Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

Eckard, as an EE who I know believes so much in safety, given Einstein's statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a second, what will you advice astronauts going above 10,000km into space? Remember if you are one of the engineers you can be sued knowing the theory and the corroborating experiments if an accident occurs. Will you say Einstein was responsible for the accident or BIPM? Now that commercial private space trips are coming up, if an instrument on board the spacecraft depends on the definition of a second, will you embark on the trip relying on BIPM definition alone or be a bit careful in case Einstein was right?

Regards,

Akinbo

THE VACUUM

Some thoughts while I have them:

Read (until the math came along) with interest at least part of:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf

The Quantum Vacuum and the

Cosmological Constant Problem

S.E. Rughﾂヂnd H. Zinkernagely

To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

With regard to, as extracted:

"Following these discussions, Bludman and Ruderman (1977) [9] argue that even

though the vacuum energy density was very large at the time of the symmetry

breaking, it was nevertheless negligible in comparison with the thermal energy density of ultra-relativistic particles present at the time."

END (extracted material)

ENTER CIG THEORY (www.cigtheory.com)

If I am interpreting the above correctly, the notation appears consistent with CIG's interpretation of nature.

Recall that in CIG, and the MTS equation, the "S" or Space side of the equation represents rate at "c" [this correlates to the comment "....it was nevertheless negligible in comparison with the thermal energy density of ultra-relativistic particles present at the time" as noted above]

In CIG, there is a rate dependent Variable Cosmological Non-Constant.

MTS: M is a black hole while S is pure Space (the vacuum)

The vacuum density on the "S" side of the equation is much less per unit area than the right side, this because of the mass to space conversion.

The M energy and the S energy are equivalent.

But, they need to be renormalized as to the area.

[ i.e. is the area of the new spatial equivalence in the MTS conversion (see also CUPI quantification) some 120 orders of magnitude greater in volume than the original volume of the M side of the MTS equation??] If so, the renormalization may equate the Quantum calculation(particle or "M" assumed)of the vacuum to the Observed calculation (Spatial or "S" assumed) , thereby solving the Vacuum Catastrophe]

So, maintaining this thought pattern, perhaps the 120 orders of magnitude problem is the result of the need for an area based renormalization to account for the much greater spatial volume at relativistic speeds. Remember, in CIG, as mass travels faster and faster, it offers itself up as new spatial quantities. Space goes up, mass goes down, energy remains conserved.

In this manner, CIG may explain the Vacuum Catastrophe and Cosmological Non-Constant Problems.

You must understand both CIG Theory and the Vacuum Catastrophe and Cosmological (Non-Constant) Problems and in depth to assess the above.

Perhaps S.E. Rughﾂヂnd H. Zinkernagel could give it a shot in the dark (recall that CIG also offers a solution to the dark matters)

see www.CIGTheory.com

I am only trying to help

doug

Note added to my last post entitled THE VACUUM

For those who may not understand CIG Theory, please recognize that the Cosmological Constant varies (hence my use of the terminology Cosmological Non-Constant) as follows:

As the rate of a traveling massive particle increases, it manifests itself as a greater Volume (at "c" it is pure space)(at zero "c" [zero mph] it is a black hole). This greater Volume (low density)(less spacetime curvature), offers itself up as a large (small??)valued Cosmological Non-Constant.

At slow rates of travel, spacetime curvature is denser, and the Cosmological Non-Constant is therefore smaller (larger??).

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

The varying cosmological non-constant (CIG Theory) varies Lorentz transformationaly proportional to rate of speed, and from zero mph to "c".

See CIG Theory & try to understand (even if I'm wrong) so that you are aware of the theory. You can always throw rotten tomatoes at the theory. But you can't throw rotten tomatoes at it until you understand what it is that is being proposed.

www.cigtheory.com

THX

doug (don't throw the rotten tomatoes at me, only at the theory)

Clarification/correction:

Where in my last post it read:

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

IT SHOULD READ:

Question to the community: Does an entity experiencing full space-time curvature (i.e. black hole)(zero mph in CIG Theory) correlate to the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

Thank you

doug (it just plain read wrong)(I think it reads better now)

There should have been a question mark.

To Professor Isham,

My first posting on this article was an offer that CIG Theory is offered to the community as a Theory of Quantum Gravity (on top of all its other reckless claims).

This was only recently realized after having absorbed your simple explanation of what Quantum Gravity is, as listened to on Closer to The Truth (you are all my heroes):

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Paths-to-Quantum-Gravity-Christopher-Isham-/1672

Thank you and recognize that your explanation of quantum gravity represents the extent of my education in this field. However, once explained in the simple manner presented, it became clear that the MTS equation is an equation of Quantum Gravity and that CIG Theory is a theory of quantum gravity.

While my site posted that CIG combines the mass energy equation with the spacetime continuum, and these claims are self evident in CIG, I never really knew until your explanation that this is what Quantum Gravity is all about.

I hope one day you understand my theory (just ignore the crazy stuff)

Thank you again.

doug

Regarding previous posts:

I think I changed my mind. With regard to the MTS equation, approaching the "S" side of the equation, that is the vacuum (pure space) side, the Cosmological Non-Constant is getting smaller. Toward the "M" side it is getting larger.

Am I right?

THX

doug

No Doug,

Don't disappear into a black hole just yet! I will get around to read your theory and even if I don't agree with it I am sure I would get some fresh insights which has usually been the case after exchanges with others. For example, my exchanges with Tom, Eckard and Peter J led me to writing a new paper which I hope will be published after peer-review. Another advice is that you have not been engaging with others on their own views and see what your CIG theory better explains. Nevertheless, as the saying goes tough times don't last, tough people do. Best of luck.

In another blog topic, Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?, Alan Lowey pointed out on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT that not all clocks run faster in space, "It worth noting that pendulum clocks tick or swing more slowly at higher altitudes contrary to atomic clocks. This to me is proof that 'time' can't be thought of as running faster in a lower gravitational field, only *atomic* clocks can". This appears correct, given, T = 2ПЂ(в€љl/g) or T = 2ПЂ(в€љlr2/GM) but can still be tested in space. If confirmed, this will be in contrast to atomic clocks, e.g. Gravity Probe A: "At 10,000km above earth, general relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 10-10 faster than one on the Earth", Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that gravity slows the flow of time.

MATTERS ARISING: If pendulum clocks run slower in lesser gravity, and atomic clocks run faster, what is the implication for theoretical physics? I venture to suggest a few:

1. Since the effect of gravity on time-keeping devices NOW depends on the device, time is independent of gravity and the measurement of its flow depends on the device used.

2. Observed slowing and bending of light IS NOT due to gravity itself directly but is mediated by and is due to something else involved in light propagation, which something else can be affected by gravity. Perhaps, (in my opinion) a non-baryonic dark matter bound to the celestial body, since this is transparent to light and can form a medium for light propagation, slowing and refraction which medium's density can be affected also by gravity?

3. Since atomic clocks say one thing and pendulum clocks say the opposite, if time is perceived to flow, even if this is an illusion according to Paul Davies, a background 'illusory' time independent of device is required in physics. We may have to swallow the humble pie and return to Newton's Absolute Time.

Akinbo

*Any opinion on how to handle this discordant behaviour in time-keeping should be encouraged as it will help increase our understanding of reality.

Akinbo,

That's a very interesting point. You have to wonder how such basic facts slip through the cracks and the conversation is about multiverses, firewalls and I might add, non-locality.

The point I keep making, that the basis of time is the physical change which turns potential into residual, ie, future into past and not some metaphysical dimension based on the measures of rates of occurrence, ie, duration, does explain this quite easily, but it's simple, so not interesting.

What if light is its own medium and the presence of mass will contract it? So that as its flowing past a massive object, the light closer to the mass is contracted more than that further away and this causes the path of the light as medium to bend? The problem with treating light as though it's discrete particles, is that presumably what happens to one photon doesn't affect the one next to it, but if it is all connected at some level, it would act like a sort of fluid and the waves and photons are just manifestations of this underlaying nature. Much like waves and drops of water are manifestations of the qualities of H2O. Photons than are units of light, not indivisible particles. Eric Reiter did a very interesting contest entry on this.

Thank you and Alan again for a good laugh. History is not going to be particularly kind to this generation of physicists.

Regards,

John M

John, PERFECT! Then each action is its own clock and runs according to circumstance (from the Quark star blog). Resolves the dilemma.

Ether in today Physics and Proposal of experimental Verification

What is happening in physic today is that ether is coming back from the back door as a electromagnetic quantum vacuum of QED which is the carrier of a photon and electromagnetic phenomena in generally. This is so called "luminiferous" ether which was in physics at the end on 19th century. Einstein has also speculated on "gravitational ether" which should carry gravity. No need for that because gravity is carried by the variable energy density of ether in QED. Also mass has origin in variable energy density of QED. Relative velocity of rate of clocks has also origin in variable energy density of QED quantum vacuum. Ether was expelled from physics because of historical mistake of Michelson, namely that ether is still and earth moves through it with velocity 30 km/s. That ether is still is right, but when a body moves with it, ether which is surrounding it get in motion too. The latest prove for that is Gravity probe B. Earth turning around the axis is turning also ether around it and gyroscopes on satellites confirm that. Precession of the planets has origin in turning ether and the spiral shape of the galaxies too. Now we need a prove ether exists. We propose that MM experiment is repeated on the satellite. Satellite mass is small and is moving through the ether without pushing it in front of it as the earth do. So we expect that interferometer on the satellite will give a positive result.Attachment #1: Michelson-Morley_experiment_on_the_satelite.png

Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

Math consists of 2 types of consideration - discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).

The number system was created to count things. One thing plus one thing is 2 things, etc. When we talk of a thing in our scale (0.1 mm to 1000 km), we can say the thing is at that point or not. We could cahnge3 scale and still talk of integer things. For instance, 0.1 (mm) could be 100 (micrometers). Hence, a thing has a boundary.

Geometry talks of extended objects. A point can exist in the extended object. Descartes considered the continuous as infinitely divisible. Division presents a quandary in both maths. We can take 1 ft. and multiply by 3 and make a yard. But we cannot always take a thing and make 1/3 of the thing by a scale change. Where on a line is the point of 1/3? There is no such point. Is 1/3 real or is division an improper operation in physics?

Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics.

Consider Newton's idea for light. Light is a particle (discrete corpuscle) traveling and making waves in Descartes medium (called a continuous plenum). The particle causes waves in the plenum. The waves travel faster than the particle that then direct the particle. (Sounds like general relativity - matter distorts space which then influences mass motion.) Quantum entanglement is the result of the wave action on particles. If the frequency of the wave is related to the particle, resonance produces the entanglement.

If the reality were different, perhaps we'd be using a different math.

Yes Amrit, ether will come back but not the type of ether contemplated 100 years ago. "Regarding what you call the historical mistake of Michelson, namely that ether is still and earth moves through it with velocity 30 km/s..."

That ether is not coming back either through the back or front door. Why? The contention was that for the near-null Michelson results to be explained by a dragged ether, the dragging must be almost fully so, i.e. the Fresnel drag coefficient must be very high and for this to be so the ether would have to possess a very high refractive index making it almost opaque. A partially dragged ether could not explain the results.

What you should be looking for now is a form of matter that is transparent, capable of transmitting light, capable of interacting gravitationally so that it can be planet bound without any need for dragging and abundant enough to go round.

Akinbo

Dear All,

I submitted a paper to the CPEM 2014. Paper was not accepted.

Dear Author,

The revision process of the papers submitted to CPEM 2014 has finished. Unfortunately, the evaluation of your paper 'Frequency of Caesium 133 in Free Space and Its Implications', ID 48, was not accepted. Please, see below the reviewers' comments and inform them to the rest of the co-authors.

"Paper is not presenting original work or research. It is devoted to review some well known effects on time due to relativity. The proposal presented on this paper to introduce some note on the definition of the second should be proposed directly to the CCTF/BIPM. Actually such effects are taken into account in the operation of the GNSS like GPS, GLONASS and Galileo, among others".

Although disappointed, the unstated implication of the reviewers' comments is that the definition of a second on earth is already recognized to be different from that in space. Where does that leave the definition of light velocity as the 'universal' distance traveled by light in one second? Why is there 'official' secrecy about this value by BIPM and the establishment? If light velocity is higher in space going by the definition of a second, would signals transmitted to the Pioneer space craft not be catching up and returning earlier than envisaged using the earthly second, and if so where is the Pioneer anomaly after that? If the reviewers, being in authority acknowledge in their comment that the definition of a second using frequency of Caesium 133 is not universal, why ask a small me to direct my proposal to BIPM when they are better placed to do so? Is this how humanity should steer its future?

*See attached paper. And see my posts here on December 22, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT.

Regards,

AkinboAttachment #1: 2_CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

Hi JH,

Please reply to this post so that I may present some work which will be of great interest to you.

You have made a very good conjecture

"Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics."

for the rest you can contemplate this (very much tied to JH idea):

http://www.qsa.netne.net/a.htm

Just for the records. Similar paper withdrawn by Metrologia, the journal of the BIPM. See Editor's reason and my reply...

"Our decision on your article: MET-100189. We regret to inform you that the Editor has recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given below - I believe this subject is already covered in section 1.5 of the SI Brochure. There is no justification to a reference to the "Earth's surface" in the definition of the second. The second is a proper unit and the definition is valid in the vicinity of the instrument realizing the unit, wherever the instrument is".

My reply:

Thank you for considering my manuscript and commenting. This is appreciated not withstanding the withdrawal of the manuscript. The comments also afforded me the opportunity of re-reading the section 1.5 of the SI brochure.

Regarding the Editor's comments, there appears to be a discrepancy on the one hand in saying "definition is valid in the vicinity of the instrument realizing the unit, wherever the instrument is", when "wherever" could imply not being on Earth but in outer space, such as the International Space Station. While on the other hand, section 1.5 of the SI brochure disagrees and points out that "frequency standards, differ by about 1 part in 10^16 per metre of altitude difference at the surface of the Earth" and that "Effects of this magnitude cannot be neglected when comparing the best frequency standards". In other words, where the instrument is is important and cannot be neglected.

The manuscript concurs with the thinking of the statements in the SI brochure but suggests that as the thermodynamic environment was expressly included in the definition of the second by putting at 0 Kelvin, the gravitational environment should similarly be included and not put in a sub-section for reference only.

There may be no grounds for appeal so I accept your decision if it cannot be reviewed.

Many thanks.

Dr OjoAttachment #1: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper2.pdf

Richard Feynman and Newton's Emission Theory of Light

Richard P. Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles."

Richard Feynman: "A photon of frequency w_0 has the energy E_0 = hw_0. Since the energy E_0 has the relativistic mass E_0/c^2 the photon has a mass (not rest mass) hw_0/c^2, and is "attracted" by the earth. In falling the distance H it will gain an additional energy (hw_0/c^2)gH, so it arrives with the energy E = hw_0(1+gH/c^2). But its frequency after the fall is E/h, giving again the result in Eq. (42.5). Our ideas about relativity, quantum physics, and energy conservation all fit together only if Einstein's predictions about clocks in a gravitational field are right. The frequency changes we are talking about are normally very small. For instance, for an altitude difference of 20 meters at the earth's surface the frequency difference is only about two parts in 10^15. However, just such a change has recently been found experimentally using the Mössbauer effect. [R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr., Physical Review Letters Vol. 4, p. 337 (1960)]. Einstein was perfectly correct."

Einstein was not "perfectly correct" - essentially (and implicitly), Feynman confirms Newton's emission theory of light (which says that the speed of photons falling in a gravitational field varies like the speed of ordinary falling objects) and refutes Einstein's relativity. Other authoritative confirmations:

Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory."

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

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..."

Pentcho Valev

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."

That is, if one starts with the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (as predicted by Newton's emission theory), the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations". If one initially assumes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, the experiment cannot be explained unless one introduces, ad hoc, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, scientists would apply Occam's razor and the latter (independence) assumption would not even be taken into consideration.

Pentcho Valev