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
Yes John, I read and commented on Eric Reiter's essay sometime ago. It is worth reading again as more evidence seems to accumulate against a particle/ photon theory for light.
As to the suggestion that light be its own medium, hmmm that will be a unique feature indeed. Different from other waves we know because traditionally, a wave is a disturbance in a medium.
And it is not flowing past a massive object alone that can bend and slow light. Light passing through glass is also bent and slowed. So what mechanism do you propose for this, or is it contracted as well?
But the big question for theorists reading this is: What then is the relationship between gravity and clocks, if any? Your post suggests like I suggested that there is no direct relationship, any effect of gravity on time-keeping always requiring a material mechanism, with the effect of slowing or hastening depending on the device. For the pendulum this will be the tension in the string and the associated return force.
Your point which is well noted, also requires some mechanical or material action, namely "contracted". But I thought light particles are said to be massless. Can a massless thing be contracted by gravity? I tend to prefer the good old 'refraction', 'wave' and a 'medium capable of being disturbed'.
Akinbo
*How can these auto-italicization be remedied? There is no edit button to use.
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,
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.
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
In a little introductory book I have which I highly recommend for beginners, 'Relativity for the layman' by J.A. Coleman, here is a response...
The third possible explanation for the inability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the ether assumed that the velocity of light was always constant with respect to the source which emitted it. This would mean that light always traveled at 186,000 miles a second with respect to the interferometer, regardless of how fast or slow it was moving with the earth through the ether. As a result, the velocity of light would vary with respect to the ether...
The main objection to this explanation was that it required velocity of light to vary with respect to the ether. This was contrary to the generally accepted notion of wave motion that the velocity of the wave must be constant in the material which carried the wave.... It was thus difficult for anyone really to believe that the velocity of light through ether was influenced by the velocity of the source...
There were also various astronomical observations which indicated that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the source. One of these was in connection with double stars. Double stars are two stars which are approximately the same size and are relatively close together. They rotate about each other with a fairly high velocity in somewhat the same way as would the ends of a dumb-bell... Now, some of these double stars rotate so that we are looking edgewise at the plane of rotation, i.e. we see one star coming towards us while the other is going away, and vice versa. If we assume that the velocity of the light leaving the star is increased or decreased by the velocity which the star is approaching or receding from us, then the star approaching us would appear to be rotating much faster than the receding one... The overall effect would be as if the stars were alternately speeding up and slowing down in their rotation about each other. Actual observation shows that this is not the case, however, and that the stars actually rotate about each other with uniform velocities. We conclude that it is entirely unlikely that the velocity of light is influenced by the velocity of the source, or that it is constant with respect to the source.
University of Texas Refutes Einstein's Relativity
University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."
That is, in accordance with the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength),
the speed of light waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho,
While relative speed is c+v light can't 'propagate' in the observers rest frame until it finds what that is! i.e. until it arrives (and Doppler shifts).
It is then logically wavelength that changes on arrival. The light going PAST (missing) the observer of course remains at relative c+v.
I suggest that until we distinguish between relative and propagation speeds physics will remain nonsense and your posts will be ignored.
Peter
Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler frequency shift leads to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer (receiver), in violation of special relativity:
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary receiver is:
c = d/t
where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is the time until pulse and (stationary) receiver meet up. For the moving receiver, "the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened". This means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:
c' = d/t' = c v
where t' is the time until pulse and moving receiver meet up (t>t') and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, Peter,
Doppler blue or red shift does not change the speed c of propagation. This holds for propagation wrt a medium like air as well as for light without a medium. In the latter case the only reasonable reference is the distance between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of arrival. In other words, the speed of the relative motion between emitter and receiver is the speed of propagation. Because there is no natural point of reference in space, there is no point at rest to refer to.
Any moving frame seen in the rest frame of an observer is affected; the "seen" speed relative to the observer is just a seeming one.
Newton's idea of light as particles does not contradict to the wave model if one does not ascribe conveyed potential energy to a quantum of propagating energy.
Incidentally, Newton made an obviously wrong prediction; iirc he imagined the speed of light increasing with more dense media. I read this by chance in the Millennium tower in Magdeburg.
Eckard
Pentcho, (Eckard).
"Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler frequency shift leads to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer (receiver), in violation of special relativity:"
I agree, except that you're lumping in the 'interpretation' of SR with the postulates. I'm pointing out that no matter how much nonsense the former is, the postulates can survive and be consistent with your first proposition; c is relative to each observer. But I point out that rationally that's only valid if it changes speed to the new datum for c ON ARRIVAL and interaction. Not before.
That is also consistent with Eckard's statement that "Doppler blue or red shift does not change the speed c of propagation." Just as with sound, there is an unrecognised difference between propagation and relative speeds.
Even Newton found that, but like Einstein (and most today) couldn't successfully rationalise it. It's the DATUM rest frames, represented by co-moving bodies that change. It'll just be 'unfamiliar' at first.
Eckard,
There's no such thing as a 'seeming' speed! (all speeds found 'seem' to be c anyway!) All physically measured speeds are real local ones. It is RELATIVE speeds that are not directly measurable that are 'arbitrary'.
Contrary to your assumption about space there is of course ALWAYS a local reference frame; It is the nearest or dominant massive 'body', whether a planet, sun, galaxy, or bunch of electrons. That is always the reference datum. If you try applying that (each side of the astrophysical shock or near field TZ surrounding all bodies) you will find the fully consistent logic.
Best wishes
Peter
