Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?

Something I just read:

This second following quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich dated August 1913.

[Quote]:"If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false". [Unquote]

I just read this too:

[quote]The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics, and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed.[end quote]

The difference here is Maxwell's "universal speed" and Einstein's "constant speed no matter what". Did Maxwell's equations require light to have a "constant speed no matter what"? I assume not.

I can imagine light to be emitted from baryonic atoms at the same speed independently of what atom it is. But I can't imagine time slowing down in a train because a laser beam is used instead of a bouncing ball.

Akinbo,

having read through your last post with more scrutiny, I see where the problem lies. You say "In the absence of such a transparent medium Galilean relativity MUST be abandoned and another type of relativity (Lorentz transformation/Special relativity) MUST take its place." but I believe this to be an incorrect point of view. Just because light rays behave on Earth irrespective of it's 30km/s orbiting the Sun is just the same as if I was kicking a football against a wall northward or to the east. There's no perceptible difference, just like there's no perceptible difference with light. The experiment shows that there is no need for any kind of medium to explain the travel of light imv. There is no need for your hypothesis of dark matter to be the mystery candidate for such a medium.

Incidentally, I didn't realize that it was Galileo who first comprehended relative motion, see Galilean invariance. His idea of someone below decks of a ship on a calm sea not knowing whether the ship is sailing or not is a direct starting point for Einstein's open-sided train. Einstein just introduced the idea of a distant observer.

Alan

Alan,

A logical conclusion of your scenario is that Akinbo is correct.

If you play football on Mars I agree you'll find exactly the same result as on Earth, no directional variation. As speed is only relative, it is then invariant wrt the local background (Earth locally here or Mars locally there) rest frame.

Now position yourself in space at rest in the Barycentric (Sun) frame, half way between Earth and Mars, watching their quite different orbits and speeds wrt your rest frame.

Q1. Is the speed of the balls on Earth and Mars "THE SAME" wrt YOUR OWN rest frame?. ..Q2. Similarly is the speed of a light pulse on Earth the same wrt YOU as on Mars.

The only coherent logical answer involving propagation speed as d/t is of course NO. They vary by the relative speeds of Earth and Mars. Yet light passing by you in your (3rd) rest frame still also does so at c wrt the barycentric frame. (All this fits observations).

The assumption that everything contracts and dilates, and that if you move you can affect propagation speed well beyond your influence, etc, is NOT the only solution.

A logical alternative is if we apply Compton and Raman scattering by the dense electrons populating space, concentrated the bow shocks of all bodies. if all electrons re-emit at the same speed (c in their own rest frame) then all the problems with local CSL are resolved, as are all the astronomical anomalies I refer in my essays.

A dielectric medium does not have to be dense to remain a dielectric medium! The effects just give gentle refraction and speed change 'curved' rather than short sharp ones.

I recalled you'd glimpsed the simple logic of that in my essay discussions. It's unfamiliarity however makes it very easy to forget, which I think you have. Can you see it again now?

best wishes, Peter

Alan,

I, Peter Jackson, Eckard in the main have had a couple of exchanges on the Faster than light blog. We are not 100% in agreement but my position is closest to Peter's. There was also a mention of Galileo's ship hidden away somewhere in the exchanges. I also made some posts on the Testing Reality in Space blog.

The major issue for determination is whether or not movement of an observer can hasten or delay light arrival time. Special relativity says no. Arrival time based on your position at the moment of emission cannot be influenced by your subsequent motion before the light arrives. And surprisingly experiments confirmed this to be true in certain circumstances as with M-M type experiments, the motion of the stationary earth based observer towards or away from incoming light on earth surface does not seem to affect light arrival time. Imagine yourself in the centre of a cross with equidistant light sources at E, W, N, S, since the earth is rotating counterclockwise as seen from the North and also orbiting it is reasonable to expect the light from the East to reach you first and the light from the West to reach you last, but they all reach you at the same time. Why?

However, as you must be aware since you (and Peter J) have much interest in astronomy, exotic stars and pulsars, that your motion influences the pulsar timing measurements and these have to be deducted to obtain the accurate pulsar periods.

Akinbo

*If you don't want to populate your blog you can move the discussion elsewhere on this site where Peter J, Eckard, Pentcho and I have had some exchanges.

Sorry Alan,

Just to add. You posted, "Why can't light be Archimedes screw shaped particles moving through space without the need for any medium?" Can you resolve the dilemma through these screw-shaped particles of light? That is, you at the equator and four sources of screws at E, W, N, S positions, equidistant from you at the centre and all to fire just one screw simultaneously. If earth rotates counterclockwise, i.e. at the equator from West to East and you are stationary on the earth, how come all the screws from the four directions reach you at the same time?

In a similar rotational experiment, this time that of Sagnac, the screw fired from the East arrived first and that from West last.

Again in another experiment with you stationary on earth, the screw towards which you are moving arrived earlier and that away from which you moved arrived later. You see the dilemma? So not so easy for screws to resolve this or what do you think.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

You are understandably confused with this thought experiment of yours:

"Imagine yourself in the centre of a cross with equidistant light sources at E, W, N, S, since the earth is rotating counterclockwise as seen from the North and also orbiting it is reasonable to expect the light from the East to reach you first and the light from the West to reach you last, but they all reach you at the same time. Why?"

It is essentially the same experiment as the M-M. Getting back to the M-M set-up. The laser beam travelling north also has a velocity to the east due to the rotation of the earth, which is transferred to the apparatus emitting the laser beam. Seen from the moon, for example, the laser beam travels in a diagonal line up and to the right, then bounces off the mirror and travels in a diagonal line back down to the right. The laser beam directed eastward similarly has the same velocity of the rotation of the earth when it is emitted. Seen from the moon, the beam travels eastward exactly at the same rate as the northward beam. Both hit the mirrors at the same time and both return at the same time.

Thanks for the Sagnac effect connection.

[quote]The Sagnac effect in a circular loop can be understood as follows. When the loop is rotating, the point of entry/exit moves during the transit time of the light. The backwards-propagating beam covers less distance than the forwards-propagating beam and arrives earlier.(Fig. 3) This creates a shift in the interference pattern. The shift of the interference fringes is thereby proportional to the platform's angular velocity. [end quote]

This experiment confirms that light behaves like anything else imv just as the M-M experiment does.

@Peter: do you agree with this?

Alan

Alan,

Yes, the thought experiment is essentially the same as the M-M experiment. I am not confused. Replace light with sound in the experiment. What makes sound from the equidistant sound sources at E, W, S, N arrive at the same at the earth's equator despite the fact the earth is rotating in the direction of one source and in a direction opposite the other, i.e. rotating W to E?

But something more relevant to your interest just occurred to me so I will get back on the supposed confusion.

Given on the one hand the hydrogen atom's parameters, the charge, classical radius and the formula for the attraction force between them which must balance the repulsive force between them, whatever its mechanism (i.e. exclusion principle, stationary waves, etc),

And on the other hand, given earth's mass of 6 x 1024kg, can the hydrogen atom remain stable and unsquashed by the gravitational attraction force between two halves of the earth if it lies at its core between them?

A preliminary calculation shows an electromagnetic attraction (and therefore repulsion) force of 9.2 x 10-8N for the unlucky hydrogen atom lying between two halves of the earth, which two halves at that atomic radius have a gravitational attraction force of about 2.4 x 1059N between them.

This very large difference which you may calculate with another atom like iron suggests that anything at the core may not have an atomic structure as you suggest, as this will be squashed under the intense gravitational force.

Akinbo

*This is just a thought out of the blue for now.

Akinbo,

Someone else has asked the same question about using sound instead of light for the M-M experiment:

Use something that slower than light in Michelson-Morley experiment

[quote]if you use something like sound you aren't measuring the speed of the aether because sound propagates as disturbances in air not in the aether. Using sound would measure how fast the air is moving relative to your equipment. This would work fine, though there are easier ways to measure wind speed.[end quote]

* I can't help you with the hydrogen atom at the center of the earth idea I'm afraid.

Alan

Alan,

Take a second look at the atom at the core topic. It quantitatively supports the quark matter at the core hypothesis. If no atom can remain an atom at the earth's core, then another form of matter must be there.

On your using sound instead of light, air, gravitationally bound to earth forms a matter medium that makes all the sound waves arrive simultaneously, whether from E, W, S or N. Space or the historical aether, could not do same for light by providing a logically consistent medium that can be so bound to explain the M-M result. Hence the resort to displacement contraction and time dilation in Special relativity. In Galilean relativity, an earth-bound transparent medium will do for light what air does for sound, thereby explaining the M-M experiment logically. My question: what disqualifies non-baryonic dark matter, given its suggested abundance, transparency and ability to be gravitationally bound?

To clinch it, light coming from beyond earth, that is from outside the cabin in Galileo's ship will arrive earlier or later depending on which direction the ship is moving. This is seen in the anisotropy of CMBR and in Pulsar timing measurements. Special relativity has no explanation for this, while Galilean relativity does explain the scenarios above and below deck.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

We are going in circles. The Earth's core is a mystery to mainstream science because it is seismically anisotropic and it also produces the Earth's magnetic field which protects us against harmful cosmic rays. The temperatures and pressures can't be replicated in the lab. It's a big problem.

Let's get back to the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is directly analogous to the laser beam fired upwards in the moving train scenario. Please read this copied passage carefully:

[quote]Say you're standing on an open-sided rail car tossing a ball up in the air. Even when the train is moving, to you on the train the ball appears to be going up and down. But think about someone standing on the ground watching the train go by. To the stationary observer, because the train is moving, the ball appears to go on a diagonal path. Think about that a moment. If you're looking straight at the ball the moment it leaves the thrower's hand, you would have to move your eyes (or your head) in the direction that the train was moving to keep the ball in the center of your vision. Compare the position of the ball with respect to you when it leaves the thrower's hand with the position at the peak of the toss, and you should see what I mean when I say the motion of the ball is diagonal to the observer on the ground.

Now imagine instead that instead of a ball, the train rider was shining a pencil-beam of light at the ceiling of the rail car. On the train, the beam would appear to go straight up. But to the observer on the ground it would take a movement of the eye or the head in the direction that the train was moving to keep track of the beam of light as it went up to the ceiling. OK, you really wouldn't have to move your head or eyes because the light is traveling so fast, but this is a thought experiment.

Here's where special relativity comes in. Einstein said, "What if the speed of light were a constant no matter what?" In other words, if you shined a light, no matter how fast you were moving, the light traveled at the same speed. That creates a paradox. To the person on the train, the light goes straight up and hits the roof of the rail car. But to the person on the ground, the light goes on a diagonal to reach the roof of the car. The diagonal path of the light is like the hypotenuse of a right triangle, made by drawing a line from your eye to the roof of the car when the light was switched on to the point off to the side where the light hit the roof of the car from your point of view.

And you surely remember from your trigonometry class, that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is longer than the other two sides. So the light must have traveled a longer distance, and traveling a longer distance takes more time. But for the person on the train and the person on the ground, light is moving at the same speed -- but it traveled farther on the train. How can something traveling at the same speed travel along paths of different length and get there at the same speed?

The solution to the paradox, Einstein said, was that for the person on the moving train, time was moving more slowly. Not that it would seem to be moving more slowly to the person on the train, but compared with the speed of time for the person on the ground, it actually would be slower.[end quote]

Alan

Alan,

"@Peter: do you agree with this?" It's not quite consistent Alan. Any 'velocity' must be assigned a datum rest frame. But your analysis IS a slight improvement on current doctrine. Did you know Michelson's later better (1926 Chicago) experiment with Gore and Pearson found quite differently, but was equally poorly interpreted. Dayton Millers were streets ahead, but the increasing velocity with altitude not coherently interpreted until atmospheric refraction and extinction is applied.

Looking fundamentally; It was clearly Stokes/Fresnel/Heaviside/Planck who were closest with 'dragged aether' except 'aether' is not the dielectric medium, so they were eclipsed by SR,- itself still inconsistent.

To take an overview, we still think 'homocentrically', believing our view is important, and that we can affect light propagation speed by moving through the ambient dielectric medium towards the source!! That's massive arrogance. I say again, we need a new Copernican/Galilean revolution;;;

We do NOT affect light propagating at c somewhere else by simply deciding to move at v towards the source. We DO however modulate it to out own 'c' (change it's speed by v) the instant it ARRIVES, and before "computation" (DFM). Current theory forgets the detector is part of the system so gets that wrong.

It seems to need Bragg's 'new way of thinking'. If you can find that way; here is a way it all works consistently, converging QM and SR to unity; Why and how moving mirrors reflect at c in the vacuum frame not wrt the mirror!

Best wishes. Peter

Peter,

To me the situation is crystal clear. Einstein made an *assumption* that the speed of light is constant w.r.t. any observer or any frame of reference. It was a whimsical assumption that is counter-intuitive and goes against common sense. He managed to convince the world that it was a correct assumption which now leaves modern physics in a nonsensical mess.

Akinbo is confused because he can't accept 100% that Einstein's special relativity is flat wrong. It took me years to come to this conclusion with absolute clarity.

Alan

Peter & Akinbo,

take a read of this point of view:

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory

Alan

This part is an excellent read:

Speed of Light in Deep Space

Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space, based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw26 showed that this can be explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites, where classical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic corrections lead to the wrong results. Einstein's relativity cannot explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the first place! After some head-scratching by mainstream scientists, the mystery was attributed to a possible "anomalous" acceleration (new physics!) of 8.0 x 10-8 cm/sec2, directed toward the Sun--for both spacecraft.

That the speed of light is not constant in interplanetary space was first suspected by the late Bryan G. Wallace. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, MIT Lincoln Laboratory operated a series of high-power radio transmitters spread across the United States. Technically, these sites held a SECRET classification during the height of the Cold War and the Space-Race, even though the researchers were doing pure science. (Perhaps they also played a role in the study of ionospheric disruption effects caused by thermonuclear test shots in the Pacific, and the magnetic-conjugate excitation studies using high-altitude nuclear detonations in the Southern Atlantic.) At one site near El Campo, Texas, the transmitter was extremely high power, 500 kilowatts, operating in the low VHF range (38.25 MHz). Enormous water-cooled vacuum tubes were used to generate the RF energy. An 8 by 128 array of 1,024 dipole antennas boosted the gain so that the effective radiated power, focused into the main lobe, was in excess of 1,300 megawatts (yes, 1.3 gigawatts).

Personnel at the site activated warning sirens and red flashing lights prior to "keying" the transmitter. This was done to make certain that no one was caught by surprise out in the antenna array, which covered over nine acres. Sometimes the "cooked" remains of rabbits and possums were found by maintenance personnel after a data gathering session, and this served as a somber demonstration of what could happen. It was possible to place a fluorescent bulb anywhere in the transmitter building where illumination was needed--it would glow by itself while the transmitter was "on." Site personnel quickly learned not to prop their feet up on the control console, as this would cause their shoes to heat-up. These powerful beacons made it possible to conduct radar studies of Venus, Mars, and also the Sun's corona.

During this time Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere.27

To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims28 that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with him--that they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light! He said that, what little data he did get, had been deliberately chosen to make it impossible for him to do the necessary computations. He also published a book describing his experiences, available on the web29 at no charge. Wallace was a colorful figure and a champion of a noble cause. It is well worth the time invested to read about his incredible story.

Wallace is my hero:

THE FARCE OF PHYSICS

[quote]So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all,

and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical

characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of

relativity. Most physicists, and for that matter, most physics

text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether

theory. On page 467 we find that near the end of his life in

1954, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso:

I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on

the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that

case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air,

gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern

physics.[end quote]

Alan,

Thanks for the interesting links. By the way your assertion that 'Akinbo is confused because he can't accept 100% that Einstein's special relativity is flat wrong is incorrect'. It shows you have not been reading my posts here and on the other blogs. To me, it is a vote between Galilean and Special relativity, and my vote is for the former. But you can't vote for the former without at least explaining the M-M experiment and what it is that is in the Galilean ship (earth) that makes it impossible to use light on earth surface to detect the earth's motion, while light from without the ship can be used to detect and calculate the earth's motion, both direction and speed. Go and read the previous exchanges between Peter J, Eckard, Pentcho and I on the other blogs (real-time physics, faster than light, testing reality in space, etc).In Galilean relativity, velocity is a vector and can be relative, while time is a scalar and cannot be relative. In Special relativity, velocity (of light) is a scalar and cannot be relative, while time is a vector and can be relative.

RE:"...On the train, the beam would appear to go straight up. But to the observer on the ground it would take a movement of the eye or the head in the direction that the train was moving to keep track of the beam of light as it went up to the ceiling".

The answer to your laser beam in the train dilemma has been answered by Galileo in his ship analogy which you pointed out. In the train 'below deck' the light will drop vertically to an observer in the train. For an observer outside the train (ship) the light would appear slanted, but he understands why, since velocity is relative. But for this to work, the laser must be coupled to and participate in the motion of the train, so that it continues dropping vertically. That is why Galileo said, "...The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it, and to the air(a matter medium) also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted."

Something caught my eye in the paper you linked and as if I suspected I had earlier posted somewhere and Peter J responded to the post, where I asked, if Scientists discover a theory of everything today, will it be wise to keep it Top Secret or make it public considering the presence of terrorists in the world? What caught my eye was, "...To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with him--that they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light! He said that, what little data he did get, had been deliberately chosen to make it impossible for him to do the necessary computations". By now, the secret is now in the open that the science establishment is hiding something and what is being hidden is now an open secret, so no more use hiding it. The next task is to get suggestions on how humanity is to steer the future. If Bin Laden gets hold of a theory of everything, how should humanity address such a possibility?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

My apologies for not following the other thread discussions but I have limited time (and patience). I'm glad that you err towards a Galilean worldview as apposed to a special relativity one. You confuse me by still referring back to the M-M experiment as if it needs an explanation. Simple Galilean relativity explains the result. The laser light has velocity of v c in both directions. The light is assumed to be traveling at the speed of the planet in addition to c due to the apparatus being attached to the earth.

I don't think NASA are intentionally keeping a non-relativistic agenda secret. I understand why he might have thought so, but that would require the organization to be extremely smart. It's more a case of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink]groupthink[/url] imv.

Wikipedia has a page called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity]Criticism of the theory of relativity[/url] and I made an entry in the talkpage linking to Wallace's paper.

I learned a lot thanks to your participation in this discussion. I have some questions for you though:

(i) Do you still favor a medium-based worldview for the motion of light waves?

(ii) Do you favor a medium-based worldview for the gravity force?

Alan

Error correction:

Wikipedia has a page called Criticism of the theory of relativity and I made an entry in the talkpage linking to Wallace's paper.