervasive in space. These "ancient scientists" were aware that light reached the earth from distance stars, and it was an EM phenomenon, but they were totally unaware that other EM spectrum was reaching earth. This was not "discovered" until the 1930s, by a couple of what were called "radio engineers" at that time. Georgina Parry, topic 1316, used the term "incomplete information" as a polite term for "ignorance".

There is a very simple explanation how EM fields can accomplish what is called gravity, but Einstein acolytes will not even consider anything that doesn't fit General Relativity, even if it is simple.

Thank you M. V. V. for responding. Being ignorant of the ADD model, I read: "Results from the Large Hadron Collider do not appear to support the model."

Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Admittedly, I only found out that the primary reason for Einstein to fabricate SR was based on the most likely wrong assumption that the MMX will yield a non-null result; see my Fig. 5.

Can any electromagnetic wave propagate in a Faraday's cage? I am an EE; I say no. Is your space something with a frequency-dependent transfer function?

While I agree on the assumption that there is perhaps something (call it absolute space or ether or preferred background) that em waves refer to like the sea that carries a ship, I would not infer that it "makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease."

Eckard

.

Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,

It is my essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1516

Comment?

Marek