Alternative Models of Reality

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

Let me check my understanding of your two cases and in both cases let us put the observer inside a chest as Einstein did in his example.

1. Under freefall in a 1g gravitational field. I assume you mean under freefall in space with no air resistance. In this case the observer feels weightless inside the chest.

2. Under an acceleration force of 1g but not by gravity. In this case the observer is being accelerated by 1g through contact with the floor of the chest and feels as if he is in a 1g gravitational field.

So in these two cases the observer feels quite different apparent forces.

Have I understood your two cases correctly?

What I am saying is that your case 1 is equivalent to no acceleration and no gravitational field as perceived by the observer.

Regarding the equations E=mc^2. amd M= E/c^2

I think the m in E=mc^2 would normally be referred to as relativistic mass although this terminology is unpopular with some it seems. Where the expression M= E/c^2 is used as a formula for rest mess it seems to me that the assumption must be that the object is at rest.

I am also puzzling a bit about the idea of the frame of reference in which the relativistic mass equals the rest mass. We can say that the relativistic mass will always be greater or equal to the rest mass and depend on the speed of the object but speed relative to what? If we send two objects with the same mass in opposite directions with the same velocity relative to ourselves will they have the same relativistic mass or does it depend on any possible motion of us as the observer relative to some absolute frame of reference in which rest mass equals relativistic mass?

Richard

Thomas Ray

Richard,

"I think the m in E=mc^2 would normally be referred to as relativistic mass although this terminology is unpopular with some it seems."

Popular or not, that's exactly what the equation means. Rest energy is equal to rest mass. There's all kinds of mystical meaning proposed for the constant 'c' in these forums, which is plain balderdash. The speed of light is just a mathematical constant, for cripes sake, like 0, 1, or pi. It's a limiting value in the conversion of mass to kinetic energy.

Another nice job of compact exposition.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Richard,

The underhand switch of inertial to rest mass breaks the rules of mathematics at E=m/c^2 and shows us the way to solve the problem you correctly identify.

If you send 2 identical objects in opposite directions at v, then YOUR OWN state of motion will dictate inertial mass if you met. SR (Einstein's postulates) is fine. Just a bit of the interpretive baggage is wrong.

An assumption was made that any 'third' background frame had to be 'privileged' and the only ONE in the universe. But backgrounds for light propagation are particle systems which can move, as can observers within it. In this model light changes speed to local c on arrival at each of these 'discrete fields' (DFM).

'Speed' is D/T. But as there is both 'Proper' and co-ordinate time there must then also be Proper(gation) and apparent (relative) speed. The car coming the other way may then be doing 10mph, but also arbitrary 30mph if YOU are doing 20mph, so WILL have higher inertial mass IF (and only if) you meet and interact.

The general DFM rule then is 'background inertial systems can move' so allowing 'observer dependence', so removing all the nonsense and dissent from SR.

Tom, if you're reading this; If a car is at rest and YOU walked into it at 1mph you'd find it has minimal inertial mass. But if you drove into it at 60mph you'd discover observer dependence DOES make a difference!

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"If a car is at rest ..."

Relative to what?

Richard Lewis

Thank you both. I understand my mistake now. Rest mass is also called invariant mass and it is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations.

Richard

James Putnam

Peter,

Your answer is that your model predicts the same change in energy as does the gravitational red shift? The means by which this occurs is not due to repeated absorption and emission? Those do not change the energy? The energy change does not occur due to the diminishing number of absorptions and emissions that results in an increasing propagation speed? Those were questions looking for necessary corrections. The change in energy is due to what effect on the photon or wave? I am looking for a cause of change of energy that exists in this gravitational example but did not exist in my earlier non-gravitational example. I am expecting the difference to be something that occurs to the wave or photon. Something that can be addressed in simple physical terms such as what happens to the wavelength or what happens to the frequency or what happens to the wave number, etc. Why does the energy change in this example but not in the other? What is the key difference that causes the energy to change in the same amount as predicted by relativity theory?

James Putnam

Peter,

"The GRIN lens propagation speed change describes it perfectly, and the 'precise specifics' predict the wavelength delta found."

Can you explain this by referring to the waveform and showing why its changes result in a change energy? Is there a graph that shows your data conforming to the curve for gravitational red shift? Presumably your solution will allow me to ask for the energy at any height and that the answer will match that of gravitational red shift.

James Putnam

Peter,

"I a nutshell, if a 'trigger' energy isn't reached at any point in space and time no photon is re-emitted, and in the same way no new fermion pair is propagated."

I was in error. I said Compton effect while thinking of near misses at various distances. What I should have been asking about is a Bremsstrahlung collision. Your responses were confusing to me, but only as a result of my asking a confused question. I probably need to put that question aside for now and review the details of a Bremsstrahlung collision. I want to make sure that if I ask a question about it that involves understanding your model that my question is coherent. Sorry about that.

James Putnam

The acceleration of light is very significant for distances less than 4.8x10-11. It quickly decreases to very small increases for greater distances. For materials where atoms are packed closely together the speed of light will blend into a near constant value. It still undergoes very significant accelerations for light that approach nucleuses for distances less than the first energy level radius of the atoms. Light cannot continue to accelerate for distances that do not increase away from the nucleuses. Similarly, light cannot increase its speed for level distances above the Earth.

This idea of light accelerating is currently anathema. Yet the only thing lost due to a variable speed of light is time dilation. Light speed varies, time does not warp. The work that has been developed using a variable speed of light reveals that there is a universal constant increment of time. That increment of time turns out to be the key to achieving full fundamental unity.

Adding in something else: The speed of light and the speed of sound in a material are related. They are related in the manner of the properties currently identified as electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.

James Putnam

Peter,

"I can't recall precisely how you treat 'mass' in f=ma as to me it's best represented as relative motion, but in a gyroscopic terms as OAM. That just leaves the unknowable question of motion of 'what' (apart from ground comprathene)."

I certainly understand that your model deserves your attention. The things that I say are incompatible with your model. My point here is not that you should invest your time in understanding my work, the point is merely to make clear that if you don't know what I have done with defining mass, then, you will understand why I say the things I do. A large amount of what I speak about results directly from defining mass. I won't go into it here. I have covered it many times in other threads.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

"Can you explain this by referring to the waveform and showing why its changes result in a change energy? Is there a graph that shows your data conforming to the curve for gravitational red shift? Presumably your solution will allow me to ask for the energy at any height and that the answer will match that of gravitational red shift."

There is no change in energy, it's just more or less compressed/concentrated by the apparent 'speed change' from a certain observer frame. The 'energy per unit time' to that observer is constant. Only when the 2nd element 'relative motion' enters the fray does the LT also apply.

But first; The answers to your 15.50GMT questions; 1) it is, 2) Correct, 3-4) There is NO total energy 'change', just wavelength. As speed and time is treated incorrectly it's misunderstood. The rest of your statement ignored the simple fact that ALL ENERGY IS CONSERVED in the wavenumber.

LT; Any delta can be simply derived. Length Contraction;

Delta x' = delta x /y. y.=.the Lorentz Factor 1/ root 1-v^2/c^2.

This produces a curve which happens to closely emulate the effects of particle density reduction. In fact the curve profile varies and the Yukawa potential often more closely describes nature (or 'screened Coulomb potential', with it's sharper 'cut off'). The uncertainty theorem applies reducing precision to 1st order. But you will only find different redshift at different heights not different 'energy' once making the proper time correction;

delta t' = y delta t. (y = dt/dT where T is proper time).

Compton, Yes, your posts were very confusing, so I just responded to the case you described. Bremsstrahlung should occur at electron energy delta's on speed changes due to interactions because an electron is a quantised coherent 'body' so will emit low energy photons. The understanding of electron 'heating' at shock is nonsense. the increased 'energy levels' measured are over a unit time in the detector frame, so only represent the speed 'change' when viewed from a fixed frame.

I recall being unconvinced but interested in your definition of mass, but can't recall details now, and don't recall it unravelled the 'mysteries' of rest/ inertial/ relativistic etc. If it did do point me to it.

I hope that answers all your questions.

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

"If a car is at rest ...". Relative to what? Excellent question!

Always, and entirely invariably, 'at rest' may and must be specified as with respect to IT'S LOCAL BACKGROUND.

You will find this can always be done, even if the local background is the most diffuse plasma inertial system in space. Give it a test run. You won't find a non conforming case.

In the case of the car, YOU are then in motion at 1mph wrt the same local background inertial system (air). Only when you MEET the car does it have any effect on YOUR OWN inertial system (rest frame).

It's the same in space. If you're blindfolded and float into a ship, you'll have no idea it was there, or if it was you or the ship moving. All these local 3rd ('background') frame are clearly NOT 'absolute' and are not required to be 'absolute'. It was just assumed that they HAD to be to exist at all.

ALL the effects the SR postulates describe are produced, more logically, and more consistent with nature.

You can then allow that accelerating and hitting the ship at 60mph does NOT imply IT has more mass!. Allowing observer dependency means you may now admit your personal relative inertial state wrt any datum is also relevant.

The mathematical rule breaking of E-m/c^2 not directly corresponding to E=mc^2 is then overcome, so the "complete" maths then also follow the rules.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter,

How does one measure the speed of background space, such that a car is at rest relative to it? In other words, if a car in uniform motion is measured to be traveling at 60 mph and said to be at rest relative to space, how does one know that the space is traveling at 60 mph?

If another car passes the first at a speed of 120 mph, has the speed of the background space now doubled, so that the 60 mph car is negatively accelerating against the 120 mph background and the 120 mph car is at rest relative to a background space traveling at 120 mph? Are cars traveling at different speeds, relative to each other, at rest relative to their own unique background spaces unless the cars are at rest relative to each other?

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

"How does one measure the speed of background space." It's the apparent difficulty of doing that which has confounded us, but considering carefully, it's easier, even with no dense gas.

Firstly; Within the EM field (magneto/ionsophere/shock) of any body there is a rest frame at rest (1st order) with the body. So in geostationary orbit round Earth you are at any arbitrary speed wrt all other bodies, but at rest with Earth (actually there's an orbiting frame with a rotating atmosphere frame within it).

Deeper into space the reference body is the sun, out to the helisphere (or properly the 'solar wind' radial rest frame). Beyond that are the galaxy arm, galaxy, (rotating), Halo, LG, Cluster, SC, Filament and local universe etc. If you're blindfolded you still have the Unruh effect and a few other ways of stirring up the Higgs field/mechanism (the Apollo's all stirred up ions that shone as they streamed back like 'ice crystals')

If you have two craft and a radio it's then simple, because the signals go at c wrt the ISM not the emitter ('emission theory'). This is exactly what happens with probes. c is always wrt the 'mysterious' ignored background frame (barycentric /sun) NOT the emitter! [thus the 'ecliptic plane' problem of astronomy]. Of course the more diffuse the medium the longer the /annihilation distance (J.D Jackson) and birefringence.

I think it would be quite simple to devise an instrument that detects the local rest frame (or it's nearest approximation) A readout of surface enhanced Raman scattering plasmon density from relative 3D motions would do it.

So we do 60mph through the ionosphere and another car passes the first at 120mph: "has the speed of the background space now doubled,?" Of course not. it's far simpler than that and entirely intuitive, just like in air. There are always TWO 'speeds', as on Earth. Your PROPER (propagation) speed and the purely arbitrary 'RELATIVE' speed of the other car, which also arbitrarily depends on your speed (it uses only 'co-ordinate' time). He has his own entirely equivalent system.

IF, and ONLY if, you meet and interact does the relative speed becomes a physical problem! - exactly as on Earth. (and the m=E/c^2 problem in the maths is resolved.

I've also found this which shows how the DFM is consistent with and fully rationalises the Friedman universe; On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann Universes. AJ, 429; 491-498, 1994.

(also this, which agrees much of the foundation of my essay); Bliokh, K. Y., Bekshaev, A. Y., Kofman, A. G. & Nori, F. Photon trajectories, anomalous velocities and weak measurements: a classical interpretation. New Journal of Physics 15, 073022 (2013).

I'm hoping you may have a eureka moment.

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

Measuring speed wrt background space; Unruh of course found it, The Unruh effect is proposed to be only from 'acceleration' but that bit's never proven.

Wiki describes the tool perfectly wave a thermometer about in space. There's a non zero temperature subject to speed. Just Google it.

The CMB kinetic domains are irrefutable evidence of local rest frames, as indeed are Friedmans equations. In the link above Sumner didn't allow for photon/plasma interactions which mitigate the effect he describes, but confirm the local permeability delta's.

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

Peter,

Wikipedia tells me that the hypothetical Unruh effect was not observed but is still merely predicted on the basis of Einstein's relativity.

If I understood you correctly, you are claiming that Friedman's equations are irrefutable evidence of local rest frames. Can an equation at all be evidence?

Being a German, I have sometimes problems to understand what you wrote:

bit's

Wiki describes the tool perfectly wave a thermometer about in space.

Friedmans

delta's

Regards,

Eckard

Thomas Ray

Peter, aside from the fact that I would never trust Wikipedia as a single source of science authority, I fail to to see how you relate the Unruh effect -- a quantum-mechanical conjecture -- to the classical case you propose and to which my questions are addressed.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Peter,

Thank you. I think that is enough to work with. I needed to get away from examples of my own making. I don't want to have to specify everything. The Pound-Rebka experiment is different from my examples because it involves general relativity theory ideas. I can focus the my questions without the obligation to fill in all the blanks first. Physicists have done that. Also, its result is not being interpreted by me, its interpretation is consistent with established physics theory. I wanted to look at your model first from outside the mechanism. In other words, I wanted to focus on inputs and outputs and maybe receive responses that were leaner in content.

I will look for a way to challenge what appears to me to be your contention: That the energy does not change and that its compression with time is what makes it not accepted at the bottom of the tower. I guess this already starts some discussion, because, my next comment is that: Presumably the corrective action, consistent with your model, that needs to be taken for the photon or wave to be made acceptable is the decompression of the energy? I guess it would be helpful to know now if you agree or disagree with those two statements?

James Putnam

Received fresh evidence from a recent message that the following needs repeated with more emphasis. I describe that which is apparently not obvious but is definitely self-evident:

F=ma begins its existence as an empirical equation. It begins with the recognition that the empirical evidence of acceleration of objects tell us that, besides the empirical properties of length and time, there are two additional properties. One is the cause of the acceleration and the other is resistance to acceleration. We don't know what the cause of acceleration is but the equation symbolizes it with the letter F. We don't know what the cause of resistance to acceleration is, but, the equation symbolizes it with the letter m. The names chosen for them are force and mass.

There immediately arises a challenge of how to define force and mass. Acceleration doesn't need to be defined. It consists of measures of length and time. There are no properties before length and time by which they may be made defined properties. Length and time are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. We either find a way to define both mass and force using only properties of length and time or we must invent a fundamental indefinable status for one of them. It has not been known how to define both force and mass so the choice was, and remains, that mass would be arbitrarily be made a fundamental indefinable property.

That act was the first intrusion of theory into a physics equations. From that point on f=ma became subservient to a theory instead of representing that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. nature communicates its mechanical information to us by the acceleration of objects. Instead of allowing that evidence to show us what mass is, physicists told the equation that mass would be a theoretical invention.

Adding to this: My opinion is that if one accepts the indefinable status of mass, then one is adopting a theoretical belief system. One has to have a definition for mass because the status of mass infects almost all physics equations that follow f=ma. If one uses an indefinable mass, then one is adopting an indefinable physics. Making matters worse is the acceptance of an indefinable temperature. Then there remains one more theoretical obstacle to remove from physics equations. That one can wait until mass receives the defined status that it must have to advance scientific learning. The end result is direct dependence upon empirical evidence for direction, and thereby, learning that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

The model agrees both, also Friedmans equation which does add a 3rd order energy change, but not noticeable over short distance and time. In fact if you study the Friedman Universe carefully, though ostensibly compatible with Maxwell/Einstein, it does derive evolution of space permittivity which means from certain frames light speed will appear to change at change of density, precisely as the DFM solution to Pound-Rebka. This is such a high order effect in terms of evolution of permittivity over cosmic time it's 'local perturbation' analogue is wrongly ignored.

I recall there are actually three (other) commonly proposed solutions to the Pound-Rebka experiment, all of which have some claimed theoretical issue or other. Dayton Miller found the same effect due to altitude at Mount Wilson and also could't rationalise it. I recall the same correct solution is described somewhere in here; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163

I find leaner understanding always incomplete understanding, propagating confusion, but agree we now live in a world of 'sound-bites!

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

James,

Your definition of force and mass are very good and agreeable insofar as they are descriptive of behavioural properties; Cause and resistance to acceleration.

In the DFM the cause for both is dynamic, both based on orbital angular momentum (you recall I discussed gyroscopics). This may be intuitive for the 'resistance' half but is less so for the 'accelerative' half. In that case we must imagine ourselves changing frames to the rest frame of the entity which imparts the force. We can now envisage our original mass approaching and interacting. Now we have the quality linear momentum to make a quantitative comparison between two orbital momenta energies. the rule is simple; The BIGGER one accelerates less on interaction as a function of relative embedded energy (we're assuming a case of bound matter where absorption does not occur). The effect on the electric field of each particle is a distortion. I'm not sure how much of that you agree with.

The bit the DFM disagrees with is "acceleration" of EM waves (light), because quantized changes of speed is different to acceleration. It will certainly LOOK LIKE acceleration from far enough off, but I find a better discernment is required to unravel that confused knotty mess. You may consider the point semantic and you'd be part right as there is no one word to describe this 'staged additivity' of speed. The difference is that in all cases between each interaction the propagation speed remains c.

As I consider this solution belongs to nature (and also to Friedman's equations ref varying vacuum permittivity as my post above) I have no issue with you adopting any of it at all, but if you see any reason why you think it incorrect do identify.

The last matter, energy, is of course also frame dependent in the DFM, which is all about discerning between effects from different observer frames. A non accelerating truck and you, also at rest in your own frame, will still have a major crash and undergo acceleration if your rest frames are in co-motion! It seems that really does require a new fundamental way of looking at things!

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »