• [deleted]

Dear Sophie Hebden,

Your article point out the correct way to deal with double slit experiment - Time is the important issue when we deal with space wave patterns.

I wish you could read my essay "Rethink of the Double Slit Experiment",

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Xiao_KeXiaoFQXi828.pdf

which discussed the space-time model of particle scattering and wave interference combination. My work shows

[math]\triangle T=T_{c}[\cos(\theta_{1})-\cos(\theta_{2})][/math]

and more importantly the cross-linked angle with time.

Yours,

Ke Xiao

  • [deleted]

"While developing relativity, Einstein realized that gravity affects the rate at which clocks tick. This has been confirmed experimentally, using atomic clocks raised to different heights; clocks closer to the ground tick more slowly."

This is simply not true. The only measurable effect is the gravitational redshift, and it is due to the acceleration of photons in a gravitational field (light falls like any material object), not to "changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks":

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

    I'm looking forward to the results, which I predict will show that there is no such thing as time dilation.

    I would also like to point out that clocks do not measure time. They merely count the number of cycles in a periodic and cyclic system. Hence the slowing down of the mechanism of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time, which in my opinion is nothing more than a relational concept allowing to compare events to cyclic and periodic systems we call clocks.

    In fact, the only evidence that time is a physical aspect of reality is that time dilation is verified, but as mentioned above, the slowing down of a clock does not imply the slowing down of time.

    This is why the experiment suggested in this article is so important. If, as I predict, it shows no time dilation, the repercussions will be enormous and will put into question the prevailing physics theories.

      • [deleted]

      Gravitational time dilation or variable speed of light?

      David Morin, Chapter 14: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed."

      Is that true? If the top of the tower emits light towards the ground, the observer on the ground will measure the frequency to be higher than the initial frequency measured at the top. Two reasons are conceivable:

      1. Higher clocks run faster than lower clocks (gravitational time dilation).

      2. Light accelerates as it falls. If the initial frequency (measured at the top) is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the final frequency (measured on the ground) is f'=(c+v)/L, where v is the increment to the speed of the light.

      If (1) is true, (2) is false and vice versa.

      Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls. For instance, as it falls to a black hole, it slows down to zero, turns back completely into mass, and can't escape (zero velocity).

      Likewise, when the wavefunction collapses, or higher Bohr orbitals collapse to lower orbits, the photons slow, not speed up. They fully collapse on the screen in the double slit, and collapse back to their black hole -like state.

      As for MTS, the M side represents Black Holes, and the S side vaccuum energy (Dark Energy). The "M" side represents slower light, not faster. Light slows down in a gravitational field, Full curvature of space = black hole= light can't escape = zero velocity.

      This all should be consistent with CIG Theory.

      Maybe not

      Who Knows, Long Day

      doug

      • [deleted]

      doug wrote: "I'm not sure if light accelerates as it falls."

      According to Newton's emission theory of light, light accelerates like all material objects (in 1911 Einstein explicitly used this). According to the final version of general relativity, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter":

      "...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

      "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

      Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

      Pentcho Valev

      Before people lose a whole lot of money betting against quantum mechanics, you need to look at similar experiments performed on neutrons being sent to horizontal slits at different potentials, which show the interference pattern. The good researchers at Ford Motor Company and Purdue University played similar games in 1976 with neutrons ( http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/ao%20refs/aifm%20refs%20sorted%20by%20topic/inertial%20sensing%20refs/gravity/COW75%20neutron%20gravity.pdf ) and more recently in 2002 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6869/abs/415297a.html where it was concluded:

      "The particles are allowed to fall towards a horizontal mirror which, together with the Earth's gravitational field, provides the necessary confining potential well. Under such conditions, the falling neutrons do not move continuously along the vertical direction, but rather jump from one height to another, as predicted by quantum theory"

        • [deleted]

        There are no such things as discrete "here then there with nothing in between quantum jumps". The "in betweens" are new spatial quantities at the expense of mass; conversely, the creation of mass at the expense of space.

        www.cigtheory.com

        • [deleted]

        Does it care (don't like to use the word matter in any context other than mass)whether the light is falling into or attempting to escape from the cener of gravity??

        Freeze an instant of time and look at light escaping from a star, or falling toward its center of gravity, let's assume not knowing which way. Take for instance a spot twenty miles away.

        The light escaping will be fighting the tendency of gravity to pull it back (consistent with CIG, light [photons] have mass until they reach full "c" speed - they lose their mass along the way. In this manner, they are affected by gravity). As it moves farther away from the star's center of gravity, it will travel faster. And as it travels faster, it loses mass, only becoming a massless photon at the speed of light. [partial loss of matter = Dark matter, full loss of matter = Dark Energy]

        The light falling will be slowing, since it cannot both acclerate toward the center of gravity and at the same time accelerate away from it. It slows because it no longer travels at or near "c" rate. It is on its way back to becoming a matter particle.[Similarly, when it hits the screen in the double slit, light stops]

        But, lets assume that the profesor is correct and that it is accelerating as it falls. Does it not stop at some point? If not, it must accelerate forever. If it stops, has it not slowed? If it cannot reach escape velocity as in a black hole, it has become the singularity.

        Still think light slows as it falls toward a massive object. It attempts to reach equilibrium with that object, which itself is slow. As it does so, it loses some of its manifested spatial character, and reinvents itself as a massive object. As a massive object, it travels slower than "c" (or smaller percentages thereof), even when accelerating toward the center of gravity.

        maybe not

        doug (www.cigtheory.com) - website needs work/paper has issues

        4 days later
        • [deleted]

        I think "Time Dilation" is represented in reality as Space ceation, and this explains the new space in the expanding Universe.

        As excerpted from CIG Theory:

        "Where there is a different time there must be a different

        place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

        space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

        volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

        space created as the result of different times imparted onto

        the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

        nature of nature."

        www.cigtheory.com (donation PO Box down)

        need help in furthering CIG Theory - please attempt a read THX

        doug

        Thanks doug. I can't say I've been to Coney Island, so it is entirely possible the laws are physics are different there.

        • [deleted]

        Thanks Harlan! I truly appreciate that you went to my site. I hope you understand the theory. (& ignored the part about alien beings)

        The laws of physics are the same in Coney Island, even for the sword swallower. CIG offers a paradigm shift. CIG brings determinism back into the picture. I have attempted its application to many things.

        I hope I'm right. If not, I'll spend the next few years sending emails apologizing for my antics.

        Can you answer my balloon question?

        Can anyone answer my balloon question?

        doug

        • [deleted]

        To All,

        The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

        To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]

        CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)

        Wherein it is stated "actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination.":

        YES, according and consistent with CIG, the "did something" was to slow the "real" probabalistic wave function and to collapse it. To observe interferes sufficiently and truly so that the probability (in all actuality there is a new and real spatial volume that was created as a result of the motion of the particle) collapses into the defined observation (customarily on the screen in the double slit, or before that if obbservation posts are placed in between the slits and the screen. Anytime the wave slows, it will become the smaller identifiable particle. Prior to observation, it travels at great speeds and its spatial qualities are manifested. It has become its larger spatial self. The correspondence between quantum and classical reality relies on the fact that quantum is in motion and classical is zero %"c". Quantum is classical at zero velocity. MTS

        THX

        doug (www.cigtheory.com)

          • [deleted]

          The above, above CIG Attempt at explanation (www.cigtheory.com)

          , was taken from WIKI, which I meant to credit.

          I am attemting to explain away the measurement problem.

          I hope that you follow my rationale. It may require a full read and total understanding of CIG Theory. (www.CIGTheory.com)

          Don't forget the marshmallows...

          THX

          doug

          doug,

          The so-called measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been solved. Please read the first chapter of this book:

          Joy Christian

          Image 1

          • [deleted]

          Not only is time important, but scale is crucial too.

          The other morning I was about to leave my homr for work, as I looked out of the window to see what weather like, I noticed while looning up at Orion, the image I observed was I dentical to the diffraction grating image on the head page of this article. when I moved my head left, to a point where there was no net curtain, the star I was looking at reverted back to a "point like" white dot? The fact fine net curtain can reproduce this effect macroscopically, has got me thinking about scale and distance.

          This effect is no different to the quantum douvle slit experiment, go find a fine mesh and try for yourself, the bigger the mesh (slit), the more pointlike the image, you can actuall perform the double slit experiment on a macro scale yourself :) !

            • [deleted]

            Sorry this was my post above.

            7 days later
            • [deleted]

            time has no physical dimension,

            time is a mathematical dimension of change running in a 3D quantum vacuum.

            see my papers in Physics essays - AIP

            Amrit Sorli

            20 days later
            • [deleted]

            Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie's solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein's theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein's namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein's equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale's theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe's expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten's M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

              22 days later
              • [deleted]

              by double slit experiment happens that by sending particles only through one slit interference pattern will appear because each particle moving in space creates also a wave of space which than pass the other slit.....and time here is just numerical order of motion of particle in a 3D spaceAttachment #1: Time_is_a_mesuring_system_derived_from...pdf