Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

Hello Jason,

I think you mean the 'generalised Compton wavelength' rather than 'de Broglie wavelength.' Also it is unnecessary to assume time-dilation if you think of the 'frequency of matter' as a clock. For now, relative to an observer as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, and frequency approaches 0. I do not like to speculate, and would rather let the physics be derived, but since you are thinking in terms of frequency you may like to consider extending the idea to hypothetical black hole 'singularities.' In this case the singularity is a point where E is infinite, and frequency is 0 - 'matter' is destroyed, and only 'un-manifested' infinite energy remains. Further, since 'the Light' shows symmetry between matter and antimatter, presumably the same should hold true for antimatter - a 'Penrose diagram?'

Regarding questions about the Big Bang, here is one: Assuming the Big Bang occurred, is the energy responsible for the Big Bang, the same energy responsible for the frequency of 'matter' now?

I like Edwin (Dr. Klingman), and I am pretty certain he has a sense of humour, and so for the fun of it, I quote (if I remember correctly) the following Biblical reference: In the beginning (before the Big Bang?) God said 'Let there be Light!'

Regards,

Robert

Hello Jason,

Just to qualify some of what I said above.

If we consider the frequency of 'matter' as a clock, then time-dilation is superfluos.

The speculation about the singularity may not be sound, for I took it to be the limit of matter approaching c.

In the Big-Bang question, 'now' could be taken to mean 'Block-time' - past, present, and future existing now. In this case, if the answer is 'yes' then sould that not mean that the 'beginning' of the universe is now? That is, the question of 'when' the universe began may be meaningless.

Excuse my haste in these replies,

Robert

Dear Robert,

To be honest, I totally forgot about Compton or DeBroglie wavelength. The idea that particles are just wave-functions with photons trapped inside is probably the kind of creativity that Steve was referring to. By using a funny little neumonic trick, I can manipulate difficult concepts more easily.

I looked at the Compton wavelength and noticed the derivaiton that's been clattering around my head for a while.

[math]E=hf=\frac{hc}{\lambda}=mc^2[/math]

Only, what I did was I rearranged it to get,

[math]m = \frac{hf}{c^2}[/math]

Then, I borrowed Newtons force equation, which might be illegal because I'm mixing Classical with quantum mechancis.

I made the impassioned argument that photon velocity does not change in a gravity field, but that frequency does change. So I popped off the

[math]\frac{d}{dt}[/math]

and basically derived what I call the Shift Photon Equation,

[math]F=\frac{hdf}{cdt}[/math]

It looks like an analogue to the Newtonian force equation, but it's for photon frequency.

The reason that time dilation is actually important is because gravity produces time dilation. So I argued that there will a time dilation experienced by a photon that travels from A to B. Assuming A and B are time dilation, then the frequency change obeys,

[math]T_B = \frac{T_A f_A}{T_B}[/math]

To make a long story short, these two seemingly unrelated derivations suggested to me that it might be possible to build a gravity beam or a tractor beam.

In your completely honest opinion, does my argument suggest that maybe someone should run the experiment to see if it really is a tractor beam?

Hello Jason,

Many years ago I saw a story about a 'tractor beam' that was inadvertently discovered by a researcher trying to use light to power nano-technology. The story was on a science show called "Quantum" on ABC in Australia.

The details are hazy, but I seem to remember something about the light not only rotating the nano-cog (or whatever it was) but also 'attracting' it. Whether or not other researchers have been able to reproduce those results, I don't know. I wish I could be more specific, but I think the researcher was (at the time) at the University of Queensland in Australia.

I do not like to criticise your creativity and ingenuity, and I am definitely not qualified to answer your question. As such, I can only comment from the perspective of my essay. What I said above should encourage you to pursue your idea, but my essay shows you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton's Second Law.

Remember, Einstein dreamed of the day quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come, as far as I am concerned. Follow your dream, and do not let anyone tell you 'impossible,' until they can explicitly tell you why!

"I have a dream!"

Robert

Thanks it's cool, indeed....we see in the stars, the words of God ....in the rotations of spheres,his hopes, in our quantum spheres his heart .....we are humble walkers after all, catalyzers of the universal sphere....we can imply some exponentials, relevant in an evolutive complementarity of our environments and their tools.All these creations around us are so incredibles, and we are still at the begining....you imagine the future universal sphere and all its intrinsic interactions.Fascinating and the word is weak.It exists so many creations, so many lifes everywhere inside our Universal sphere.The present improves and the future evolves.......it's the future, the sphere and its spheres.....the otpimization is so important, that permits the sorting.

Regards

Steve

ps the maths aren't difficult ,you know it's just a language, thus of course it's not the number of words, signs or methods which are important ....but the real understanding of universal maths.You know the maths even for an other planet, with others creations,with other language,...shall be always the maths. The primes are the primes, the numbers are the numbers......here and everywhere in the universe , 1 is 1 .....it's just a kind of writing and interpretation.All people can invent a method in simply seeing the world around.....when newton has invented his equation about gravity,he simply writes his observations,The apple falls down, there is a distance between the apple, a spheroids hihihi, and the earth, an other spheroid,....and hop a constant and hop an equation of simple observation.....there and it's a secret, we can extrapolate with my spheres and mvV ...THUS AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE NEWTON LAW OF GRAVITATION BETWEEN TWO SPHERES....MORE THEIR ENTANGLEMENT OF SPHERES FOR THE FRACTAL.

PS We are all uniques, precious.....all complementaries,....if the vanity and others stupidities aren't inserted of course as others chaotic parameters.

What is the real intelligence if we take the sacred writings, just the fact to reject the bad, the evil.And the sincere desire of learning about love.......

Regards

Steve

Dear Robert,

I do appreciate your encouragement as well as your honesty.

R: "... you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton's Second Law"

R: "...quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come,..."

If you were God, and you created the universe, wouldn't you leave yourself a cleverly disguised back door so that you could get back in if you wanted to? The Uncertainty Principle and appearance of dice might be a disguised back door. If so, then the physics community will not be able to produce a fully deterministic theory, not without bumping into God first.

As for Newton's equation, what do you call it when somebody comes along and writes down the frequency analogue to F = ma, and argues it both algebraically, and also on the grounds of (1) time dilation and (2) Doppler redshift?

Hello Jason,

Once again I have been hasty in my reply.

I hope not to alienate you with my comments, so please forgive me for my bluntness.

The foundations in my 'theory' are deterministic, but I have no doubt that probabilites and statistics will be used. For example, Bose derived Planck's Law by thinking of the radiation within the cavity as a photon gas. In terms of my essay , therefore, his was the first 'legitimate' derivation of Planck's Law.

My 'paradigm' of physics is different, and so I am not qualified to comment on your Shift Photon Equation, for you use concepts that do not apply. For example, Newton's Second Law is defunct in a 'massless' universe. Therefore, the 'F' in your Shift Photon Equation is meaningless. Instead, acceleration is accounted for by the 'equivalence identity' (a=g), which relates it to gravity. Finally, 'the Light' applies to matter and radiation, and cannot be mathematically differentiated, which necissitates using a=g to account for relative acceleration.

You should not give up on your idea, you may just need to think in terms of a different paradigm.

Please let me know what you think.

Robert

Hi Steve,

"He who seeks, know not. He who knows, seeks not" - Lao Tzu.

Perhaps we have an innate desire to know reality, and escape all illusions.

The question then is: What is reality?

The quote by Lao Tzu suggests that 'reality' cannot be expressed, only experienced. The Buddha also told his disciples not to waste time in idle speculation. The ego may be powerless to know reality as it is, that is, without some kind of symbolic representation. And if 'ultimate reality' is beyond all symbols, then science is preoccupied with studying an illusion! Will science ever reach the conclusion that reality, as presented to us by our physical senses, is an illusion, that is, our physical senses are deceiving us?

All the best to you Steve,

Robert

Hi Robert,

You're a good guy and your bluntness helps me to see what's really happening. I just finished responding to someone's argument against my point of view.

If you can find what they wrote,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28724&st=135&#entry476630

Where they said,

"F ~ (G M h f)/(c²R² − 2 G M R) ≈ (G M / R² )(h f /c²) = g (h f / c²)

which Pound and Rebka described the frequency change mechanism giving this value as the "appearant weight of the photon" in 1960."

My rebuttal is at,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=0&#entry477913

Which is all to complicating to find. In a nutshell, Repenner is arguing that a bunch of physicists decided that,

[math]m=\frac{hf}{c^2}[/math]

means that the mass is different for different observers, and that's too hard. So they wrote,

[math]m = \sqrt{\frac{E^2}{c^4}-{\frac{p^2}{c^2}}} [/math]

and figured they would all be dead before anyone noticed or had the audacity to question it.

When you're solving for mass, your solving for all the mass. You're not hiding some mass in the momentum term so its nice and constant for all observers.

No wonder Relativity doesn't make sense. :-D

Hi dear Robert,

I beleive Lao tzu and Siddartha Gottama are right. We see only a part'very weak it's our walls and limits,even our domains of analyzes) of the universal reality, furthermore it evolves this reality....it exists like an ultim aim in the physicality,..... the sphere and all its spheres,quant.and cosm.at the perfect equilibrium between all "mass spheres systems".

This sphere is in optimization.It's a hope I think this physicality in improvement.

Regards

Steve

Hi Robert,

I'm curious, how do you know you're making enemies? You seem very amiable. Although physics right now is a mathematical thicket of mathematical monstrosities. I've taken a weed whacker to the Invariant Mass over at PhysForum.com. Trust me, the weeds don't like me very much over there.

I discovered another problem with what their teaching physicists these days. When a skydiver falls, she loses potential energy and falls faster (gains kinetic energy). When a photon falls (into a black hole) it blue shifts. But there is no spectral potential energy term that relates photon energy to gravity. Yet gravity DOES act on light; that's why black holes are black.

Hello Jaosn,

How do I know I'm making enemies? Either my essay is not being read, or it is misunderstood and I'm written off as a crackpot, or it is being read happens to be understood and cannot be faulted. For example, imagine the seeming audacity of a nobody claiming to refulte Quantum Mechanics with a logical counterexample, and further claiming General Relativity is premature? It MUST be a joke, right?

What is lacking in my essay are details. But I consider that positive, for if the derived foundations (the Light and Equivalence Identity) leave no room for doubt, then physicists have a firm foundation upon which to build. My job is done.

Robert

Robert,

I'm with you. I completely understand how you feel and what you're facing.

Anyway, I'm writing up the momentum versus power for the shift photon. It's going to take a lot of work to get all the kinks out of it. If you want to see, email me at wulphstein@gmail.com. It's not even close to finished yet.

Hello Jason,

Agreed, we are all in the same boat when it comes to challenging the status quo.

I am fairly thick, so maybe you can clarify for me. The accepted wisdom today is that in General Relativity the velocity of light varies 'globaly' - bends and accelerates - but not locally (inertial frames - straight lines and constant speed). This is consistent if rulers and clocks vary with posision. There is a problem with this in terms of accounting for 'tidal gravity.' that is, the equivalence principle is not strictly consisten with 'tidal gravity,' and physicists are trying to graple with it. I beleive my essay answers that question.

I like your idea about frequency and gravity. Maybe you would like to think of the 'frequency of matter' and gravity. For example, if the 'rest-frequency' at a certain height above a body is constant (no kinetic energy), and then in free fall happens to decrease as its kinetic energy increases (by conservation of energy), does that mean that if its frequency were to increase (with no input of energy - by a miracle perhaps) during its free fall, that its kinetic energy must decrease, by conservation of energy? Such 'miraculuous-matter' would then be impervious to gravity merely by maniputing its own frequency!

Keep up the good work, and I will be happy to read - but not critique - your creativity. The approach I took in my paper was to be the greatest sceptic, and try and demolish it, that way I was able to iron out the kinks and clarify it - to my satisfaction at least!

All the best my borther in arms,

Robert

Dear Robert,

It's you and I against the status quo. I'm over at,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=60&#entry478105

as Mazulu. It's gotten bloody. I basically told them that they're all too scared of ridicule to be innovative. It's a snake pit over there and I am tired of being patient. It's on....

Hi Robert,

I just debated two opponents, one into a retreat and the other into capitulation. I've streamlined my argument down to this.

1. What does frequency shift require? A time dilation between two reference frames A and B.

2. How does one get two inertial reference frames to have a time dilation between them. By assuring a gravitational potential energy difference between A and B.

Shift photons are expected to carry a gravitational potential energy

[math]U = -h\Delta f[/math]

Hello Jason,

Holy cow, grasshopper! Remember patience is a virtue! Einstein had to wait for the Compton effect before his 'light-quanta' hypothesis gained general acceptance.

Robert

Patience? I ain't got time for patience. :-)