• [deleted]

  • Post #29

Dear Peter,

I'm going to need a minimum of five lasers of different wavelengths. This is why. What happens to the photons of a laser when the beam is shined straight into a a blackhole? The photons blue shift. What does that mean? That means that every photon is undergoing:

1. an increase in frequency,

2. an increase in energy and,

3. an increase in momentum.

Why? Because the beam is experiencing a gravitational force. Call it conjecture, but I suspect that if I can duplicate the frequency profile of a laser falling into a black hole (without the black hole), that I can reproduce the associated gravity field. It's a guess and a hunch. It deserves an experiment to test it.

I agree with you Peter; space is not nothing.

As for shadows traveling FTL, I'm concerned that shadows make it possible to signal FTL? Photons are the fastest particles that we've encountered.

P:"I'm sure I'm not a genius, and James has now got it, (we'll be in double figures soon!) so it's only preconditioning with nonsense and lack of dynamic conceptualisation skills that prevents you from seeing it."

If we disagree about things like c+v, I certainly don't want to be a troglodyte about it. You are free to disagree with me and still be brilliant and open minded. We can disagree without one of us being wrong. Your c+v approach looks more like a frame dragging variation. Isn't that what the Sagnac effect comes down to? However, I'm assuming a constant unmoving frame in which relativity, as it's currently understood, is valid.

Maybe the elephant in the room is like space; it's real, but it's invisible and not directly detectable.

Hi Jason

As spies say, the best place to hide something is in plain view. The elephant is a fact which is as real as real gets.

A string of photons, therefore also waves, approaching a black hole, would be progressively stretched, i.e. red shifted, not blue shifted.

You cant say when something is red or blue shifted it gains or loses energy without defining which frame you're observing from. The energy of each photon is conserved as it changes frame. It is just compressed (contracted) or stretched (dilated).

Your 2nd laser will be 'getting a ride' on the first laser (plasma) beam, and so on.

I give you some clarification examples in the current blog string with John which you should enjoy.

Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #31

    Hi Peter,

    When a laser is beamed straight into the center of a black hole, the photons can't fall faster, they have to frequency shift. If the beam consisted of neutrons or skydivers, then those neutrons and skydivers could fall faster as they fall through the event horizon. But photons don't fall faster. Yet, they must blue shift because they are gaining energy as they fall into the black hole.

    But consider two observers. There are the event horizon bugs who live on the event horizon (sorry, I know that is spectacularly silly); they endure the huge gravity g-forces. There are also the skydivers who free-fall (pushed out of the space-ship for experimental physics sake).

    The event horizon bugs knew that the He-Neon laser was red, but are surprised to see a blue laser.

    The involuntary sky-diver sees (just before hitting an event horizon bug), he sees, blue shift from the gravity well AND redshift from his relativistic velocity. He will see a yellow laser, but won't care because he's about to fall through the event horizon.

    Note that the skydiver is falling away from the He-Ne laser, so it will be redshifted. So infrared (velocity) blueshift (gravity) averages to yellow; approximately.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #32

    Oops! The involuntary skydiver is in free-fall and sees red laser all the way down to the event horizon (and the event horizon bugs). After that, he doesn't see anything.

    Hi Jason,

    You've made some very astute statements. First you point out that "one particle is its own reference frame." Peter has quoted Einstein above saying much the same thing, and you can look at the figure on page 6 in my essay to see how this fits my theory.

    But my favorite of your comments is:

    "...redshift reduces the frequency, and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried..."

    I hadn't thought of that. I asked on another thread, months ago, just exactly when it became gospel that information is never lost? I have quantum mechanics texts from the 1930's (Dirac) to the 1980's (Sakurai) and QED and QCD texts from the 90's and 2000's, and I don't recall seeing in any of them that 'information is never lost'. No one answered my question.

    But assuming this to be the case, you then cover this case by saying:

    "But if the photons are again blue shifted, that should recover the information content."

    Jason, that's a great statement, but it begs the question: Where was the information stored in the intervening period? Do you have a mechanism in mind, or an opinion as to a possible storage mechanism that does not operate faster than the speed of light?

    By the way, did you read that somewhere? You seem to have thought of it right off the bat. I don't think I've ever read it, but it's obvious once you think of it.

    Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created.

    I've more comments, but I'm interested in your remarks. I'll probably post a summary of this on my page, as it fits well with where I'm going.

    Thanks again, and good to see you.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Jason/Edwin

      The information, as the energy, is only compressed or stretched, never lost or gained. It has to be conserved.

      Jason and I have been having this conversation for some time. for Doppler shift f and lambda are interchangeable subject to object and observer frame, E and c (locally) are constant.

      See what happens to photons in BEC, they can be stopped dead, compressed to virtually nothing and held motionless (Lena Hau - Harvard etc) but when released they still have the information and energy.

      Jason, good point about blue/red shift - If the spaghetti thing is true they are red shifted (feet stretched first) but I'm not convinced, and black holes are toroid anyway - Edwin, your thoughts would be appreciated (see the crab Nebula centre area infra red photo (just Google it for the nasa chandra shot - it's clear as a bell).

      That all needs a lot more thought anyway. It id definitely possible to redshift photons, (Stokes scattering) so we're talking frame transformation again.

      Peter

      Peter, you say that, "The information, as the energy, is only compressed or stretched, never lost or gained. It has to be conserved."

      I'm not sure it's that simple, but I'll think more about it.

      By the way, I'm a lot closer to posting what you and I and Willard discussed. The focus on photons instead of massive particles has been very rewarding.

      As for toroidal black holes, that is interesting. I'm convinced that particles are toroidal, based on the C-field and Calabi-Yau manifolds, largely due to the need for a null Chern class. Why do you insist black holes are so?

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Hi Edwoin,

      I can't quite remember the details, but the experiment had to do with polarizers and how they could be described with quantum mechanics. If you shine a laser onto a vertical polarizer, then a horizontal polarizer, all the light appears to vanish. But if you place a third polarizer that is horizontal, it recovers the light, or something like that. It's been so long and I don't know what to google for.

      But it left me with the idea that the light was not blocked by the first two polarizers. A third polarizer could recover the previously vanished light. The fact that you could bring the light back left me with the impression that it still exists. That's why I believe that physics is implemented with photons AND WAVE-FUNCTIONS.

      I sure hope you can think of the name of the experiment.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #37

      Dear Edwin,

      Sorry I mispelled your name.

      I think this is what I was remembering.

      Let's say that a laser/light/photons pass through an optical system. They start out as \Psi and end up as \Psi'. Let the optical system be described as

      D such that, \Psi_{end}=D\Psi

      [math]\Psi_{end}=D\Psi[/math]

      Let the optical system consist of

      [math]D = CBB^{-1}A[/math]

      As you'll notice, B and B^{-1} cancel out. Somehow, light that is blocked at B^{-1} reappears after B cancels out B^{-1}.

      So where is the information/light hidden between B^{-1} and B?

      One of the properties of wave-functions is that they can cancel out. This is one of the reasons I think that (1) the quantum vacuum is made out of wave-functions, and (2) that space-time is emergent from the quantum vaccum. Space-time is made out of wave-functions.

      In the case of redshift losing information, but gaining it back after blueshift, the information was never lost. I think the information remains within the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum, hidden until there is enough blue shift to express the information. Can loss of information due to redshift bare any similiarity to loss of focus (bluriness)?

      You asked: "Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created."

      A new photon is one that is emitted from an atom. That same atom probably absorbed an incoming photon. But what happens to the information carried by the incoming photon?

      In my opinion, there is nebulous quantum activity that is unmeasureable and undetectable. Much of it is noise, junk, artifacts of information chunkage, and maybe an occasional hidden signal.

      It would be a great experiment to try.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #38

      Peter,

      You must learn to trust the invariance of the speed of light. Trust the photon.

      I've been thinking about the time dilation derivation. The observer watches the train go by. The observer sees a redshifted laser bounce from floor to ceiling (on the train), because... the observer observes a wider angle view. The technician on board the train can look straight ahead at the beam, and not move his head or eyes. But the observer on the ground has to track the beam, with his eyes, across a 30 degree angular range.

      But what is the secret to time dilation? That other reference frame is really dilated.

      If the technician on the train watches the observer on the ground go by, how does the techniican know that he is the slow aging twin, and not the observer on the ground?

      If I take a 9v battery, and hook the positive terminal to ground and let the negative end float, why does ground stay ground, and the negative end becomes -9v? I think it's the same idea.

      could it be a majority rule that determines what is at rest? In other words, is time dilation polarity (sorry to introduce such a wierd terminology). By polarity, I mean, which twin ages slowly and which twin ages fast. Time dilation should have a polarity based upon which end has more mass-energy.

        Jason,

        I'm not sure whether you speak partial differential equations or not, so I'll try to express the final equation in my essay in English.

        The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

        What is shown in the derivation, but not explicitly shown in the final equation is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

        Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

        and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

        The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

        Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

        So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

        Because you are very interested in time dilation, I thought that I would try to turn you on to this (quantum) way of looking at it.

        Forgive me if you are an expert in partial differential equations, and simply let my explanation remain for non-experts who are interested in time dilation in a simpler way that it is typically explained.

        Regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #40

        Hi Edwin,

        I'm trying to finish my essay this weekend. A lot of what you said is very very interesting. Yes, I speak partial differential equations. I have a BS in physics with lots of math courses.

        I derived (wrote down the answer from heuristic thinking) a gravitational time dilation equation using the Schwartzchild radius for a photon that falls from point A to point B. I'm trying to argue that particles with mass accelerate, but massless particles (photons) frequency shift. Feel free to shoot me an email at wulphstein@gmail.com.

        I'll bet you have some really cool stuff.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #41

        Peter

        An excellent essay, refreshing to read and massively enlightening. A real revalation. It seems to me the content is worth a book, or series! which would drag physics 100 years on. I'm off to do some more re-thinking.

        I'm happy to give you the highest score. I hope to be back to ask questions.

        Matt

        Matt

        Thank you most kindly. I'm very happy to consider and discuss any questions. I shudder at the thought of a book, but you're right, I could only include a sprinkling of crystals from the massive glacier field.

        Edwin

        I look forward to the results of your deliberations. I've recently completed some work following a galaxy classification project, applying the DFM to galactic evolution. The results are astonishingly informative and beautiful. I'm trying to finish the paper now. My views on black holes have been modified. I was considering their gravitational cross section as flattened toroids, which was a very good fit, but not perfect. The answer came from the model, I was missing the dynamic power of them, They are massive energetic toroids spinning on the rotational axis but also (as in EM enegy) with a fantastic circular field round the torus 'tube' section, which what powers quasars/blazar gas jets.

        The mechanism is certainly scaleable between stars and galaxies (did you look at the Chandra IR shot of the heart of the crab nebula? It can actually be seen! This must mean it is downscaleable, perhaps to particles, but it's a 'regeneration' process so I would be far from sure. It does not seem to me to a good analogy for the complex superposition of wave signals it must contain. Do you see an answer here?

        I talked in my first paper about the effective mass and inertia of a gyroscope, and have come full circle to see that driving the universe, via the simplest basic physics possible, which can be successfully explained 'to a barmaid'. As AE insisted it should be. Effectively 'hidden in plain sight' as I commented recently.

        Jason

        I don't need to learn to trust the speed of light. Constancy of 'c' wherever you are and whatever inertial frame you're in (i.e. whatever speed your'e doing) is the heart of the DFM. It proves it's possible WITHOUT having to deny a quantum field, so is the only theory that consistently explains the CMBR rest frame.

        In your train scenario you must correct two things; 1) The light signal reaching the observer is scattered off local particles in the air/gas in the train. It does 'c' wrt the particle, 'c' wrt the glass window 'n', and 'c' wrt the gas/air around the observer. And 2.) You must treat the observers frame as if it was a fixed video camera. You can then measure and properly consider the transit time across the frame. I hope that helps?

        Best wishes

        Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #43

          Hi Peter,

          "I don't need to learn to trust the speed of light. Constancy of 'c' wherever you are and whatever inertial frame you're in (i.e. whatever speed your'e doing) is the heart of the DFM. It proves it's possible WITHOUT having to deny a quantum field, so is the only theory that consistently explains the CMBR rest frame."

          It sounds like you're referring to the Invariance of the speed of light. I'm just not sure that you embrace the invariance of the speed of light.

          When light travels through glass or a gas with particles,

          a. in glass, it takes time for the photons to induce an electromagnetic field in a glass.

          b. with particles, photons make unscheduled pit stops along the way. Both of these cause c'=c/n.

          The fact that particles emit photons only means that the photon has an energy equal to the energy gap that emitted the photon. If another particle absorbs that photon, it will observe it at the speed of light in that medium.

          Basically, photons jump between inertial frames A and B can result in a change in frequency. For index of refraction, it changes the wave-length, not the frequency. so you get c/n=c'=f*lambda'.

          One might casually speculate that light in free space is slightly different from light traveling through glass or gas; different with slightly different properties. It's certainly slower. But is it different enough to invalidate the invariance of the speed of light (when it's in glass)?

          Jason

          You really need to get it clear in your mind that 'n' does NOT invalidate invariance, which was only ever of.. "light in a vacuum".

          i.e. In the 1950's Feynman was in awe of Lena Hau slowing light to 35mph in BEC. It never invalidated constancy of 'c'. The bit you keep forgetting is that the 35mph in BEC is constant whether the BEC was in her lab, on a train, a plane, or the space station. Light arriving from any observers rest frame will simply change speed both; A to comply with the media's 'n', and B to comply with any relative motion of that medium wrt the rest frame. The evidence of the Doppler shift proves it has done both.

          You're not alone in repeatedly forgetting that, which makes nonsense, anomaly and paradox of perfectly consistent physical results. It seems our brains are simply not well developed enough to easily hold and apply two variables at once. That's why the 'elephant in the room' is not visible to most humans for more than perhaps a few minutes at a time. Once we've thought it through repeatedly and our brains have got used to applying it, it all becomes very familiar and simple. But it won't happen without effort, and being told how it works first. I's no wonder Einstein couldn't see it.

          The speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant LOCALLY, in ALL regions of space, which is why it is constant to ALL observers, in all inertial frames.

          I really hope you can do this as it's a revelation.

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #45

          Hi All ,

          Good luck in this contest Peter, interesting essay.

          But where are Constantinos and Georgina ?

          Regards

          Steve

          Peter,

          I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to your essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) Please read it through a few times and then I'd be interested in your comments.

          GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #47

          what do you say Peter,why you say that? you are a real "genius thinker physicist"and your essay is very interesting,I bother you smetimes but you are very creative also,many people I think likes reading your posts.

          Don't stop dear friends, never,you are both of you, very very imaginatives and creatives.The 3 points of Jason are relevant....when the sorting of light is taken in a BH.The gravity fractalizes the light by its superimposings and fields.

          Don't stop your creativity and research of truth.

          Ps Jason you are right , the space and the mass and the light are purelly the same in the BEC at mu humble opinion.

          Best

          Steve

          Edwin

          First glance over looked potentially quite exciting, but a bit like hearing the excitement of a roller coaster from somewhere behind me. I turned from maths to look another way 40 years ago, I discovered much, but now can't look or think that way. (AE; "We won't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them") So I'll have to rely on you to explain.

          Did you know that naturally rotating toroids are scalable from tokamaks (sub atomic level) up to 10^9 (galactic smbholes)? I can't help thinking there's a connection, in fact I have a much better alternative for the issue of re-ionisation of hydrogen, which is also connected. (paper on the way). I'm also starting to warm more to the concept of diffraction rather than refraction, same thing but more gentle in an Ewald-Oseen extinction way, leading via the (combined?) field to QG. - and much more!

          Did the point about how the gravitational potential of a body increases when in motion through the vacuum come across in my essay? (the real equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Mass)?

          I hope you can give me an analog commentary on your pdf, which I need vefore I can give intelligent comment. I'd like to understand some of the basic maths in a logical sense as I wish to adorn a paper with the odd equation (cited) to see if I can stop one being binned before it's read!

          Many thanks

          Peter