Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

What you are really doing is asking for proof that

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

is absolute. You admit that the frequency will change, but that the wavelength does not.

Let's look at Snell's law and a block of glass moving at some velocity v (down the +x direction). As the train is going by at velocity v, someone on the shines a helium-Neon laser (632nm)at the block of glass on the train.

The block of glass is its own inertial reference frame. So the light will land on the fast moving train, with the block of glass. The speed of light will stay the same, but the clock on the train runs a little slower because of time dilation. As the light reaches the glass, the frequency will redshift (get smaller) and the wavelength will get larger. By the way, haven't you ever jumped on or off of a moving train before? If you don't plan for it, the train will accelerate your feet right out from under you. It does the same thing to light.

Snell's law:

[math]\frac{\sin{\theta_1}}{\sin\theta_2} = \frac{v_1}{v_2}= \frac{n_2}{n_1}[/math]

The velocity v1 and v2 are effective velocities. In other words, as light moves through glass, it still moves at c, but there are obstructions, refractions, and obstacles that slow it down to what appears to be a lower velocity. In this situation, c = lamba * f does not have to change to uphold a constant velocity.

But when the light transitions between the inertial reference frames, the wavelength and frequency have to change to uphold

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

Gotta go back to work.

[deleted]

Hi Jason

J:"You admit that the frequency will change, but that the wavelength does not."

The exact opposite Jason! I'll expain why, but don't try to read it in a hurry or after a drink!

What we must learn to do is always decide which of 3 'frame options' we're viewing from. (1) Embankment. (2) Train, or (3) co-moving (changing frames with the light to view from each). This makes it very difficult for our limited brain power to grasp and hold on to.

But we also must remember 2 more things; It's different depending on which way (2) is moving. And the final nail in our mental coffin is that a different 'n' is the final variable. That last trap got you in your post! To stand any chance we must first clear our minds of 'n', so we'll consider a train, with the same medium inside as out.

I'll schedule out the 2 'direction' scenario's and results from the 3 frames.

A. With light entering the train from the front;

Viewed from (1) f Conserved, Wavelength Reduces, Speed c-v. [All 'aparrent']

Transitioning.. f INCREASES, Wavelength Reduces, Speed 'c'. actual in both.

Viewed from (2) f Conserved, Wavelength Reduces, Speed (in(1))c+v aparrent

B. With light entering from the rear;

Viewed from (1) f Conserved, Wavelength Increases, Speed (in(2))c+v apparent.

Transitioning.. f REDUCES,! Wavelength Increases, Speed 'c' Actual in both.

Viewed from (2) f Conserved, Wavelength Increases, Speed (in(1) c-v apparent.

That takes a bit of thinking about. Essentially; When our viewpoint transitions with the light c = fxLamda When it doesn't, we're only seeing apparent change of position over time. The light signal carrying that information to us from the other frame does so at 'c', so no postulate is ever broken, and neither length contraction or time dilation are needed to explain invariance of 'c'!!

That sheds a very different light on how we currently translate the postulates.

Without the observer also changing frames light energy propagation rate actually apparently change between frames to do 'c' within every frame no matter what it's speed or direction. i.e. We've joined locality with reality.

But every bit of light in the universe will alway truthfully tell you it's doing 'c'. Spectroscopy will tell us what speed the original source was doing.

I do hope your brain can cope, most apparently can't!

Best of luck.

Peter

[deleted]

Hi Peter:

P:"It's more confusing because it's incorrect Jason, and you haven't yet quite seen the simplicity of the correct reality. "

Here is the problem I have. An absolute speed of light fits the experimental data.

Do you agree that atomic clocks run slower in a gravity field versus free fall?

Do you agree that time slows down for objects falling into a black hole?

Do you agree that E = mc2?

General Relativity and Special Relativity ... work!

If c = lambd*f wasn't absolute, then GR and SR wouldn't work.

Let's have a race. I will stand embankment and shine a He-Ne laser at the target sensor at the exact same time as you do.

You will ride the train at v = 0.9c towards the target sensor. You will shine your laser at the same time I do.

Whose laser beam will reach the target sensor first?

[deleted]

Peter,

Just because general relativity is true, it doesn't mean that M87 didn't spit out a jet of energy at 6c. It did. But it takes something as powerful as a super massive black hole to cause a "velocity disinterested aether" to slip and move with a velocity of its own.

[deleted]

Hi Jason

Interesting. I knew the 3D juxtapositions were hard to follow, but they're harder than I thought.

I'm agreeing with absolute 'c', but the experimental data largely fits two models, one poorly, with irresolvable paradoxes (SR with co-variance assumptions) and one perfectly, without paradox(SR without those assumptions, but with the fields of GR and a quantum mechanism).

In the paradox free version 'c' is always absolute LOCALLY. i.e. It always does 'c' wrt WHERE IT IS, NOT wrt anything else doing any other speed elsewhere. If that light changes frame to go to that other place it will do 'c' wrt that place! That not only fits all the data but is paradox free AND allows unification with QM (via the proven Eward-Oseen theorem)!

If you measure a light ray, then speed up, into a different inertial frame, and measure the same ray, it will be Doppler shifted, but you'll still measure it at 'c', even though it still crossed the ground at 'c' wrt the ground!! This can now be explained by the fact that your own fine structure electrons will always convert it to 'c' by always emitting new photons at 'c'.

GR seems to work fine, SR is still unproven, incompatible with QM, and with consistent problems from experiment, including NASA's Laser Lunar ranging data, which it seems you didn't read. As with M87, the fact is it's entirely consistent with experiment except when it isn't! Even arXiv are now allowing some of the evidence to be published!

I'll do the laser bet with you if I can stand beside the track and shine mine through a moving train, from front to rear. When mine hits the rear window it will be re-emitted through the train at 'c' wrt the train, getting a 'free ride' of +v (as anyone on the train doing +v will witness when they measure it), it's then re-emitted again at 'c', when it hits the air at the front.

i.e. EM waves travel through all EM fields invariently at 'c'.

And, as we know, the earths EM field moves wrt the suns, and a trains moves wrt the embankment. If you look at all the evidence you'll find this slightly adjusted SR (with no change to the postlates) fits the data far better!!

That also explains increasingly anomalous Einstein lensing delays, Galaxies can easily delay light by over the 3 years now being found if moving away from us.

It just proves Einstein was right searching for a more 'reality' based solution, and saying space is actually 'infinitely many spaces in relative motion." Which he said in 1952 along with;

"one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory".

If Einstin knew afterwards it wasn't a finished model it seems a bit presumptious for us to pick and choose when he was right or wrong to suit our own beliefs!

I don't think you've REALLY tried to get your head round the 3D inertial frame concept above yet. You'd need to re-read it bit by bit, and close your eyes and think moving pictures in your mind for a while. You'll suddenly have a Eureka moment when it all falls into place. I wish you luck.

Did you ever finish reading the paper? http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Peter

[deleted]

Peter,

I just took a closer look at Special Relativity, specifically, the relativity of simultaneity. My gut tells me it's bogus nonsense. But what if there are experiments that confirm it?

Yes, I can accept the idea that there is a preferred inertial reference frame, one where the clock runs fast. I am comfortable with the idea of the clock running fastest in the slowest reference frame. But the idea that both clocks run slow for two spaceships that pass each other... There is definetely a screw up here.

[deleted]

Would anyone like to defend (explain to me) the simultaneity of special relativity due to velocity? There is a contradiction that needs to be looked at.

pjackson

Hi Jason

You'll find thousands to defend SR to the death! And thousands more insisting it's inconsistent. Don't go there!! Remember Einsteins own word; "we should never desist from seeking...etc" and "I hope someone finds a better solution...etc". I have an easy route for you. Forget 'time' completely for a mo. It's only a confusing additional dimension.

The reason he had to remove any 3rd frame 'ether' for SR was to explain the constancy of 'c' "irrespective of speed of emitter or observer." It boils down to 2 astronauts in space in relative motion. He had to find a way they could be entirely equivalent, so they could have no 'velocity' with respect to anything apart from each other, each having an equal right to say he was at rest and it was the other who was moving.

But the paradoxes it raised would never go away (despite putting our heads in the sand!) and it kept SR divided from QM (and even GR!). But it's now so entrenched as a pagan belief it can'r be challenged. That is without (as Popper said) a replacement ready to take over. But we've never had one.

Until now.

The trouble is, although it's so simple it can be understood by an 8yr old, it's also too conceptually complex for the normal brain capability of anyone with mathematically based physics training to cope with. If you can imagine yourself as an 8yr old I can try what works there.

Imagine a bus, on a large ferry, driving back and forth. Your mate Andy, at the back of the bus, shines a torch forward. Does that light care how fast or which way the ferry or bus is moving? or will it do 'c' with respect to the bus? Answer 'c'. Correct, as observed.

Your mate Ben is at the front of the car deck, shining a torch towards the back. Does that light care if there's a coach nearby, moving or not, or if the ferry is moving one way or t'other? Same answer, No, it does 'c' wrt the ferry. Your mate Chris is in a boat fishing as the ferry passes and sees the lights flashing up and down through the portholes. Does the Ferry shrink as the torches are turned on? What speed will he observe it mioving with respect to A the Bus B the Ferry C Him?

The simple fact is that everything in relative motion is it's own inertial field, and there's a quantum boundary 'conversion' process to explain constancy.

How are we doing?

peter

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I am trying to comprehend (glance beyond my own pre-conceived beliefs) at what you are saying. I would hope that others would do the same.

Yes, locally speaking, c is a constant for all observers.

Yes, inertial frames exist.

I am taking a closer look at "fictitious forces". They remind me of my invention, the frequency shift-photon.

I believe that the Equivalence Principle really means that:

a. gravity,

b. centrifuge centrifugal forces, and

c. linear acceleration forces

can all be attributed to the frequency shift-photon.

Like I've said before, I am pursuing the idea that the photon (virtual/real) can explain everything in physics.

[deleted]

Peter,

Do you think your inertial frames and the Higgs field have anything in common?

Second question: do you think that Higgs field compression/shock waves might explain

(a) Inflation theory (the first few superluminal microseconds of the universe) and

(b) the M87 superluminal jet that was belched out at 6c?

[deleted]

Peter,

I've got it. I've figured it out. At the moment of the Big Bang, there were a lot of little particles created, and one big Higgs particle. That big Higgs particle is what we know of as space-time. Think of the metaphor of lots of eggs and one egg carton. This Higgs field is responsible for gravity and the slowing of the atomic clock deep into the gravity well. The Higgs field is in equilibrium with the virtual photons, very similar to chemical equilibrium between reactants and products. The Higgs field is a big froth of wave functions.

Are you interested?

[deleted]

Peter,

There really is something quite similar to the aether. It's called the Higgs field. The Higgs field is some kind of a huge wave function the size of the universe. This what causes gravity. You can never be at rest with respect to the Higgs field, but you can be at its lowest energy (fastest time).

pjackson

Hi Jason

J; "Do you think your inertial frames and the Higgs field have anything in common?"

Certainly, but only in that there is certainly a field in space. I see no evidence for the Higgs particle, indeed au contraire, and am confident it won't be found. 'c' can only ever be 'c' wrt a local field.

J; "Second question: do you think that Higgs field compression/shock waves might explain

(a) Inflation theory (the first few superluminal microseconds of the universe) and

(b) the M87 superluminal jet that was belched out at 6c?"

Much more precision would be needed for a precise answer. We can be very dim. Inflation theory can only work with a field, and therefore waves. If it's only a vacuum that inflates there is no inflation, there are only unconnected bits of mass. Yet we know each bit of, or grouping of bits of, mass has it's own complex fields. Even our galaxy has, so is, an EM field. The field/s will obviously expand into any vacuum around it/them and 'thin out', affecting it's properties. i.e. permitivity, which, contrary to Maxwells basic equations, we know varies with frequency. We also know each local magnetic field for instance has limits and therefore boundaries, and there are infinitly many, relating to all parent mass and to relative motion.

M87 is merely a superposition of feilds in motion within each other. The inner one does 6c wrt us, the observer. None do more than 'c' locally. It's almost too simple.!

I can indeed perceive the universe as the biggest 'Shrodinger sphere' wave, within which infinitely many others move, wax and wane. I quite like your 'big froth of wave functions', but think you need to modify your 'frequency shift photons' to make them fly in the real world.

Consider apparent frequency and wavelength between moving frames a bit more Photon wavelength is shifted by relative motion - i.e. when changing inertial fields (i.e. from the suns to the earths) the photons hit the first electrons moving with the new field, are absorbed, then re-emitted at the NEW local 'c', which gives them a different frequency if the observer also moves into the new frame, or wavelength if viewed from either 'other' frame, from where apparent frequncy is conserved. (the Doppler shift cancels out the motion).

You may need a brain the size of a small moon to first work that out, but once you've absobed it you'll see how simple it is.

(The 'Classic' version of all that works the same, as Huygens principle and the Ewald-Oseen Extinction theorum).

But it's crucial you allow yourself to 'test' the model of photons as duel phenomena, only locally propagated/condensed as 'particles' and reforming as wave energy until next perturbated for the next frame change.

I appreciate your trying to escape the box but am not conviced you'll make it as we all have to resort to touchstones and old concepts when overstretching our brainpower outside preconception, but please do try. I wish you luck.

Peter

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

Great to hear from you.

I'm starting to get a pretty good picture of what is happening with the physics.

Let's start with the Higgs field.

1. it's everywhere in space;

2. it gives particles their mass.

I'd like to add some additional characteristics to it:

a. Higgs field manifests the vacuum potential and froth of virtual particles;

b. Higgs field causes conservation of momentum to be operational;

c. Higss field causes GR and gravity to occur

d. Higgs field is really that which occupies empty space;

e. Higgs field is just a really big infinitely complex wave function (where non-locality is acceptable);

The wave functions of the Higgs field are generally not energized; thus virtual particles and waves. However, they can become energized into the form of photons. Photons give rise to particles via creation/annihilation particle-antiparticle pairs.

These wave functions are the precursors to photons. They implement relativity (all observers measure velocity of c, locally).

Gravity causes photons to frequency shift anyway, red shift or blue-shift. But the reverse should be true: RF generation of a repeatedly frequency shifting signal will induce an acceleration field.

Gotta go to work, will blog more later.

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I agree that we won't discover a Higgs particle. Personally, I think that the ubiqitous Higgs field, which causes GR and gravity to work, is a very large gravitional object unto itself. That is the Higgs particle. We are inside of the Higgs particle.

pjackson

Hi Jason

Now that's lateral thinking outside the container load of boxes! I think you go way off track sometimes, but then find little nuggets like that one. Of course the Higgs field (some may call it ether) has mass, and ergo gravity.

But now consider this; The one BIG field is just the biggest of many. Every collection of matter has a complex Electro/Magnetic/Gravity etc field attached to it and moving with it. i.e. there is a lump of mass at the centre of every 'Higgs' field, of which there are infinitely many, all moving within and around each other.

Also; J; "These wave functions are the precursors to photons. They implement relativity (all observers measure velocity of c, locally)."

We need to bettwer define 'impliment', as it gives slightly the wrong picture of the process. I've just done a post to Georgina in 'Paralel Universe on your i phone' which you should read. It's part of my search for intelligent life in the cyberspace of this galactic spiral arm.

To help you impress, the solution is; that the Lorentz transformation was never needed in the first place to explain CSL and unify physics, so nor is length contraction and all the resulting paradox! But can you 'join the dots'?

Best of luck

Pz~=kk0^7#

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

If "implement" is not the right word, any suggestions?

Also, I'm a little puzzled why we don't need the Lorentz transformation. I thought that was an established observation. Just as atomic clocks on airplanes are tested and observed. Are you throwing out time dilation?

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I've been taking a closer look at special relativity. I'm trying to figure out what kind of "aether" they disproved. Like I said, I think that the Higgs field is responsible for relativity. SR has the finger prints of photons (light), but how does it dodge the "no aether" observation?

As near as I can tell, aether is to photon as water waves are to lakes and oceans. So an aether that directly manifests waves leading to Light, doesn't really work. Therefore, photons have to have there own independent existence as objects unto themselves. They don't need the aether.

But then what is the Higgs field? There is still some kind of "wave-function froth" that causes Relativity to work. Wave functions are of the form:

[math]\Psi = A e^{i(\vec k \vec x - \omega t)}[/math]

The argument of e^ix always reduces to an angle between 0 and 2pi; in other words, it doesn't matter what went into the angle. In this respect, the details of x and w are hidden. In the same way, the exact position of the aether is similarly hidden.

That probably doesn't make much sense. I'll try to clean that up.

pjackson

Hi Jason

You ask "If "implement" is not the right word, any suggestions?"

Waves "can become energized into the form of photons" as you correctly said. This energisation, at medium/frame boundaries, forms the 'particles' that emit the new waves AT THE NEW 'C' OF THE NEW MEDIUM. (All proven physics).

In other words; the waves new length/frequency 'evidences' the actual transformation between inertial reference frames, i.e. 'relativity'.

Your comments about the Lorentz Transformation and SR surprised me. But I can now see why you've been partly blinded; The LT has NEVER been actually observed, neither has it's key 'length contraction' component.

But even more importantly, you've been listening to propaganda! SR never claimed to 'disprove' the ether! Einstein repeated many times - (see his 1921 Leiden adress etc.) "Space without ether is unthinkable". The postulates don't necessarily call for it's removel either - it's just an assumption. But he did say;

"..That light requires the same time to traverse the path A→M as for the path B→M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own free will in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity." ..which removed its 'immobility' wrt light to explain CSL.

Lorentz indeed removed most of its characteristics when Lodge supposedly (but mistakenly) disproved Stokes/Fresnel 'ether drag', and combined Larmore's time function with Fitzgeralds contraction to get the unprovable nonsense that still confuses us today and prevents unification with QM.

But we (or the few bright ones among us!) can now see none of this was needed! CSL is simply explained by the quantum process of wave particle interaction, Doppler shifting EM wavelengths at inertial field boundaries (including our eyes and measuring instruments if moving) so 'c' is always maintained locally, within all inertial frames, i.e. THAT IS WHAT 'IMPLIMENTS' CSL. This at last matches ALL observation and evidence!

All the nonsense and paradox is swept away and physics is united.

Huygens, Fresnel, Sagnac, Stokes, Heaviside, Fourier, Silverstein etc. had it about right. Lodge and Lorentz misunderstood inertial frames and confused it.

Einstein was right searching for a reality/locality answer, and knew there was something else; he was spot on with 'space is actually infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion.' Each one an inertial 'field' frame. Also that 'space without ether is unthinkable!'

Once you forget LT and try allowing an ether/higgs field you'll find the right path becomes obvious. - I hope!

Peter

PS. Time dilation due to motion and due to gravity are different. I'm certainly saying the gravity wells invented by astronomers to explain anomalously long 'Einstein lensing' delays are nonsense. Light going through a galaxy moving away from us is delayed, often by years, as it goes through it at 'c' wrt to galaxy. (Borud, Abell etc.) light lensed around it arrives first.

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I am massively confused now.

First, what does CSL stand for?

Second, you said: "The LT has NEVER been actually observed, neither has it's key 'length contraction' component." Arg! What!!! We've been at this for over a hundred freakin' years! What do you mean Lorentz Transformation has not been experimentally established? What the HELL!!! I can't guess the right pattern if the experimentalists aren't doing their freakin' jobs!!!! I'm not a professional physicist. I just have a habit of daydreaming about physics while I'm at work (which probably sounds really bad). I look for patterns from what I remember learning in physics, I have a BS in physics. I did find a paper that challenges the Lorentz Transformation. I will look it over.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz/index.html

You said, "Time dilation due to motion and due to gravity are different. " I can get photons/Higgs field to explain everything using Equivalence Principle. If you separate TD due to motion versus gravity, then we end up with nothing. As it turns out, I can use photons to turn the Higgs field (a.k.a. space-time) into a causal-interface. Basically photons are bi-directionally passing information/momentum/energy between an object(particle/spaceship/inertial frame) and the rest of space-time via the Higgs field. Photons drive the whole universe and the laws of physics. The birth of the universe (Big Bang) was a very bright flash of light (photons), which created the hadrons and leptons. Only up and down quarks are stable. All of the other quarks are unstable and decay into up/down quarks. This process creates electrons.

To tell you the truth, I'm going to require experiential evidence.

I'm not mad at you. I'm just kind of pissed off that the experimentalists can't settle these issues. Is the Einstein Tensor equation even right?

[deleted]

Hi Peter,

I found a better article about the Lorentz transformation. It's better only because it states the two postulates, one of which is wrong.

http://www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.pdf

1. The equivalence of all inertial reference frames and

2. the invariance of the speed of light.

Actually, #1 is correct for non accelerating frames of reference. Gravity is considered to be an accelerating reference frame because of the Equivalence Principle.

#2 I happen to agree with, but you think it's wrong.

Mmm...

« Previous Page Next Page »