Real-Time Physics

Steve, still on these cool clocks... I went through my textbook again and it says: "The distance between corresponding points in successive waveforms, such as two successive crests or two successive troughs, is called the wavelength, λ. Each time the source vibrates once, the waveform moves forward a distance, λ. So in one second, when f vibrations occur, the wave moves forward a distance fλ. Hence the velocity c of the waves, which is the distance the profile moves in one second is given by:

c = fλ

This equation is true for all wave motion, whatever its origin, that is, it applies to sound waves, electromagnetic waves and mechanical waves" and checked the equation".

Please check your textbook again and share your thoughts. If at higher altitude, Each time the clock vibrates once, the waveform moves forward a distance, λ and at higher altitude, the clock vibrates faster in one second and therefore f increases, what effect will this have on the distance the profile moves in one second at that altitude?

Regards,

Akinbo

Thinking more about, c = fλ and what happens to c, when f changes. I think I got an answer now.

Steve is right that c can remain the same, when f is increased, as there is a compensating adjustment to λ, IF and IF the medium remains the same.

However, if f remains the same and the medium changes, λ will change and c will change as well.

So, IMHO when there is a variation in electromagnetic vibration, all aspects should be examined. Is it source frequency that is changing or is it the ambient medium that is changing?

Akinbo,

There are cases of both c and f, and of f and λ changing inversely to conserve the 3rd property when the media are co-moving. Refer to the matrix I gave you.

The difference is whether the observer remains at rest or accelerated into the new rest frame.

The test is to imagine standing at the start of a moving pavement (MP). As a file of equally spaced people all walking at 3mph (c) step on; you'll find c and λ change inversely.

However if you then step on yourself, (accelerate into the new different rest frame) you'll find it's now f and lambda that have apparently changed.

At very high speeds when stepping OFF; the min wavelength gamma comes into play as the queue can't compress ('wavelength') enough (the Lorentz factor quantifies the effect).

For some reason that logic STILL seems beyond the wit of man. That seems to be an ancient artifact caused by the Pagan belief back before space exploration that space was 'empty'. It seems many still cling on to that, though even QED agrees it isn't! (the field consists of oscillators at hbar f/2, at energy density p(f)~f^3.) all fields have an assignable group virial rest state K. Unfortunately no mainstream theorists searching for the big error have yet spotted that's it!

Some interesting proper science that's hit the wall at that point, and is free access, was posted on a Linked-in blog, some here;

Louden chapter on chaotic Light;

Light's Enigma.

Special edition; what is a photon?

I hope that may cut short much of the feeling around in the dark.

Do you think 2020 may be optimistic?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, you said: "There are cases of both c and f, and of f and λ changing inversely to conserve the 3rd property when the media are co-moving..."

I agree this may be so, but my focus is for static media with observer at rest. What I mean can be illustrated thus:

- If a source of waves, say a plunger or finger is being dipped in water at x number of times per second, waves of this frequency, i.e. f = xHz are generated travelling out at v m/s with wavelength, λ. The relationship is v = fλ.

- Increasing the frequency of dipping, changes f. λ also changes (reduces), but v remains the same. v is characteristic of the particular medium. The relationship v = fλ still holds.

- Next, plunge or dip the finger again at x number of times per second. This time however, replace the water with a thicker fluid. Waves are still generated at xHz. However, this time the wavelength, λ is different. I assume for thicker fluid, the wavelength λ will be longer (correct me here), so v is higher. The relationship v = fλ still holds.

The importance of my analogy is that when change in wavelength of electromagnetic vibration is observed, it could be a result of change in frequency or a change in the ambient medium. If an observer, knowing the relationship v = fλ carries a 'clock' beating at certain frequency, f = v/λ and enters unknown to him a different medium, he may encounter a dilemma if he wishes to redetermine the frequency, by using wavelength. Even though there may be no change in f, i.e. the clock's beating remains the same, if v changes (e.g. if v is higher) but is unknown to the observer, who therefore goes ahead to use f = v/λ, the wavelength will appear to have become shorter. The observer, will therefore 'calculate' that the frequency is faster and say "clocks beat faster".

This maybe the state of affairs of which it is claimed that "clocks beat faster" in a higher gravitational potential, i.e. at higher altitude. An observer oblivious that c has changed and is higher in the less dense ambient medium can be excused for making this claim. This is why it would be nice to know how Steve's "cool" clocks work.

Thanks for the link to: Special edition; what is a photon? Very rich. Needs to be kept for reference.

Do I think 2020 may be optimistic? I can only be optimistic, if you give up at least two of your claims or assumptions.

First, you must give up Lorentz factor, if it means (1-v2/c2). v is meaningless in the equation. How can v have a value 30km/s, 225km/s and 371km/s simultaneously. To three experimenters looking at the same rod and the same clock in the same laboratory, with each deciding his choice whether to use earth orbital motion, solar system galactic motion or our CMB motion, which is to be used to calculate the amount of Length contraction or Time dilation to obtain a constant resultant speed of light?

Second, you may need to revisit the claim that higher density of DFM plasma has no effect on the refractive index. It is my contention that denser plasma will have higher refractive index.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I agree, it's simply a dielectric constant delta. c/n and refractive index seem poorly understood outside Optical Science. The slower the propagation speed the greater the Doppler shift of wavelength. 'Time' signals are only EM emissions like any other. However the more important fundamental element is relative motion, which almost always applies in practice and is independent of n.

But unfortunately you're certainly wrong about the two elements you refer, which you simply haven't yet rationalized. Oh that it were as simple as you suggest!

what's wrong with the Lorentz Factor it it's 'meaning', or 'interpretation', not it's fact, which is experimentally undeniable. You seem to conveniently ignore that! How would you explain the fact that as increasing energy is put into accelerating an electron towards c round a collider tube, the energy required goes to infinity as the electron reaches almost c, with a curve precisely described by the Lorentz factor. Surely the important thing about good science Akinbo is that it's INCLUSIVE OF ALL phenomena found. Not just dismissing parts because the interpretation is nonsense!

When you truly understand what 'pure plasma' is all about, and the importance of Fresnel's index 'n' you'll also realise the error of you last statement. In fact plasma has been found to have an index not of just 1 but of fractionally LOWER than one!! That shows it's the electron interactions that give light it's impetus, so c is related to electron fluctuation rate! What certainly IS true is that pure plasma rapidly binds and evolves to CO, the basic ions and molecular gas, which ins deed DOES have a bulk Lagrangian refractive index of over 1. I certainly agree that for most practical purposes the ISM is NOT pure plasma so DOES have an index >1. Does that way of understanding it help?

So the problem then reduces to; If we are to evolve the ruling paradigm, so modifying 'beliefs', can it be done in small 'baby step' bites, which are then unsupported, or does the whole coherent picture need to be shown at the same time as a 'quantum leap' back from wonderland to reality?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

"...dielectric constant delta. c/n and refractive index seem poorly understood outside Optical Science. The slower the propagation speed the greater the Doppler shift of wavelength". IMHO ('humble in my case too'), I can't see what Doppler has to do with this, if there is no relative motion between source and receptor.

"However the more important fundamental element is relative motion, which almost always applies in practice and is independent of n". I agree to this.

"...what's wrong with the Lorentz Factor is it's 'meaning', or 'interpretation', not it's fact, which is experimentally undeniable. You seem to conveniently ignore that!"

The FACT 'Lorentz factor' rabbit was brought out of the hat to explain was the Michelson-Morley experimental result. There was no collider during that era if I am not mistaken.

"How would you explain the fact that as increasing energy is put into accelerating an electron towards c round a collider tube, the energy required goes to infinity as the electron reaches almost c, with a curve precisely described by the Lorentz factor".

To be clear, state the equation of the Lorentz factor used here. Or is it same with what I posted? If it is, define the 'v' of the electron, noting that 'v' must have direction too. That is, when the electron is moving towards or away from the observer in a collider must have an effect since the the 'v' can then be +/-. This +/- is commonly overlooked either deliberately and mischievously or inadvertently by many appealing to Lorentz factor.

"When you truly understand what 'pure plasma' is all about, and the importance of Fresnel's index 'n' you'll also realise the error of you last statement".

According to the textbook, Tom keeps saying I should read and read till I get blind, Fresnel's formula is given by

cobs = cmedium + v(1-1/n2)

where cobs is the observed velocity of light, cmedium is the velocity of light in the medium, n its refractive index and v is the speed of the medium relative to the observer and in the direction of the light. The formula was relevant to how matter media drag light. Using water as the matter medium, Fizeau experimentally demonstrated the formula, showing that with source and receptor stationary in the laboratory but with the water moving relative to receptor, arrival time of a light beam was affected by the motion of the matter medium traversed by the light, i.e. cobs is affected by the motion of the medium towards or opposite the direction of light travel to the receptor. The effect became important during the ether-drag saga. Einstein in an untranslated paper however noted when n = 1, there can be no drag based on the formula. So, if as you say plasma has n = 1, then no use bringing in Fresnel's index (drag coefficient).

In conclusion, bitter as the pill may be 2020 vision will remain unrealizable if you don't take more than a second look at those two aspects mentioned. You can take inspiration from Kepler who continued his struggle with the 'perfect circle' as the orbit, but eventually tried the 'imperfect' ellipse to the great benefit of mankind.

Regards,

Akinbo

Pentcho,

"if the consequence is unacceptable, the postulate must be false." Not necessarily. As I found out, the mistake can instead be attributed to the admittedly intended by Einstein misleading interpretation of the first, not the second postulate. I see this insight a key to what bothers not just Smolin.

A second obstacle is a lack of awareness among theoreticians that the symmetrical laws of nature, in terms of differential equations, are abstractions from reality. Everybody who watches a movie that shows typical real processes is able to judge whether the arrow of playback direction corresponds to causality. Mathematical models deliver both a realistic retarded and a unreal advanced solution.

Moreover, reality differs from records and mathematical models in that there is not just a direction but also an actual current border between past and future.

Eckard

I still do not know why you are being so coy about Smolin's arguments...Smolin wrote a whole book that said simply, "Time is real." I agree, time is real.

"Smolin cautiously complained: "according to conventional wisdom ... time is an illusion that emerges from some deeper physics." He just "begs to differ". Perimeter institute would hardly tolerate readiness for seriously asking to what extent SR and spacetime are wrong. Meandering search for even more silly alternatives are more welcome so far. I admire Hermann Weyl for frankly admitting "at present there is no explanation for the symmetry between past and future ...Steve, I cannot see your theory invalidating Smolin's arguments for real-time physics."

Matter time is all about the reality of time...it is space that not primal, merely emergent. Frankly, I do not know if you are agreeing or disagreeing with matter time. Nothing about matter time contradicts Smolin, who has his own cute little loop quantum gravity that very few like.

Somehow you seem to think that because light oscillates in time, that it also oscillates in space. Of course, by standard physics, this is called the dispersion relation and all of mainstream physics is built around it.

"However, if f remains the same and the medium changes, λ will change and c will change as well. So, IMHO when there is a variation in electromagnetic vibration, all aspects should be examined. Is it source frequency that is changing or is it the ambient medium that is changing?"

However, what if our notion of space comes from the oscillation of light it time? Space is then only what we imagine because light and time and matter and action. Light would not really have a wavelength in an existant space, bur rather we imagine space as a distance in time oscillations between two objects.

Peter,

In addition to what I posted earlier and what you said about, "accelerating an electron towards c round a collider tube". Something occurred to me. If the equation applicable is me = m/в€љ(1-v2/c2), and it is correct, then the electron's mass approaches the infinite. If such an electron hits a target, its momentum will be ~mec. I think if we examine this thoroughly we will see that such mass increase to infinity is an illusion and not real. Such an accelerated electron fired at a mountain can blow it up based on momentum conservation laws (and Newton's action-reaction law)! This does not appear to be the case. If it is not the case, then this is another reason to abandon Lorentz factor. But on another note, if it is, perhaps we can use that technology to blow up any earth bound asteroid to prevent a disaster?

I read somewhere that Einstein (honest man that he is) abandoned this rest mass-relativistic mass concept, reversing himself and saying mass is 'invariant'.

Eckard,

(from the other thread) There was no data on cosmic microwave, pulsar light in 1905. So Einstein was justified then to say, "But ALL experiments..."

Steve,

"However, what if our notion of space comes from the oscillation of light it time?"

What of people that don't know what is called light? Do blind people have a notion of space? Do they walk around? Do they grope in the dark to find objects in the room? Perception of space seems to be independent of perception of light.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Oh ye of little faith! If theory can't match findings it needs binning. You're rooting around lost in the bin Akinbo. I don't have time, but will just point to the errors;

1) When particles in the LHC are collided it's found the DO have that additional energy! It's no 'illusion'. You'll find the speed dependent relative energy the same with cars approaching you! And just check out the 'power curve' of the synchrotron radiation emitted as the plasma density increases. I't precisely described by the Lorentz factor. It's not just the 'rabbit from the hat. That's only simplistic thinking. It was known long before M&M that light 'hits a wall' at c. The undeniable (without delusion!) effect is caused by a real physical mechanism.

2) Doppler Shift. Again you disappoint as I've rationalised this before for you more than once! You've again forgotten Maxwell's near/far field transition that every antenna engineer knows intimately! Just look closer;

Two identical emitters oscillate at identical rates OK? So they both emit into the NEAR field (as close as a few nm) at the same wavelength and speed. OK? Now the ambient medium is the FAR field. If one is dense and the other diffuse, the latter speed is higher so wavelength longer. A very dense medium slows each wave in turn, so compresses them, which IS Christian Doppler's wavelength change, or rather one 'case' of it (remember f is only the derivative).

Analysis; The medium (dielectric constant) factor 'n' (giving propagation speed) has an effect on wavelength independent the the (any) kinetic effects.

Akinbo,

In the thread "Ripping..." you somehow mixed text by Him with your comments without the due separation e.g. by means of [ ] or the like.

Eckard

Eckard, you are right. Sorry about the confusion. Will you be able to translate some of Einstein's papers from German to English? Many of the papers still remain untranslated I wonder why?

Akinbo

The concept of space is a very useful and indeed essential part of our consciousness. It is how we keep track of objects and actions and so all of our senses return nothing, no change, when we do not sense an object.

"What of people that don't know what is called light? Do blind people have a notion of space? Do they walk around? Do they grope in the dark to find objects in the room? Perception of space seems to be independent of perception of light."

A blind person depends more on touch and sound, but the principle is the same. When we sense two objects, we deduce a time separation between them and we imagine that the lack of sensation between those objects is the nothing of empty space.

Our sensations are all neural impulses whether they are touch or sight or sound or smell or taste. All sensation is an exchange of matter with objects and light is just a part of object matter that is how they are held together. When we touch an object, we likewise sense by exchanging matter how the object is put together just like when we sense its light.

However, that being said, it still does not mean that space is axiomatic since you can describe all of action with just matter and time without an knowledge or reference to the nothing of empty space. Moreover, imagining action without space allows you to get a sense of the true nature of our underlying reality with proper time and matter. Then, all you need do is multiply dtau by c and you are back into space.

Steve,

"Our sensations are all neural impulses..." discretely so, yet not in any known metronomic. Genetically the neural complexity produces mental processes from which emerge behavior. Theorizing is a complex of behavioral patterns not the mental process itself. So the quantum mechanical view that continuous function can be explained as a 'smoothing out' of a manifold of small enough events is very descriptive of human conscious awareness. That being said, it does not follow the quantumized description is axiomatic of the reality. We can somehow perceive that there is continuous function but we can only have a vague idea of what we call 'continuum', being limited by the very discreteness of neural impulses. Underlying the quantum macroscopic, metronomic experience may well be a continuum of what metamorphizes as; space, time and energy. :) jrc

Reality may be continuous, but a discrete reality sure works well. The idea of matter exchange of very small particles being the underlying reality seems like a winner to me.

"Underlying the quantum macroscopic, metronomic experience may well be a continuum of what metamorphizes as; space, time and energy."

Steve and John C,

Do the topic "real-time" and Pentcho's denial of spacetime relate to the question of continuity?

Just an aside concerning the often claimed digital function of neurons: Neural systems tend to have no common sampling time, not even approximately, because there are multiple analogous dependencies to the thresholds of firing, and refractory time does also vary a lot.

Real-time systems are twice bound to reality:

They can of course only use already existing data, i.e. past ones.

They are require fast enough signal processing of the input as to deliver results sufficiently in time for stable control, for life transmission, or the like.

Eckard

That spacetime is doomed according to Arkani-Hamed is a little bit of rhetorical device since nowhere in his talk does he really make it clear. Is space doomed? Or time? Or is it just the unity of space and time that is doomed?

"Do the topic "real-time" and Pentcho's denial of spacetime relate to the question of continuity?"

It would be nice for more clarity...Presumably mass-energy equivalence (MEE) is true, therefore the Lorentz invariance follows from MEE. Lorentz invariance means that c does not depend on velocity, but note that c can still change for other reasons than velocity. Gravity changes c, index of refraction changes c, acceleration changes c, and of course the decay of the universe changes c.

Relativity and gravity are still continuum theories, with or without spacetime. Quantum theory is discrete with or without spacetime.

"Just an aside concerning the often claimed digital function of neurons: Neural systems tend to have no common sampling time, not even approximately, because there are multiple analogous dependencies to the thresholds of firing, and refractory time does also vary a lot."

There definitely are modes in neural impulses...they are called EEG waves. The fundamental mode is called the delta mode at ~1.6 Hz, the heartbeat mode of unconsciousness, and the alpha mode at 7 x delta, 11 Hz, the mode of consciousness. By pairing neurons firing at delta, the brain creates attractor/repeller packets that condense into a moment of thought.

A moment of thought is a neural packet of aware matter that is analogous to the digital internet packet, but while an internet packet holds 2 kB, a neural packet can hold several tens of MB of equivalent data. So there is a timing in neural network processing, it just varies according to the variation of the delta wave.

Eckard,

The issue of continuity goes straight to the lamentable lack of a classical model of atomic structure. The successes of application of the QM regime in technologies severely weights any debate, and I think it is too seldom noted that Planck's solution to the Violet Catastrophe was an ad hoc idea that worked. Bohr's instantaneous quantum leap and Schrodinger's analytical equation (which he never explained) simply agree with the consistent observation of 'h'. The disjunction occurs with the wavelength emerging instantaneously at light velocity rather than as being a time dependent classical ejection of energy which assumes a straight line trajectory in an apparent differentiation of a finite quantity. What has evolved as the standard model has effectively deterred any real efforts to explain the wave particle duality in a realistic physical model necessary to construct an alternative hypothesis of a continuous 'flow' of energy within an electronic mass or as constituent of an atomic mass, which as a special case emerges as an electromagnetic waveform. On this I think we would be in general agreement. Regards, jrc