Ripping Apart Einstein

Akinbo,

Consider Rob's point very carefully, you should find it correct. Certainly I agree most are highly culpable and asymmetrically cherry pick Einstein's views to maintain their rigid beliefs.

Rob,

I do like that way of describing it, but some time ago I found a 'limitation' to the domain of a (simplest) model of the phase/group approach, which I recall related to observer frame dependence. It didn't then provide the complete 'solution set' alone. I believe it can be overcome by taking the LOCAL background view, but that then itself needed to be demonstrated anyway. Can your incisively logical mind find a better way?

Happy new year.

Peter

Florin,

Nice analysis, but distracted by Pentcho's incorrectly founded ideas. Stay with Robs and mine and you'll penetrate the confusion, and use the wavelength (L not f) Doppler shift equations of Astronomy and Optics.

Discrete Field Model Axiom 1. Space is a very diffuse dielectric medium, but big!

2. Electrons absorb EM waves and re-emit at the Local (so not 1 'absolute') c.

3. All 'detectors' are constituted by matter or do not exist!

Waves propagating at c then approach a detector moving towards them at v. When the first peak hits it is slowed. Measurement of anything needs TWO wave peaks, and by the time the second peak arrives the detector has moved, so the WAVELENGTH is Doppler shifted relative to speed v. (we can ignore 'n').

We can then use 'time' to derive a 'frequency'. HOWEVER, In the assumed equation; f'=(c+v)/d we've now found that the f relates to the DETECTOR frame NOT the rest frame for the distance d. That's why that equation is invalid.

You may find this enlightened view of 'discrete field' dynamics so unfamiliar you wont match it to any pattern existing in your neural network. That does not mean it's wrong, but that our previous fundamental hidden assumptions have been wrong. (It also makes it almost impossible to remember!) The transformation constant for a 'fixed observer' case is not then the ; c = f' * L', but c' = f * L'.

The Lorentz Factor also simply emerges mechanistically approaching the 'non-linear optics' optical breakdown (OB mode) limit at gamma, when approaching max electron/ proton plasma density ~10^23/cm^-3 at high relative speed/ionization rates; Optical Breakdown limit as a mechanism for the LT. So the SR postulates are proven but consistent with the LT and a logical Copenhagen interpretation.

Of course that only scratches the surface, and even if correct I'm sure it's far too 'different' from present assumptions to be accepted any time yet. My '2020 Vision' essay gave an estimate of when.

best wishes

Peter

Akino:

You stated that "the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location". But if there is a gravitational field, then there is no inertial (un-accelerating) frame. Consequently, Special Relativity does not apply, General Relativity is required.

Peter,

Recall that Einstein POSTULATED the speed of light to be constant. He did not OBSERVE it to be constant. He did not PREDICT it to be constant. While there a variety of definitions for POSTUlATE, the basic idea is to take something as an unquestioned given, and then use it as a starting point, for deducing some interesting conclusion.

What was the conclusion that he was aiming at? A simple conversion system.

Special Relativity is nothing more than a "Currency Exchange"; I say this can of soup costs 1.23 dollars and you say it costs 0.68 pounds. So which is it, 1.23 or 0.68? The answer is both. You just need to convert numbers in one measurement system to numbers in different systems.

Special Relativity is nothing more than the "Measurement Exchange" system used to convert measurements in one inertial system into measurements in another.

Maxwell observed that certain constants in his equations for Electrodynamics can be combined to yield the "speed of light". Maxwell's equation are formulated in the rest frame of the observer. Wouldn't it be nice if observers in relative motion could ALL use Maxwell's equations in there own personal rest frame, in which his equations yield a constant speed of light? So, given the ambiguity in phase, noted in my previous post, why not just go ahead and POSTULATE that the speed is constant and the same for everyone, and see if that leads to an interesting conclusion, a simple "Measurement Exchange" system? It did. End of story.

But not quite. Even in real currency exchange systems, there can be subtle but significant effects. The whole field of arbitrage is based upon exploiting such effects.

Rob McEachern

The only reasonable way to derive the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer) is by assuming, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (....) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Tony Harker: "In a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t."

Consequence: The speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer is:

c' = distance/time = (c - Vo)t/t = c - Vo,

in violation of special relativity.

It takes constant and painful exercise in crimestop, singing hymns, going into convulsions etc to convince oneself that:

c' = c - Vo = c,

as required by special relativity. This picture is extremely inspirational.

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

No, no, no Rob, while I am ready to consider your thoughts carefully as Peter J says I should, you need to check out those quotes carefully because I provided links to them to show they are not fabricated. So when you make a statement like, "But if there is a gravitational field, then there is no inertial (un-accelerating) frame. Consequently, Special Relativity does not apply, General Relativity is required", I don't understand. Firstly, where then does Special relativity apply? Not on Earth? Was it not Earth-based experiments that gave birth to it? Does the Earth not have a gravitational field? Can the Earth not be regarded as an inertial frame, despite having a gravitational field? We have to be careful in some of our statements so Einstein will not wake up one day to torment the living.

Akinbo

*Peter J, I will study more on this group vs. phase velocity thing. I hope it is not another mathematical magic.

Yes, yes, yes Okinbo.

I do not dispute your quotes. As you correctly observed, it is your misunderstanding of those quotes that is at issue. For Einstein, in Special Relativity, a "vacuum" has no gravitational field. Recall that Einstein was the person that first predicted that light would interact with a gravitational field; he famously predicted that during a total eclipse of the sun, light would be deflected as a result of this interaction. In Special Relativity, "Vacuum" means "nothing for light to interact with". Consequently, it means no Gravitational field.

You asked "Was it not Earth-based experiments that gave birth to it?" No. Never. It was purely conceived as a "thought" experiment. It (the constant speed of light) is POSTULATED, not Experimentally Observed nor Theoretically Predicted. Of course, it was Maxwell's Theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment then lead Einstein to these Postulates. Recall that, at the time of the latter, it was supposed that light propagated by INTERACTING with the Aether. But that experiment demonstrated that there was no Aether. So this lead to the question: How does light behave, in the absence of any interaction with anything? Special Relativity is Einstein's answer to that question.

Special Relativity, like Newton's theory of gravity, can obviously be used on earth. But only as an approximation. In most circumstances, they are very good approximations, but if you what maximum accuracy, as in GPS location systems, then General Relativity is required.

Rob McEachern

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.

Pentcho Valev

Rob, Akinbo,

You're both right but trivially incomplete. Rob you ignore all from Romer to binaries in dismissing an empirical basis for postulating CSL, but no matter. You also distracted from the key point by apparently dismissing not just 'generalising' SR in gravity.

Akinbo you allowed Robs overstatement to distract you, Rob's central analysis is correct and just another way of describing discrete field dynamics. What the DF Model does is complete the ontology with the quantum mechanisms implementing the postulates and the LT, ergo 'curved space time'.

SR, GR and QM are like 3 complex 3D dynamic jigsaw puzzle pieces with dried mud on them. When they fit together, as the DFM and in line with Rob's description, SR 'becomes' GR, and both are implemented by logical quantum mechanisms (QM).

Speed is only a relative concept. c is then relative locally to ALL matter, which moves relative to other matter. The secrets were then only the mechanism for c to change (which also explains GR as plasma 'vortices' have G-potential) and for the non-linear asymptotic Limit represented by the Lorentz Factor. Those were the final pieces that made it all fit and work, exposing the great and simple beauty of nature. (I posted the LT link to Florin).

Rob. Shockingly Maxwell's equations need some massaging to rid them of anomalous virtual electrons, 'partial time derivatives' and Fraunhofer refraction, and to recover Snell's law or refraction. Are you up for discussing it and manipulating a few symbols? Do you recall my references to the (orig 1950's) 'two-fluid' plasma dynamics, surface plasmoids etc?

Best wishes

Peter

Very nice, Rob. If only the relativity deniers would appreciate it.

Rob,

Did Einstein really define "the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant"? In his 1905 SR paper he used Poincaré synchronization and two-way speed of light.

I came across of the phase/group velocity matter when Nimtz claimed having measured transmission of light with a speed in excess of c.

Today I found "The Great Einstein/de Broglie Velocity Equation derivation and notes by Douglass A. White" and an argumentation that questioned the correctness of Michelson's null result as measuring phase.

My own argument is perhaps the only one that is consistent with Michelson 1881/83 and Michelson/Pale 1925.

Eckard

Eckard:

You asked: "Did Einstein really define "the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant?"

Yes. Here is a quote from (in translation) the 2nd paragraph of Einstein's 1905 "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies":

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Note that in "empty space", the phase velocity and group velocity are equal, so, in this special case, it is not important to distinguish between the two.

See the wikipedia entry for "Dispersion (optics)", for more info regarding phase/group velocity

Rob McEachern

Peter,

I prefer not to rewrite history. For me, the issue is not what I ignore or dismiss, more than 100 years after Einstein wrote his 1905 paper on SR. I don't believe gravity was even mentioned in that paper. As for the experimental observations, I'm sure Einstein would not have made his postulate, if they showed the speed of light to be obviously variable. But in the paper, in the first paragraph he cites problems with Maxwell's equations, and in the second paragraph, he cites "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium"" as his primary considerations.

"Shockingly Maxwell's equations need some massaging to rid them of anomalous..."

Einstein also noted anomalies... Einstein's 1st sentence in the 1905 paper: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics-as usually understood at the present time-when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena."

"Are you up for discussing it and manipulating a few symbols?" Perhaps. But to what end?

"Do you recall my references to the (orig 1950's) 'two-fluid' plasma dynamics, surface plasmoids etc?" No.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

I misspelled Gale 1925.

You wrote to Florin: "The problem is that you, like the vast majority of people, have confused "group velocity" for "phase velocity". Einstein simply DEFINED the phase velocity of light, in a vacuum, to be a constant. He said nothing about group velocity being constant."

When did Einstein speak of phase velocity?

The velocity he referred to in 1905 has now been called front velocity.

The mistake of Nimtz is a frequent one. He measured a phase velocity in excess of c and then he questioned the meaning of c as the maximal possible speed for transmission of signals.

Shouldn't you reconsider your argumentation?

Eckard

Rob,

Nice to learn that in the absence of matter, phase velocity will equal group velocity.

You say, "Special Relativity, like Newton's theory of gravity, can obviously be used on earth. But only as an approximation. In most circumstances, they are very good approximations, but if you what maximum accuracy, as in GPS location systems, then General Relativity is required".

Since you know G, M and r for Earth, I want maximum accuracy, give it to me please!

Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant, would you then agree given your statement that the use of words like "exactly" in such definitions is wrong but rather "approximately" and "good approximation" should be preferred? Take note that all experiments that claim that Special relativity has passed ALL tests are conducted on earth vacuum and gravitational field and they don't lay claim to any "approximate validity" in their results. Finally, since you say I may be misunderstanding what I quoted Einstein to have said, what is your own understanding of: "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, CANNOT claim any unlimited validity... ONLY SO LONG as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields (OF THE EARTH) on the phenomena {e.g. of light}" (Capitals are mine).

From the quote and your understanding, I take you to mean that the law of the constancy of light in vacuo is invalid under (very strong) gravitational influence? And valid only where there is no gravitational field?

Akinbo

Eckard,

Front velocity refers to the leading-edge of a signal. There is no leading edge on an infinitely long sinusoid.

Einstein's 1905 paper is dealing with a mathematically idealized case, not messy reality. In reality, there is no such thing as "empty space", and no such thing as a single frequency (hence infinitely long, since any finite "truncated" signal has a spectrum). Nevertheless, it is just such an idealized case that Einstein was writing about. Give the guy a break. He turned out an amazing amount of good work that year. Why complain that he didn't deal with EVERY problem then?

You asked "Shouldn't you reconsider your argumentation?" It is not my argument. It is Einstein's. If you believe in an afterlife, then, when you arrive there, you my query Einstein about his choice, just as Odysseus queried Achilles about his, in Homer's tale.

Rob McEachern

"There is no leading edge on an infinitely long sinusoid."

Rob, I know what a strain it is to try and bring anti-relativists to an understanding of continuous functions.

Good luck.

Akinbo,

You stated that "Since you know G, M and r for Earth, I want maximum accuracy, give it to me please!"

Unfortunately, I do not know the number of free electrons encountered by any signal along its path. Since the travel-time of the signal depends upon this number, neither I nor anyone else can be absolutely accurate. I know, from personal experience, that that number can change dramatically in time-scales less than 0.001 seconds, for signals traveling through the Earth's ionosphere. This is a major source of error, in attempting to geo-locate signals via their measured travel-times, especially at low frequencies.

You stated that "Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant"

Special relativity only defined the former, not the latter.

You stated "I take you to mean that the law of the constancy of light in vacuo is invalid under (very strong) gravitational influence? And valid only where there is no gravitational field?"

"Invalid" is too strong a word. As you increase the content of (formerly) "empty space", by adding gravitational fields, free electrons, or anything else that light may interact with, then the speed of light traversing that space will increasingly deviate from its speed in "vacuum".

Rob McEachern

"You (Akinbo) stated that Special relativity is being used to define the constancy and the value of that constant'

"Special relativity only defined the former, not the latter."

Exactly right. It seems the hardest thing to convince an anti-relativist that the constant of proportionality between energy and mass is exactly 1. They think the empirical value of the speed of light has meaning. It does not.

Professor David Lerner has a nice facility for explaining the fundamentals.