Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Claudio Borsello: on 4/7/17 at 19:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Shandaei, I would appreciate if you could read my essay. In fact,...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 9:51am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

James Hoover: on 4/3/17 at 16:27pm UTC, wrote Koorosh, I checked out your prior essay and tend to agree with you: "The...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 4/2/17 at 8:47am UTC, wrote James, Thank you for your comments, you touched a very interesting...

James Hoover: on 4/1/17 at 23:03pm UTC, wrote Kooroosh, I assume that such an experiment has not been tried before --...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 3/31/17 at 17:16pm UTC, wrote Dear George, Thank you for your kind words, I man delighted that I been...

George Kirakosyan: on 3/31/17 at 6:15am UTC, wrote Hi dear Koorosh, Actually you have touching to very important old problem...

Koorosh Shahdaei: on 3/29/17 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote Thank you Peter, I agree that the precision of "c" would be a concern at...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jonathan Dickau: "As it turns out... My personal philosophy specifically treats the notion..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Jonathan Dickau: "I agree Lorraine, I've never been so much a fan of the 'paragon of..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi FORUM
April 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Measuring speed of light emitted by a moving frame by Koorosh Shahdaei [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 20:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

At first glans, this paper would be off-topic, but it would hopefully contribute to physical science as it suggests novel methods for measuring speed of light emitted from moving objects. Speed of light has been measured by various methods and to current knowledge is believed to be constant. These techniques include accurately known measurement methods of the day; e.g. cavity resonator, radio and laser interferometry etc. and are persistently revised. Despite the fact that there exists some controversy regarding the limit of speed of light, but there also methods like FEL (A free-electron laser or FEL, is a type of laser whose lasing medium consists of very-high-speed electrons moving freely through a magnetic structure). Proposed method is based on a conception of measuring the speed of light from a moving frame which according to the principal of special relativity would be a constant quantity in vacuum and is independent of the frame and its relative velocity whether the light is received or emitted. In spite of the theoretical part i.e. relativity and Doppler Effect and the fact that Michelson and Morley experiment doesn’t measure the speed of light directly, this method suggests an applied measurement which needs to be tested. In addition another method based on fringe shift is suggested on a rotating Michelson-Morley platform. In fact the Sagnac effect has already shown a non-null result [1] as it is done on a rotational platform, but this method is somewhat different as one of the mirrors has a slower linear/angular velocity then the other one.

Author Bio

MSc.Engineering Physics, MBA, IT-Security, Innovator, Member of Swedish Physical Society

Download Essay PDF File




Andrew R. Scott wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:18 GMT
"At first glans (sic), this paper would be off-topic"

At a second, third and all further glances too, frankly.

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:41 GMT
Thanks for ye comment




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Shandaei

The speed of light is the limit. The limit we can measure approximately.

It is best to stay exact value by convention.

Best regards,

Branko Zivlak

report post as inappropriate


Author Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Mr. Zivlak,

You are right its about approximation, but the point here is, another method of truly make the measurements from moving frames not involving L-symmetry and relativity.

Kind Regards

Koorosh




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 12:25 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Very interesting ideas that confirm the need to find a more reliable knowledge base, its limits. And what is the ontological structure of light?

Sincerely, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 12:39 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

This is one of interesting subjects, and really researcher have been putting lot of effort for different type of measurements, I hope one day we can acquire much more information about light.

Warm Regards

Koorosh



Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 14:10 GMT
Wave-vortex structure? Valery Pakulin: Structure of Matter / The vortex model of the microworld / ch. 3.3 page 42)

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Valeriy Pakulin Structure of Matter

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 07:01 GMT
Hi Shahdaei,

Nice suggestion on a new method of measurement of light.

Your proposed experiment is good. You said… ” An emitting source of light (emitting frame) which is the moving frame has a relative uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary frame. The measuring frame which comprising of measuring devices, is stationary relative to the emitting frame. Furthermore the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:16 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

Thanks for your comment, as a matter of fact as you mentioned about curvature, this regards all experiments that we do, as vi, our solarsystem and our galaxy all are rotating but we have approximate linearity that works good an small distances, I hope i could answer your questions. I'll proceed to your paper shortly.

Kind regards

Koorosh




Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:43 GMT
Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,



Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you for your comments, my view is although we observe a complex world, but I think underneath it is much more simple that we can't really comprehend as we only kan comprehend part of the real universe.

Kind regards

Koorosh




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

Sorry, the previous message does not work links. I expose the message a second time.

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your comments, very interesting point of view, actually you looked at the device from another point of view, and this type of brain storming is very enlightening.

I wish you success in your essay.

Kind Regards

Koorosh




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

On page 7 of my essay "Towards more reasonable evolution" I argued for the one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum. I am ready to defend this view.

My first posting, directed to all, was deleted, perhaps it was reported as inappropriate.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 19:33 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I will have a look at your essay.

Kind Regards

Koorosh




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Koorosh Shadaei

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Koorosh

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Koorosh

You have described your proposal well. Question: having the emitter on a rocket moving at velocity v will introduce Doppler shifts in the wavelength. Why a moving emitter at all?

In my theory of light moving through a discrete universal ether at a maximum speed c Beautiful Universe Theory n pure vacuume, but at slower speeds in gravitational or otherwise energized fields, c would be faster on the Space Station than c measured on Earth. Or would it ? Since clocks would give slower time? Needs thinking out by experts!

Good luck

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 20:13 GMT
Dera Vladimir,

Thank you Indeed for your comments, regarding your question about Doppler effect as you mentioned, Doppler effect will happen in our case, but in this method vi are not concerned about it, we only measure the time difference which in our particular case does not involving neither SR nor Doppler effect. The reason I proposing a moving frame, it a novel way of measuring the speed of light from truly moving objects as e.g. MMX doesn't measure speed of light but just measuring fringe shift instead.

Regarding the speed of light on the space station, as I suggested one could calibrate the device as "c" would be measured when the frames are at rest with respect to each other, in this way have vi eliminated what you mentioned about possible energized fields that would impact "c".

I hope, this could clarify your questions more.

Kind Regards

Koorosh




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT
Kooroosh.

Off topic but worthy of comment. I've studied this issue for some time and agree that better experiments are required as theory and analysis are incorrect, that yours is reasonable set-up, but also that the findings will be analysed as finding precisely 'c'. Are you familiar for instance with Lodges 'spinning glass disc' experiments? and Ruyon Wang's recent advanced 'Sagnac'...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 20:43 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your comments, I went though your links, very interesting articles. As you mentioned we can't have any fix reference as the earth and solar system and our galaxy are in complex motion, but I agree that either frame could be considered stationary, so simply we could say detector-frame or light emitting frame to be more precise.

At the detector side there should be inbuilt antennas and no lenses involved then we are not concerned about the refraction. As regards the Doppler effect, that will happen but we are just measuring the time difference as the distance between the detectors is known. Finally we'll get the speed of light with arbitrary precision as we also calibrated our detectors.

I hope I've been able to answer your question.

Best regards

Koorosh



Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT
Kooroosh,

That shows flexible thinking so is very good. However my prediction of 'c' remains and matches all findings. Yet doctrine is still wrong. For 'why'; consider this carefully;

ALL matter (not just what we call a 'lense'!) has a surface 'fine structure' of free fermions, familiar as electrons, (or in plasma physics 'surface plasmons' etc.) In Maxwell terms, adding physical reality, this forms the TRANSITION ZONE (TZ) between his 'near' and 'far' fields. An aerial engineer will tell you exactly where it is, varying with wavelength but for light it's around max 1 micron. For a spacecraft or plane it's some metres off the body (it can even often be seen!)

Light will therefore be modulated to the LOCAL rest frame c on arrival at the 'near field' ALL matter and on ALL electron interactions!

So if your receptors are anywhere near each other I fear the result will be 'c' and reinforce poor science. But if they're far apart, then most will likely say their relative range can't be precise enough. It is a big problem, and past experiments have similarly just served to re-inforce doctrine as interpretation is flawed. But do keep working at it!

None the less your low score is rather an insult so adding mine now will help. I hope you may get other constructive responses. I also hope you may read, like and score mine - which I think contains a very important finding also not analysed by most!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:40 GMT
Thank you Peter, I agree that the precision of "c" would be a concern at low distances, but the detectors have to be calibrated to be able eliminating such source of possible errors as much as possible. The actual result that is essential here, it is to say that the speed of light would be constant. I will go through your essay.

Best regards

Koorosh




George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 06:15 GMT
Hi dear Koorosh,

Actually you have touching to very important old problem of fundamental physics that however now stands somewhat out of agenda. There was the decision to take this (speed of light) as it is represented in SR and do not to try to change anything here. But some contradictions still continued remains there. That is why your suggestion on new measurement of light's speed can change a lot of things.

But I'm really sceptical that someone will take this opportunity to again put under doubt the declared principles of relativity. The questions however continued to excitate truly thinkers. That is why I decide to support you with my rating.

Please to open my work and check there Ref. [3] where me also put this question and have describe the principle of similar experiment that can causally to explain how we can get the Lorentz transformation and SR without mysteries. But ... who will listen to us?

Be well, my dear!

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear George,

Thank you for your kind words, I man delighted that I been able to get my message out to people like yourself. As you also mentioned there are still doubts about SR, and it seems that the mainstream has lost orientation in some areas.

I will proceed to your essay shortly.

Warm regards




James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 23:03 GMT
Kooroosh,

I assume that such an experiment has not been tried before -- rocket to ISS. Does the speed of the target, about 17,000 and the speed of the rocket matter in this endeavor? What about rotation speed?

I support out-of-the-box ideas and will rate accordingly. As a science fiction writer, I endeavor to consider unknown factors like quantum entanglement, for example, as a possible factor in speed, something a type 0 civilization does not have the knowledge to consider.

My essay considers speculative ventures to look at dark matter as well. Hope you can check mine out as well.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT
James,

Thank you for your comments, you touched a very interesting question about the speed of the rocket and I believe that would be a very technical issue, but I think reasonable speed could be a factor of 1000 km/h, but as a matter fact, it is about the null result outcome considering the relative speed of the two frames.

As regards the rotational systems, all of our experiments are performed in a complex rotational system, considering earth, solar system and our galaxy, but in such situations there is a concept called approximate symmetry and approximate linearity which can be applied to this experiment and by this way the experimental data can be treated as it would happen in a linear system by approximation.

I will proceed tor your essay and wish you good luck.

Kind regards

Koorosh




James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:27 GMT
Koorosh,

I checked out your prior essay and tend to agree with you: "The human being are shaped to comprehend discontinuous chunks of a wholeness or totality." It is something we don't seem to perceive in that light. I was also in that contest and missed reading your essay at that point.

Regards,

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Claudio Baldi Borsello wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Mr. Shandaei,

I would appreciate if you could read my essay. In fact, after a manipulation of basic measurement units, I write about light speed limit extending it to voltage and maybe temperature limit.

Please have a look and give a score to my essay if you appreciate it.

Best regards,

Claudio B Borsello

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.