Search FQXi

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.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 5/20/12 at 15:43pm UTC, wrote Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics IV ...

Pentcho Valev: on 5/20/12 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics III ...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 5/19/12 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, vanity is what you call the property of humanity, I think you are...

Pentcho Valev: on 5/19/12 at 15:09pm UTC, wrote Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics II ...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/19/12 at 9:02am UTC, wrote You know Paul, The human nature is so sad.When I see the human...

Pentcho Valev: on 5/19/12 at 5:20am UTC, wrote Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics ...

Cindy Allison: on 5/12/12 at 7:06am UTC, wrote You have given most useful information here, I have no idea until now I...

Peter Jackson: on 5/2/12 at 18:11pm UTC, wrote Pentcho I can demonstrate to you that actual c plus v and apparent c plus...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, Re climate change: I’m more on the side of the QBism model, but..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS
September 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Two predictions for the Post-Quantum World [refresh]

Blogger Vlatko Vedral wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Every time physicists face experiments that cannot be explained with the existing theories they have to decide which aspects of these theories to keep and which to throw away. Planck, when faced with the inability of classical physics to explain black body radiation, decided to keep the laws of thermodynamics, but threw away the assumption that energy is continuous (which is an integral part of Newtonian mechanics). Similarly, Einstein, when trying to explain the inability of the Michelson and Morley experiments to detect Earth’s motion through the ether, kept the Newtonian assumption that the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, but he also introduced the invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames (a fact that is naturally encoded into Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, but not Newtonian physics).

 Credit: virtualphoto
Remarkably, thermodynamics survived the revolutions of the 20th century, both quantum physics and relativity. It now seems that it also survives their unification. (Gerard Milburn at the University of Queensland also takes this view. See the article “Thermal Timekeeping” in which he tries to construct a clock based on the principles of thermodynamics, in an attempt to define a concept of time that holds equally well on quantum and cosmic scales.) Let me explain. Probably the most significant consequence of the unification of quantum physics and special relativity (into quantum field theory) is the division of all particles into fermions and bosons, which behave very differently when treated collectively. If indistinguishable, fermions avoid each other, never wanting to occupy the same quantum state; bosons are the opposite and like to bunch all into the same state.

One might be tempted to think that the behavior of indistinguishable quantum particle threatens the laws of thermodynamics. The Second law says that in a closed cycle, the total amount of dissipated work has to be at least as large as the useful work, or the overall disorder as quantified by entropy has to increase (more colloquially: “when playing with nature we cannot even break even”). The key to understanding this is the concept of information we can gain about the system doing the work. The more information we have, the more work we can do, but, at the same time, obtaining more information requires more dissipation (either while acquiring it, or, more fundamentally, when deleting it – see Charles Bennett "Demons, Engines and the Second Law", Scientific American, November, 1987).

So, can quantum indistinguishability help as far as work? Take bosons for example. At low temperatures they all tend to condense, i.e. they all go into the lowest energy state. So, we might reason that the price of obtaining information about all of them is the same as obtaining the information about only one of them (since they all behave the same way). The amount of useful work, on the other hand, scales with the number of bosons (therefore it could be as large as the number of atoms in the condensate). This would imply that bosons could violate the Second law by an infinite amount!

But this is not so. I have recently showed with my colleagues Martin Plesch, Oscar Dahlsten and John Goold (quant-ph arXiv:1203.0469v1, 2 Mar 2012) that indistinguishable particles cannot improve any work cycle. The key is that the tradeoff between information is still preserved even when fermions and bosons are taken into account. Namely, obtaining one bit of information, such as if an atom exists on the left hand or the right hand side of a piston, still allows us to do at most one bit of work (in the units of kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T temperature).

I’d like to now speculate a bit while looking ahead. First, I would like to suggest that thermodynamics is so robust precisely because its foundations are information theoretic in nature. I am so confident about this that I am willing to bet that thermodynamics will also survive whatever revolution comes after quantum physics (I offer a good bottle of Dom Perignon to anyone who bets otherwise and wins).

This is not just a blind bet, I also have some evidence. Of course, I have no idea what (if anything) comes after quantum physics and relativity. At the moment both quantum physics and general relativity work so well that we have absolutely no experimental evidence to modify either. They don’t get on well, alright, but this is our only indication that there might be something beyond.

However, in the absence of experimental discrepancies, people are studying all sorts of post-quantum scenarios theoretically (it’s good to do this kind of stuff since one never knows where a breakthrough will come from – these are the “unknown unknowns”). These theories all have to maintain the same degree of genuine randomness as quantum physics since this is so well established in all quantum experiments. In other words, they are all probabilistic. They also respect “no-signaling”, in the sense that they do not allow faster than light information transmission.

Interestingly, some other ideas seem to survive the onslaught of post-quantum physics. Yes, you’ve guessed it: they are thermodynamical and information theoretic in nature. I have studied this with my colleagues Markus Mueller and Oscar Dahlsten (see also Dahlsten’s post for FQXi - “Is the Second Law a Meta-Theorem”). We have found that the link between information and disorder remains in the new theories. So, these theories are also unlikely to violate the Second law, as the relationship between information and disorder seems to be the key (this is why I said I had some more evidence about the robustness of thermodynamics).

Now I am really going to stick my neck out. I want to make two predictions for the post quantum world, but I am not willing to bet more than a bottle of Bollinger on this. One is that quantum entanglement survives in the post quantum world. Entanglement is a form of correlation between two or more subsystems that go beyond anything classically allowed (which is why Einstein called it “spooky action at distance”) and it has been confirmed experimentally in many systems and scenarios. But, more importantly for my argument, entanglement is also linked to information theory and thermodynamics. It is quantified by entropy (like disorder) and it changes only in one direction when subsystems are addressed independently (which, in some sense, is equivalent to the disorder increase).

The other prediction I want to make is that the link between an object’s entropy and its area, the so-called Holographic principle, will also remain true in the post quantum world. The Holographic principle is a generalization of the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula for black hole entropy (see, for instance, Lee Smolin’s “Three roads to quantum gravity”) and it has an information flavor, because it tell us about information that is “lost” when an object falls into a black hole; it has a thermodynamic underpinning too, since it relates this lost information to the black hole entropy increase. Some people believe that the entanglement between stuff inside and outside of the black hole is responsible, which only strengthens the argument.

To understand what really needs to be changed in the post quantum world we most likely need to patiently wait for that future experiment which will finally force us to depart from the currently established wisdom. In the meantime, however, it’s certainly fun trying to second-guess nature.

--

Vlatko Vedral is at the University of Oxford and the Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore. His popular book “Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information” (recently reprinted in paperback by Oxford University Press) discusses many aspects of the relationship between information, thermodynamics and physics.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Vlatko Vedral wrote: "... he [Einstein] also introduced the invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames (a fact that is naturally encoded into Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism, but not Newtonian physics)."

There is no such fact "encoded into Maxwell's theory of electro-magnetism":

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-
Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Pentcho

Einstein said that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity. Which is hardly a controversial statement, because, by definition, anything continues to travel at the same momentum if it is not interfered with in any way. In SR, there is no force (eg gravity), so it is the depiction of an unreal circumstance (hence the label, special). Here, light travels in straight lines, objects only travel in uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion, and they retain their shape. In GR, light and objects are affected. The issue is not about movement, per se, but that that indicates the presence of a force (eg gravity) which caused it. Which at the same time causes an alteration in dimension, supposedly. Which consequently affects timing and space, because distance will alter since the dimension of the object is altering, and timing will not be what would otherwise have been expected, because there is more (or less) distance to travel.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 07:46 GMT
Vlatko Vedral wrote: "First, I would like to suggest that thermodynamics is so robust precisely because its foundations are information theoretic in nature. I am so confident about this that I am willing to bet that thermodynamics will also survive whatever revolution comes after quantum physics..."

Don't bet. Strange forces act in Nature and scientists suspect that some of them do violate...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 13:27 GMT
I also object against: "Einstein, when trying to explain the inability of the Michelson and Morley experiments to detect Earth’s motion through the ether, kept the Newtonian assumption that the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, but he also introduced the invariance of the speed of light in different reference frames (a fact that is naturally encoded into Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, but not Newtonian physics)."

1) In Maxwell's theory the speed of light does not refer to different frames of reference. Maxwell imagined an aether, an absolute frame of reference.

Vladko Vedral is partially right: Even if Einstein did not quote the decisive sources, and he was allegedly not at all or not much aware of the MMX, his suggestion to abandon ubiquitous time was indeed motivated by Lorentz's desire for ascribing Galilean/Newtonian relativity to electromagnetism too. However, I see it premature calling the invariance in different frames an indisputable fact.

2) There are reasons to revise the MMX. Let's critically read serious arguments by Marmet, Feist, Shtyrkov, Smoot, Wilczek, Don Johnson, Gift, and others.

Be not mislead by trifles. I noticed: In his decisive Fig. 7, Feist erroneously wrote 10 km/h instead of 100 km/h. Nonetheless, his experiment convincingly claims being performed with care, and it obviously used appropriate means. Isn't Fig.7 compelling?

Feist' opponent Gerhard W. Bruhn, a retired mathematician of TU Darmstadt was formally correct when he criticized Feist's equations. However he did not notice a decisive fact: Feist used sound frequency of 220 kHz corresponding to a wavelength of just 1.5 mm. The wavelength of light is of course even smaller. The much larger than the wavelength extension of the piston like ceramic converter provides high enough directivity as to consider the emitted sound pulse with the method of ray acoustics, i.e. imagine as a bundle of parallel to each other propagating in the air phonons similar to the photons of a light ray.

Let's imagine a laminar flow of the medium air between an emitter on the left side of the car and a reflector on its 1350 mm apart right side. Imagine further a ribbon of paper co-moving with the air and recording the sound trajectories. The first trace on the paper will be orthogonal to the boundaries of the ribbon. Just seen from emitter and reflector, there is a velocity dependent angle phi= arctan v/c. The emitter sees the ray slanted as if it was dragged. The reflector sees the angle with the opposite sign, and it actually reflects it. Therefore, the return trajectory on the paper ribbon gets slanted by this angle, and consequently the propagation from reflector back to the emitter takes more time. Seen again from the emitter, the reflected ray is additionally slanted.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Matt Leifer wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
Vlatko,

I broadly agree with you that the laws of thermodynamics are "meta-laws" in the sense that they will survive future revisions of physical theory. This is essentially because they just arise from the application of statistics to the theory under consideration (whether you want to call this "information" is a matter of semantics) and you can do that for any theory for which there is reason to have imperfect knowledge of the fine-grained state. Indeed, there are completely abstract versions of some aspects of statistical mechanics, e.g. ergodicity, which seem to be making very few physical assumptions. Of course, there are some technical requirements, of which some appropriate notion of reversibility of physical laws is likely to be important. I would also point out that the thermodynamical rules may not end up applying to the precise concept we currently call "energy", but then it is more likely that we will revise our concept of energy such that thermodynamics does apply than the other way round, provided we get the usual concepts out in the appropriate limit.

I am aware of your work on thermodynamics in post-quantum theories, but I consider that speculative and not fully established at the moment. This is because there are various assumptions about the theories under consideration made in that work, e.g. the assumptions that entail that the theory has a maximally mixed state. It is not at all obvious that there are any theories that satisfy all of the assumptions other than quantum theory, classical probability, and quantum theory with superselection rules. In other words, in any such work claiming to go beyond quantum theory, I expect to see at least one example of a theory, and preferably an infinite family of theories of increasing dimension, that satisfies all of the assumptions but is not quantum or classical. Otherwise, you have simply axiomatized quantum theory and derived some known properties of it without being aware that this is what you are doing. Of course, a new axiomatization would be interesting in its own right, but I want to know for sure whether it is axiomatization or genuine generalization.

Finally, if you want to make a bet then I would bet that there is a well-defined theory within the convex-operational framework that does not satisfy the holographic principle. Note that this is much weaker than saying that the future theory of physics will not satisfy this, since I expect that such a theory would not be appropriate for describing our universe. I am just saying that such theories would be mathematically consistent, and maybe even generic, within the framework. Of course, if you want to take me up on this bet then we should pin down exactly which formulation of the holographic principle and which version of the convex framework (particularly with regard to the rules for combining subsystems) is under consideration.

report post as inappropriate

Markus Mueller replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 00:01 GMT
Dear Matt,

let me add a few words on your comments, as they apply to our work on randomization in GPTs. I agree with you that this is very speculative work. However, we do have examples of theories that satisfy our assumptions, which are neither classical nor quantum with superselection rules.

The example that I'm talking about is state spaces of Jordan algebras. Current work by Howard Barnum, Alex Wilce, and Cozmin Ududec shows (if I didn't get them wrong) that these state spaces satisfy all our assumptions. It is just that composite systems do not satisfy local tomography. In one of the subsection (III-H), we show how our results generalize to this more general case when local tomography is not assumed. This is perfectly applicable to Jordan state spaces.

The question if there are also examples _with_ local tomography (which is assumed in other parts of our paper) is an open problem in quantum foundations, and from my point of view I would say it is one of the most challenging and interesting open problems in GPTs.

Thus, we can turn the argument around: not knowing whether these theories exists, it makes a lot of sense to explore their properties. This will in the end either lead to a concrete construction, or to a proof that there are none. Both would be exciting.

From a more physical point of view, there is a simple message behind all the maths: The ratio of the single-shot measurable degrees of freedom (N) versus all accessible degrees of freedom (K) determines the expected amount of randomization.

This seems a robust result, giving us a hint how GPTs behave with respect to randomization in general -- and thus a glance on thermodynamics beyond the quantum. Come on, guys: we're heading to new territory! Some speculation must be allowed. (Some hep-th people would probably still find our level of mathematical rigor ridiculously high.) ;-)

So, Matt, I agree it's very speculative. And I'd be most happy about any GPT example of the kind you indicated (holographic principle) - it would be exciting.

Best, Markus

report post as inappropriate

Matt Leifer replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Thanks for your reply Marcus. First a question: What are the possible N vs. K relationships in Jordan algebraic theories? The reason for asking is that I would like to discern how much we have gained in terms of known examples from the generality of the paper.

Generally, my view is that if we are down to Jordan algebras then we are most of the way to an axiomatization of quantum theory. The reason is that I don't think any of the non-quantum, non-classical theories in that framework have viable tensor products, because of the local tomography issue that you mention. As a sidenote, there is a debate to be had about whether nonsignaling or local tomography is a more fundamental property for the composition of subsystems and I am sometimes partial to the slightly heretical view that it is the latter. In any case, you are just one simple axiom away from quantum theory once you have got as far as Jordan algebras.

Therefore, I would really like to see a nonalgebraic theory that satisfies the requirements of your paper, or at least to know how robust the results are under dropping some of the assumptions. For comparison, in the teleportation paper I wrote with Howard, Alex and Jon, there are also a lot of requirements, but at least we show that the results would fail if we dropped any one of them.

I know these problems can be extremely difficult to solve, so I hope my criticism doesn't come across as too harsh. I don't mind speculation, so long as it is flagged as such and the distinction between proof and conjecture is not brushed aside. I think that we need to maintain high standards of mathematical rigour when we enter territory for which there is no experimental evidence. The hep-th people should be following our example rather than the other way round.

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 13:00 GMT
I read today this blog, so my quick comment is a chat (so I can talk here), not a complete theory.

I think that the second law of thermodynamic is like the parallel postulate in geometry: it is not possible to prove it, and it is possible to built alternative Physics (like happen in geometry) without the collapse of the scientific knowledge (like in the not-Euclidean geometries).

I have an usual statistical mechanics textbook where there is not the second law of thermodynamic, but it is full of all the beautiful theoretical demonstration in all the thermodynamic fields.

I don't say that the second law is false, but that it is forgeable sometimes, and this have not consequence if we require that the perpetual motion is impossible: the second law is a weak law, the impossibility of the perpetual motion is a strong law.

It is possible to realize a technological violation of the second law, but this is not possible for long time: each macroscopic system (an aggregation of two, or more, interacting elementary particles) have a finite duration (a particle with different quark have a infinite duration? It is possible the decay of each compound particle in finite long time?); two, or more, particles (without friction) in a finite time change the periodic motion, then it is impossible an official standard clock that measure the time in exact way for an infinite time, then it is impossible the periodic motion in the phase space with superimposing trajectories.

The perpetual motion is impossible in Nature (this is a strong law).

I think that biological system can violate the second law, for some short time, but the strong law imply that the biological structure must change, and then the biological structure change in the phase space (the biological processes are irreversible).

The time measure with infinite precision is not possible because of the unattainability of the perpetual motion

Saluti

Domencip

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT
I think that the impossibility of the perpetual motion can be write (using classical proofs)

$\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty} P\left{S(0)\leq S(t)\right}=0$

this remember me different laws (the Law of Large Number or Chebyshev inequality); for a system that have N equal parts, the probability of entropy reduction must be lesser.

The entropy grow ever if we wait enough time, and the entropy fluctuation are ever possible.

This is possible only if a system cannot be isolate: the system fluctuation must have an external cause: when a not-perpetual motion machine is built by a builder, then there is ever interaction between machine and builder (without observation of the machine, because of the gravitational field unshieldibility); if we want verify the perpetual motion, then we must close the machine in a isolated chamber, but the synchronous builder-machine don't permit this (the phase-space trajectory is changed by the gravitational field: only the annihilation of the machine, or the builder, eliminate the interaction)!

The Universe contain all, but the Universe entropy increase is due to metric tensor variation.

If a perpetual motion is impossible, then it is impossible to create energy in each transformation because of a creation of energy permit the perpetual motion,

If a perpetual motion is impossible, then it is impossible a transformation of heat reservoir in work.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 11:56 GMT
I thought a three-dimensional chess game (I use boxes, not squares): the holographic game.

In this game each infinitesimal box contain a density probability, then each box have a entropy value.

The density flux can be possible only if the total probability is constant; then for a single box I can write:

$S(0)= - f_{00} ln[f_{00}]- \sum_{i,j\in\{-1,0,1\}} f_{ij} ln[f_{ij}]$

after the move the entropy must be:

$S(1)= -[f_{00} + \epsilon_{00}] ln[f_{00}+\epsilon_{00}]-\sum_{i,j} [f_{ij}+\epsilon_{ij}] ln[f_{ij}+\epsilon_{ij}]$

but the total probability is constant, and the entropy value must depend only over surface values (surface compensation of the entropy in the inner boxes), so (for infinitesimal boxes):

$\sum_{i,j} [\epsilon_{ij} (f_{ij}-f_{00})] =0$

the holographic chess game start with the complete value of the surface-density (observable values), then density value of all the boxes can be evaluated, and the density flux over all the boxes can be evaluated: the game use little value of the time-step, and then the evolution in unique.

There are infinite possible dynamic for each initial (surface) condition, and each initial condition is a different differential equation for the dynamic (I think that is possible, in general , to write a differential equation for each discrete equation).

I hypothesize that there are infinite holographic differential equation because each initial condition make a different differential equation.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 14:32 GMT
I would tend to agree with the assessment of this article. Thermodynamics is a measure of one’s inability to measure microstates as distinguished from each other in a macrostate. Entanglement entropy is much the same, and BPS black holes and extremal black holes have multi-partite entanglements of qubits which define their entropy. It also is important to see that the path integral is equivalent to a partition function in thermodynamics under the euclideanization it --- > τ == > ħ/kT. This technique is often used in path integral calculations to weight amplitudes of different frequencies, and is also used to euclideanize spacetime so the solution have some elliptic realization rather than hyperbolic.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 23:46 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"Thermodynamics is a measure of one’s inability to measure microstates as distinguished from each other in a macrostate."

Could you please reference the mathematical proof of this?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
This is a standard result. If you have states which occur with probability p_n, for n an index on the state, the entropy for this state is S = -k p_n log(p_n). In a microcanonical setting if all p_n = p are equal then a sum over this is

S_{tot} = -k sum_n p_n log(p_n) = k log(Ω)

For Ω the size of the macrostate. This result is engraved on Boltzman’s grave.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"This is a standard result. ..."

Ok. I am familiar with that. I thought you were referring to something more.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 14:50 GMT
Hi Vlatko,

I really enjoyed *Decoding Reality.* Nevertheless, I'll take you up on your Bollinger bet, with the caveat:

If by the survival of quantum entanglement, you mean that fundamental reality has to be probabilistic, I disagree. I don't, OTOH, disagree that " ... (quantum) entanglement is also linked to information theory and thermodynamics. It is quantified by entropy (like disorder) and it changes only in one direction when subsystems are addressed independently ..."

If Joy Christian is right, quantum entanglement is an illusion -- yet the primacy of *orientation* entanglement does not obviate the physical properties of quantum entanglement. The universe can still be made of quantum information without sacrificing classical determinism, so long as it is understood that the irreversibility of events ("subsystems addressed independently") does not imply the irreversibility of ensemble processes. The latter is the basis of time reversible dynamics supporting any classical, fully relativistic theory, i.e., a theory of continuous functions.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 17:59 GMT

" bosons are the opposite and like to bunch all into the same state."

If photons have no mass and thus no gravity, what constrains their size in a vacuum? Wouldn't a photon essentially expand when released from its atomic constraints and so the received photon isn't a particular released photon, but a quanta sampled from that "bunched state?"

Wouldn't this help to explain the wave like aspects, as well as action at a distance, redshift and various other phenomena?

How would it be possible to test a photon in a vacuum? It would seem that any device to extract information/distinctions would also impart information/distinctions.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Obviously there are strong anti-bunching properties to light, otherwise all light would quickly combine in some state of thermodynamic equilibrium and we wouldn't be able to see the kind of detail which we are able. The question here is whether photons that are closely related, ie, from the same source and similar frequency, etc. combine into an entangled state and when received, are samples of that state, not distinctly emitted quanta?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Hello crazzy thinkers,

All that becomes interesting.

Let's see where all this will go....

and if the perpetual motion was created ....let's see if the informations, the orders, the disorders, the harmony, the chaos....can be spherificated !

Clausius and Boyle are in a pub, they drink a belgian beer. Einstein looks at the clock during that Gibbs waits an other glass of beer.Kirchhoff prefers the vodka but the temperature is not adapted, so Gibbs and Nernst are angry. That is why the entropy is all they say. Now Kelvin , Planck and Debye listen the pression .The first law and the second they say , and if joule prefers the water , so what is the maxwellian distribution of velocities?

And Caratheodory who says that the phonons and the rotons are like spherons !They turn so they.....see the uniqueness and the volumes of this said serie of uniqueness.

Spherically yours.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 11, 2012 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear Vlatko,

Could you kindly clarify whether in your sentence "The other prediction I want to make is that the link between an object’s entropy and its area, the so-called Holographic principle, will also remain true in the post quantum world." you are referring to an object's surface area?

I am well aware of the link between area and entropy for black holes, but I always thought that the holographic principle applies to a region of space, not to objects in space (other than black holes). For instance, the Bekenstein Bound seems to specify a limit on the information density for a particular volume. Am I misunderstanding something?

Thank you,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Good Physicists Have Studied Under Very Fine Teachers......and the Maxwell Equations appear with rationality.

Now we can approach the information theory for a real understanding of this Entropy.

After all, the entropy of a pure substance is like a function of variables !

Let's take a substance and its numbers.Let's consider its steps of Energy. Let's analyze the causes and let's insert the informations with the volumes and the proportions with mass. The rotations and the harmonic oscillations can be harmonized. The volumes and the velocities of rotations spinal and orbital become relevant when the pure serie of uniqueness is inserted. The finite groups seem the answer. My equation can help considering an unversal relation between all spheres, quantum and cosmological. A planet or a particule, a fermion like a boson, a star like a BH.....in fact this equation implies an universal constant.m mass, c linear velocity, o orbital vel.,s spinal velocity,V Volume of this sphere.

In this reasoning, of course the second law is not violated considering the finite groups and the proportions, universal and general.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT
Vlatko:

Wow what an interesting blog entry! I have no comment, as you've cast my mind adrift with possiblity. Except for that essay in the contest about electron zitter? Apologies, if i'm mistaken, but I think it was by D. Rickles? Anyway, it was a way to keep track of time using the electons own frequencies?

Doesn't this bear on the ongoing work mentioned in your blog, somehow?

Anyway, this and that continue to be great Forums!

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 12, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
The second law of thermodynamics is valid for thr marcroscopic reality, and is already for a long time valid, logic because the marco world is the longest known and studied one, there was just one.

Then there came Quantum scale and cosmological scale, both are still young realities that we have to be used to so everything regarding these sacles is still in the childrens shoe.

Of course we are trying to validate the laws from the macroscopic scale to the other two, (because these are the best known effects), but for now already talking of after quantum era is I think a little too early, we have to understand this theory, which results ahev already realised a lot of applications in the macro world, more intense.

Just one last remark, we always observe our reality as causal, try to imagine a non causal universe (dimension) where all the pasts and the futures are "present" like possibillities or probabilities, also those from paralel or multiverse. These "presences" probabilities should not be seen as information qubits but just as probabilities. The imagine our consciousness as an antenna in this "Chaos" that is the two way receiver and emitter to realise our comprehensive causal reality. In this way we have no more problems in explaining time, the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 15, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
The information is a concept. The only one way to interpret it is by the respect of all proportionalities. If the informations are considered like a mass or a complementary mass of evolution, so we must insert the rationlities of the mass. So the volumes must be inserted, so the velocities of rotations also. The spheres turn and it is well like that. We can affirm that the informations, these codes are a reality. But how they act , that is the question. The encodings are the secret but how is encoded these informations, is it in relation with this mass. Yes but what is their pure dynamic. How can we class the informations? The volumes, spherical seem the answer.The sortings and the synchronizations so are under several parameters. It exists in fact so many kind of informations......that is why a pure taxonomy is essential, we can correlate with the entropical arrow of times and the pure volumes of encoding(spherical). The serie of uniqueness is important. If the rotations are proportional, so we have an interesting link with the density and the mass .The informations can be fermionic or bosonic it seems to me. But how they are encoded and synchronized and sorted ?

The volumes ! of the serie from the main central sphere, the main code, the main information !

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 12:19 GMT
Gravitational Redshift Means Decreased Speed of Light

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, according to both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's general relativity:

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"In the presence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Pencho,

You're going down a blind alley if you think the speed of light changes. The Einstein equations include term

$\frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$

The speed of light is tied to gravity. Don't you think that is the speed of light was a variable, then the Einstein equations wouldn't work?

report post as inappropriate

Bryan Sanctuary wrote on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
I am certain that entanglement will not survive much longer. By that I mean that entanglement is a property of qm and qm is a theory of measurement, not of Nature. I believe that particles that are close together are described well by entanglement but there is no explanation as to why it should survive when particles separate. The EPR experiments have not yet been explained. So eventually, sooner I hope than later, Bell's theorem will be repudiated and Nature will be found to be both local and real. That is, EPR will be exonerated. I think we are close.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Bryan,

Bell's theorem has already been repudiated by Joy Christian in 2007. See the Disproofs of Disproofs... thread.

Frd

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 3, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Einsteiniana and Ignatius of Loyola

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

That is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver (observer) is (4/3)c when the receiver is moving towards the source and (2/3)c when the receiver is moving away from the source. Einsteinians clearly see this but, like Fermilab physicist Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, confidently declare: "The speed of light as measured by the receiver is c because this speed is the same in all the reference frames, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

E2oD1w

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 3, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Pentcho,

May I ask you for your comment on a paper "Much Ado about Nil: Reflection from Moving Mirror and the Interference Experiments" by Christo Ivanov Christov in Progress in Physics, vol. 3, July 2006, 55-59? He was a specialist in Computational Fluid Dynamics, came from Sofia via Siberia to Lafaette, and died in March 16, 2012. Didn't he reveal the MMX pointless and the emission theory of light not justified by it?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Einsteiniana and Ignatius of Loyola II

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlycareer/ev
ents/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greates
t-work-wrong-didnt-go-far...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Pentcho,

You repeatedly quoted:"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Given, Christov was correct, and the MMX was based on a wrong expectation, then I cannot see any justification for the solutions to the (apparent) enigma given by neo-Lorentzianism or Einstein's special theory of relativity. Did't you read the paper I mentioned?

At least I wonder why you seem to avoid any word of regret that your Bulgarian compatriot has passed away. Wasn't he at least definitely a prolific good expert? Born in 1951, he was nine years younger than me.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 16:11 GMT
Capacitor in Water Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/5/05302
0/fulltext/

New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 053020, Microscopic derivation of electromagnetic force density in magnetic dielectric media, A Shevchenko and B J Hoenders: "As a first example, we consider the well-known experiment on raising a dielectric liquid within a parallel-plate capacitor. The capacitor is partially immersed in the liquid, and the liquid rises when a horizontal static electric field E is applied between the plates."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4845.pdf

"The fluid will rise between the capacitor plates..."

And if a small hole is punched in one of the plates, will the liquid constantly flow through it, in violation to the second law of thermodynamics? Yes - there is a hydrostatic pressure difference between the interior and the exterior of the capacitor. The hole could be drilled at the level of points 3 and 5 in FIG. 1 below (the hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 is shown in FIG. 2):

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamen
tals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.pdf

Can. J . Phys., 60. 449 (1982), Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "FIG. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric liquid. (...) FIG. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 in Fig. 1."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
Capacitor in Water Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics II

The force of attraction between two opposite charges (or between the plates of a constant-charge capacitor) immersed in water substantially decreases. The reason is that an additional hydrostatic pressure between the charges (plates) emerges; this pressure pushes the charges (plates) apart and so counteracts the original electrical force of attraction. In characterizing the situation Panofsky and Phillips use expressions such as "somewhat mysterious", "lacks a physical explanation", "cannot be explained by electrical forces alone":

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electricity-Magnetism-Second
-Physics/dp/0486439240

Classical Electricity and Magnetism: Second Edition (Dover Books on Physics), Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, p. 114: "This means that if a system maintained at constant charge is totally surrounded by a dielectric liquid all mechanical forces will drop in the ratio 1/k. A factor 1/k is frequently included in the expression for Coulomb's law to indicate this decrease in force. The physical significance of this reduction of force, which is required by energy considerations, is often somewhat mysterious. It is difficult to see on the basis of a field theory why the interaction between two charges should be dependent upon the nature or condition of the intervening material, and therefore the inclusion of an extra factor 1/k in Coulomb's law lacks a physical explanation." p.115: "Therefore the decrease in force... cannot be explained by electrical forces alone." pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the pressure of the liquid on the charges themselves. In accordance with the philosophy of the action-at-a-distance theory, no change in the purely electrical interaction between the charges takes place."

Two problems:

1. If the additional hydrostatic pressure between the charges (plates) "cannot be explained by electrical forces alone", then one must conclude that a NON-CONSERVATIVE force (one which can do work in isothermal conditions at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings) is present in the system. This undermines the deductive edifice of classical electrostatics built on the assumption that only conservative (electrical) forces are present.

2. Since there is a hydrostatic pressure difference between the interior and the exterior of the capacitor, water will constantly flow through a small hole punched in one of the plates, down the pressure gradient and in violation to the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
All Einsteinians, including Brian Cox, know that "light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else":

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pd
f

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480
-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Yet, although the energy of falling light increases "by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping", its speed gloriously remains constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 7, 2012 @ 11:05 GMT
Superluminosity and Schizophrenia

Light pulses can travel faster than c=300000km/s but Divine Albert's Divine Theory gloriously remains unaffacted simply because these pulses carry no information - "nothing is actually travelling with these peaks", absolutely nothing, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/
20/20.html

"The grid that crosses the screen is moving with a velocity of c, and no individual frequency outpaces it. However, the total wave (the bottom trace, in white) has its strongest peaks where all the individual frequencies are in phase, and the places where that happens shift with time, at a "speed" that is greater than c. Nothing is actually travelling with these peaks, though; they're just an artifact of the way the different frequencies are slipping in and out of phase."

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fast-faster.html

"Scienti
sts in PML's Quantum Measurement Division have produced the first superluminal light pulses made by using a technique called four-wave mixing, creating two separate pulses whose peaks propagate faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (...) NIST scientists emphasized that, while the information detection could be advanced, no information could actually travel faster than the speed of light and that, consequently, principles like causality in special relativity were always respected in these experiments."

http://phys.org/news182671620.html

"Astrophysici
sts, led by Frederick Jenet of the University of Texas at Brownsville, have been monitoring a pulsar, PSR B1937+21, which is about 10,000 light years from Earth. (...) They found that pulses closer to the center arrived earlier than the normal timing, which suggests they had travelled faster than the speed of light. (...) The faster-than-light pulses do not violate Einstein's theory because technically the pulse carries no information."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.h
tm

DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 8, 2012 @ 13:10 GMT
Superluminosity and Schizophrenia II

Experimentalists send a signal, detect its arrival and determine its speed: the speed is (e.g. four times) greater than c=300000 km/s. A world sensation of course but then experimentalists have to devise some reason why Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains unaffected, e.g. "Divine Albert's Divine Theory is unaffected because crocodiles cannot fly":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796

"Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500. (...) While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epfd-ltt08190 5.php "This is exactly what the EPFL team has demonstrated. Using their Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) method, the group was able to slow a light signal down by a factor of 3.6, creating a sort of temporary "optical memory." They were also able to create extreme conditions in which the light signal travelled faster than 300 million meters a second. And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over - relativity isn't called into question, because only a portion of the signal is affected." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT Superluminosity and Schizophrenia III Do the numerous experiments reporting the existence of superluminal signals refute Einstein's relativity in a straightforward way? Yes they do. In the example below, if the deactivation device is sending a superluminal signal to the bomb, then special relativity ends up in a contradiction: the bomb explodes in the frame of the train but does not in the frame of the tunnel: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?" The solution to the train in a tunnel problem is on p. 57 in David Morin's text: p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this is the case..." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 5, 2012 @ 05:26 GMT Pentcho, Michelson's interferometer did not use single wavefronts. Hence its expectation was unjustified from the very beginning. According to G. Holton, Am. J. Phys. 37, 968 (1969), Einstein recalled having just once met Michelson in 1931 when he uttered to Einstein regretting a bit that his own work gave rise to what he called the monstrum of the theory of relativity. Once again, I would appreciate you expressing at least respect toward Christov instead of persistently repeating the same. Eckard report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 8, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT Maximum Honesty in Einsteiniana The gravitational redshift (as measured by Pound and Rebka) unequivocally confirms the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field (c'=c(1+gh/c^2)) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_wh ite_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices." http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo "Relativity 3 - gravity and light" Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT Maximum Honesty in Einsteiniana II When the observer starts moving towards the source of light waves with speed v, the speed of the waves relative to him shifts from c to c+v: http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/Doppler Effect.pdf Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference." http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "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)." http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf Tony Harker, University College London: "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((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 21:15 GMT Maximum Honesty in Einsteiniana III Standard dishonesty in Einsteiniana: Clocks at different gravitational potentials go at different rates: http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika /David%20Morin/CH13.PDF David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed." Maximum honesty in Einsteiniana: Clocks at different gravitational potentials go at the same rate. The gravitational redshift "does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks"; rather, it arises from the fact that "light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies": http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d p/0486406768 Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/gen eral_relativity_massive/index.html John Norton: "According to Einstein's theory, light, just like any other form of matter, is affected by gravity. That is, light also "falls" in a gravitational field." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pd f Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480 -PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf "Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur." http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT Maximum Honesty in Einsteiniana IV Standard dishonesty in Einsteiniana: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory predicted that "the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured": http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast3033/Relativi ty/GeneralRelativity.htm Prof. Harrison B.... view entire post report post as inappropriate Eric S Reiter wrote on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 21:51 GMT It is often stated that there is no experimental evidence for the failure of quantum mechanics. For example, on this bolg Vlatko Vedral wrote on Mar. 9, 2012 "At the moment both quantum physics and general relativity work so well that we have absolutely no experimental evidence to modify either." Here is the experiment: a coincidence beam-split of a singly emitted gamma-ray will test the one-to-one probability understanding of an emitted and absorbed photon. A photon should go one way or another at a beam splitter. An emitted gamma hv should set-off a single detection, baring of course that the "particle" is not split into components. If components are detected in coincidence the detector pulses would be smaller (but they are detected full height). My best test is to use the single 88 KeV gamma from Cd-109, and a thin scintillator in front of a thick one. I find the gamma sets-off coincident pulses in both detectors, greatly exceeding the accidental chance rate. Chance is easily determined from singles rates and the time window. I have defied chance with several other singly-emitted gamma sources, different detector types, and in beam split or tandem arrangements. Furthermore, I have found this unquantum effect to be a function of several physical variables and have made discoveries with it. The unquantum effect is a function of the chemistry of the source, source-detector distance (lets us see the solid angle of the gamma), angles (like Bragg reflection spectroscopy), and temperature of the beam splitter. I explain it with the long abandoned loading theory, quantized emission/ continuous absorption. It is not about violating energy conservation. It shows energy is partially loaded in the detection mechanism. Also, I have theory and analysis relating to past experiments to show how it all makes sense. There are no photons. Furthermore, my similar tests were successful in defying chance for splitting the alpha-ray (He++). All details have been on my unquantum website for ~8 years. It is not too difficult for me to perform an experimental demonstration, anywhere. How about a fair hearing already? Attached photo is my lead chamber with Na-22 annihilation-gammas. attachments: IMG_0695.JPG report post as inappropriate Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT Dear Eric Reiter, You are obviously honest as well as creative. I would appreciate if many others did share such "sapere aude" attitude. However, the fate of Marinov might warn you. Further perhaps expensive for you experiments will perhaps not make your ideas accepted unless you manage finding allies and supporters. I am not in position to contribute. I just came across a textbook "Particles and Paradoxes" by Peter Gibbins, Cambridge University Press 1987. I also recall a paper by Prof. Zeh and two essays in the last contest, one by Constantinos Ragazas and one by Ken Wharton if I recall correctly. You wrote that your argumentation against photons as particles goes back to Max Planck. This is a bit surprising to me because it was he who fostered Einstein. Since you published in viXra, you might be aware of many other outsiders. Wasn't there someone who dealt with phononphysics or the like? Eckard report post as inappropriate France Cop replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 05:47 GMT Dear Eric Reiter, I found your site and I will read it as soon as I have enough time. Have you also explained the wave particle duality for electrons, protons and even molecules? I have posted a link to similar site and author link here, but there has been no response. Wish you the best of luck. France Cop report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 19:18 GMT Maximum Heresy in Einsteiniana http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-The ory-Science/dp/0618551050 Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT Maximum Heresy in Einsteiniana II Ritz was right - the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - but, after all, career and money have always come from Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 12:37 GMT Maximum Honesty in Einsteiniana V Standard dishonesty in Einsteiniana: The Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously established that "light always moves stubbornly at the same speed (...) if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed":... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 13, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT Albert Einstein, the most radical heretic in Einsteiniana: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_o n_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation Albert Einstein (1909): "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433 a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Clues: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d p/0486406768 Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 15, 2012 @ 04:29 GMT Einsteiniana and Ignatius of Loyola III http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/ big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 15, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT Normal Dishonesty in Einsteiniana http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404 H Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B, Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona: "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR." http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE- 052-456.pdf Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée." http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1979/he therington.pdf "...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 16, 2012 @ 12:52 GMT Normal Dishonesty in Einsteiniana II http://www.roma1.infn.it/teongrav/VALERIA/TEACHING/ONDE_GR AV_STELLE_BUCHINERI/AA2010_2011/white_dwarfs.pdf "In addition, although the gravitational redshift predicted by Einstein's theory of Relativity had already been measured in the famous Eddington expedition in 1919, the redshift of spectral lines of Sirius B measured by Adams in 1925... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 17, 2012 @ 12:11 GMT Normal Dishonesty in Einsteiniana III http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVI TE-052-456.pdf Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. Il aura fallu attendre les années 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité." That is, for more than 50 years the experimental verification of Divine Albert's Divine Theory was complete fraud but then, in the 1970's, absolute honesty was established in Einsteiniana and Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously and irreversibly confirmed. Let us sing: http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 15, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT Einsteiniana without Length Contraction http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-f ourth-dimension-space.html "To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 16, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT Einsteiniana without Length Contraction II Harvey Brown believes that length contraction is more fundamental than the constancy of the speed of light. It is because bodies in motion contract longitudinally that "light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame": http://www.scribd.com/doc/64105541/The-Origins-of-Length-Con traction Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis, it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2 and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowsk i.pdf Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "One then appeals to the relativity principle again - the principle entails that these coordinated contractions and dilations must be exactly the same function of velocity for each inertial frame, along with the principle of spatial isotropy, in order to narrow down the deformations to just those encoded in the Lorentz transformations. What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame." So according to Harvey Brown "No length contraction" implies "The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source". Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 17, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT Einsteiniana without Length Contraction III Usually Divine Albert's Divine Theory requires that rods contract (so that Einsteinians can gloriously trap an 80m pole inside a 40m barn) but sometimes it requires that rods stretch. In the famous bug-rivet paradox the rivet shank should become as long as necessary and mercilessly squash the bug. Einsteinians have been singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" for hours but the bug's death makes the ecstasy uncontrollable: Einsteinians tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions: http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?" http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT Normal Dishonesty in Einsteiniana IV http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/Sample_Entries__sampl e_01 From A Dictionary of Scientists: "In 1915 Einstein, while completing his 1916 paper on General Relativity, calculated Mercury's perihelion precession on the basis of his own theory and found that, WITHOUT MAKING ANY EXTRA ASSUMPTIONS, the missing 43" were accounted for. The... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 18, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT Newton's Emission Theory of Light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory "Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 19, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT Newton's Emission Theory of Light II http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_ dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 13:16 GMT Newton's Emission Theory of Light III Paul Ehrenfest and the emission theory: https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/Ritz Einstein.pdf Alberto Martinez: "Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 20, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT Doppler Horror in Einsteiniana Sound waves - Doppler effect - observer moving with speed v relative to the source: One cannot deduce the frequency shift f'=f(1+v/c) unless one assumes, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of the waves as measured by the observer is c'=c+v: http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes/116/slides/Physics116_L 08-interference.pdf "Sound waves... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 22, 2012 @ 13:02 GMT Doppler Horror in Einsteiniana II http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf 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." Yes it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c) but Einsteinians are horrified since the demonstration implies that the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v: http://physics-animations.com/Physics/English/dopp_txt.htm Next, we shall consider the case when observer moves and the source of the wave is still. In this case the wavelength is not changed and Doppler frequency shift appears because the velocity w of the wave relatively the observer is changed: w = u + v (observer is moving toward the stationary source) w = u - v (observer is moving away from the stationary source) Because f_dop = w/lambda, initial f = u/lambda_0 and lambda = lambda_0 we find that f_dop = f(1+v/u) (observer moves toward the stationary source) f_dop = f(1-v/u) (observer is moving away stationary source) ______________________________________________ [end of quotation] Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT Doppler Horror in Einsteiniana III When the observer starts moving relative to the light source, both the frequency and the speed of the waves relative to him obviously change... No! The frequency does change but the speed... Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! The speed cannot change! Absurd! Impossible! Divine Albert has said the speed never changes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy E2oD1w Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames." Since the frequency changes and the speed of the waves relative to the observer should not change, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, then the motion of the observer must somehow change the wavelength, even if the idea sounds too idiotic. The only problem is that some clever student may ask: "Well, the motion of the observer does change the wavelength of light waves but does not change the wavelength of sound waves - why?" To avoid this question, the most faithful Einsteinians teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of all waves so that the speed of the waves as measured by the observer can gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/albatros/uk/pages/dopple ffet.html "The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2012 @ 17:03 GMT Pentcho Your thesis may be proven by the logic hidden by your assumption. We have become too used to considering the 'derivative' of wavelength and speed, which is frequency, as a 'real' quality, it is of course not. This is an easy mistake, as we cannot directly measure the wavelength. None the less it is an error. Please let me know if you can comprehend this; As an observer moves towards the light source the light meets the lens of his eye (refractive index n=1.38) and is changed from whatever relative speed it crossed space at (i.e. c plus v) to c/n in the frame of the lens. This of course gives the Doppler shift of wavelength, from which the observed new frequency is derived once passed to our brain. (substitute the glass lens of an instrument -at n=1.55- if you wish). This explains all observation and is consistent with the Quantum Mechanism of atomic scattering while also exposing the precise erroneous assumptions used for SR. Of course it is currently beyond the comprehension of mainstream physics. Is it within yours? Peter report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 24, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT Georgina, The Doppler effect problem can be clearly defined. We have the formula: (frequency) = (speed of the wave relative to the receiver)/(wavelength) As the receiver starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c). For water waves, sound waves etc. it is the speed of the wave relative to the receiver that shifts with the frequency - this speed shifts from c to c'=c+v - while the wavelength obviously cannot be affected by the motion of the receiver. Since c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity, Einsteinians implicitly (never explicitly) assume that, only for light waves, it is the wavelength that shifts - from L to L'=L/(1+v/c) - while the speed of the wave relative to the receiver remains constant. So the only problem is: Is the equation: L' = L/(1+v/c) correct for light waves, given the fact that it is incorrect for all other (water, sound etc.) waves? Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 24, 2012 @ 16:19 GMT Doppler Horror in Einsteiniana IV http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativ ity.htm John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time..." Time did obey Divine Albert's orders - it started to flow differently for the moving observer so that the speed of light the observer measured could gloriously remain constant. Unfortunately Divine Albert forgot to tell the wavelength of the light wave to vary with the speed of the observer and neutralize the frequency shift. The danger is obvious - people may look at the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) and come to the conclusion: "The frequency shifts so if the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength, then the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts as well. Divine Albert is wrong, no we don't believe in relativity, relativity, relativity anymore". Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 24, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT Georgina. All agreed. Pentcho. The wavelength change deriving observed frequency (Doppler) shift is of course an undisputed fact for em waves moving between media, including diffuse gasses and plasma. So; L' = L/(1+v/c) is valid for media, but this DISproves not 'proves' SR. Think very carefully; Einstein used the assumption that the 'vacuum' was different, so science all went awol. What if the Interstellar Medium (at ion plasma density between 10^3 and 10^14/cm^-3) does then behave just like the diffuse dielectric medium it is? When light meets the Earth's ionosphere it would then interact and undergo TWO DIFFERENT speed change effects. The first is from the refractive index of the plasma, which happens to be ~1 so will not be noticed as local c remains c, the second is then due to the relative motion of the plasma. This would then give the wavelength change (shorter if the Earth is approaching the waves) which gives the derived frequency change to meet the conservation of energy law. (c = e = f*L.) This then, and for the FIRST TIME FALSIFIABLY! exposes the hidden wrong assumptions used for SR. SR is incorrect, and there never was a problem to solve. Atomic scattering by medium particles always produces the 'local' c found, which also via simple diffraction, produces a precise replica of the effects of 'space-time curvature, and all the 'anomalous' kinetic effects found in astrophysics. It is a model of discrete fields (DFM). It's simple enough for Occam. Is that simple enough for you? Peter report post as inappropriate Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 24, 2012 @ 23:31 GMT Peter, now that I've watched the Richard Feynman lectures, explaining about such things as the "strange way" the probability of getting light emitted from different layers and thickness's of material varies, I think I may have a slightly better understanding of your focus on transitions between different media and interstellar dust and so on. I think it is clear to both of us that it is the EM/light process that is being affected as it cascades through space, or perhaps it would be better to say cascades from event to event. The net path of the process being affected by what it encounters. The net path of the EM/light process is changed and that gives the apparent curvature of space. So not a -cause- of gravity. (Agreeing with you, if I have correctly understood what you are saying, but also reiterating what I have said previously.) Apparent curvature of space may be better thought of as -associated with- gravity, rather than being its cause. The Object universal trajectory of the planet, Its Action, (rotations, translations, and scaling transformations ie across scales) Imo gives both gravitational and inertial mass, but that trajectory will also affect the medium of space /distribution of the layers of material, dust etc surrounding the planet, which will affect the light transmission process, what data is received when, and so the reality fabricated from it. Whether EM/light is waves or absorption and emissions from discreet particles makes little difference to whether its net path ought really to be considered the result of curvature of space or the cause of apparent curvature of space. Either would do the job but one fits with more modern quantum physics ideas, that seem to have a very high degree of accuracy. I think that it is better not to say that Einstein's relativity is wrong. It is, it seems to me, rather like the Bohr model of the atom. That model of the atom is, if examined precisely, wrong. However for chemists and molecular biologists far more useful than more accurate physics models. It is a model that functions and explains and is useful rather than just accurately mimicking nature in a less useful way. Perhaps in time Einstein's relativity will be thought of as a brilliant model but somewhat naive and previously misinterpreted in retrospect, - that is still brilliant and useful but not acclaimed as the very best and most accurate portrayal of the universe and its function. report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 04:47 GMT Doppler Horror in Einsteiniana V http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kZaz 4UYlJ2s "Edward Witten - String theory 1/5" In this video Ed Witten explains that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. That is correct but Witten would not say, and perhaps does not know, that, according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER. Witten further explains that at the end of the 19th century people expected the speed of light to vary with the speed of the light source (as in the throwing-a-ball-on-a-train example Witten gives) but, surprisingly, Michelson and Morley got what Maxwell had predicted - that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the light source. This is a blatant lie of course. In that period everybody's expectations were in strict accordance with the predictions of Maxwell's theory - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source but VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER. Yet in 1887 the null result Michelson and Morley obtained unequivocally showed that the speed of light varies with both the speed of the source and the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 13:41 GMT Einsteiniana: 1 = 0 = 2 Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pd f Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480 -PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586 Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/ 0553380168 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..." http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT Pentcho, what do you hope to achieve by this incessant posting of material? You have provided so much that there is nothing to do but ignore it now like worthless spam, even if there are some gems hidden in amongst it all. You have flogged the poor horse to death!You haven't even bothered to provide proper time saving links to the material -even though there is a link help box provided. Why are -all- of these quotes so important that we need to see them? What do they add that you have not already shown us countless times already? report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT What do Joy Christian and his friends hope to achieve by posting at least 100 times more material than I do, Georgina? Would you say that they "have provided so much that there is nothing to do but ignore it now like worthless spam"? No? Why? Because you are a polite person? Not always? You could be brutal towards people you find inferior? Bravo, Georgina! Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT Pentcho If you wish to identify and expose flaws within the STR then Georgina has a point. Your time could be more effectively spent. In case you missed my above post, please carefully consider and give me your views on this; The wavelength change deriving observed frequency (Doppler) shift is of course an undisputed fact for em waves moving between media, including diffuse gasses and plasma. So; L' = L/(1+v/c) is valid for media, but this DISproves not 'proves' SR. Think very carefully; Einstein used the assumption that the 'vacuum' was different, so science all went awol. What if the Interstellar Medium (at ion plasma density between 10^3 and 10^14/cm^-3) does then behave just like the diffuse dielectric medium it is? When light meets the Earth's ionosphere it would then interact and undergo TWO DIFFERENT speed change effects. The first is from the refractive index of the plasma, which happens to be ~1 so will not be noticed as local c remains c, the second is then due to the relative motion of the plasma. This would then give the wavelength change (shorter if the Earth is approaching the waves) which gives the derived frequency change to meet the conservation of energy law. (c = e = f*L.) This then, and for the FIRST TIME FALSIFIABLY! exposes the hidden wrong assumptions used for SR. SR is incorrect, and there never was a problem to solve. Atomic scattering by medium particles always produces the 'local' c found, which also via simple diffraction, produces a precise replica of the effects of 'space-time curvature, and all the 'anomalous' kinetic effects found in astrophysics. It is a model of discrete fields (DFM). It's simple enough for Occam. Is that simple enough for you? Peter report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT Einsteiniana: 1 = 0 = 2 (II) http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_whit e_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika /David%20Morin/CH13.PDF David Morin (p. 4): "They [Pound and Rebka] sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." So the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Did it confirm the speed of light shift predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory? There are three Divine Predictions: a speed of light shift of gh/c^2 (many Einsteinians claim that this Divine Prediction of 1911 is false), no speed of light shift at all (most Einsteinians teach this although it has nothing to do with the original version of the Divine Theory), and a speed of light shift of 2gh/c^2 (in accordance with the original version of the Divine Theory). Conclusion: The Pound-Rebka experiment gloriously confirmed the three Divine Predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. It also confirmed the speed of light shift of gh/c^2 predicted by Newton's emission theory of light but in an insignificant and even despicable manner. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT Einsteiniana: 1 = 0 = 2 (III) In the period 1907-1915 Einstein was only able to plagiarize Newton's emission theory of light insofar as the speed of light in a gravitational field was concerned: http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.htm l Albert Einstein: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)." The formula c=c0(1+phi/c^2) implies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. This interpretation, confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, is so obviously correct that some Einsteinians teach it even nowadays: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911... (...) ...Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c'=c0(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo "Relativity 3 - gravity and light" Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 26, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences Recently scientists in Hong Kong published perhaps the most serious challenge ever made to the second law of thermodynamics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161 Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the... view entire post report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 13:21 GMT Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences II http://canadianjuniorreport.com/graphene-battery-turns-amb ient-heat-into-electric-current "Physicists have built a graphene battery that harvests energy from the thermal movement of ions in solution. (...) When an ion smashes into the graphene strip, the collision generates enough energy to kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene. The electron then has two options: it can either leave the graphene strip and combine with the copper ion or it can travel through the graphene strip and into the circuit. It turns out that the mobility of electrons is much higher in graphene than it is through the solution, so the electron naturally chooses the route through the circuit. It is this that lights up the LED. "The released electrons prefer to travel across the graphene surface...instead of going into the electrolyte solution. That is how the voltage was produced by our device," say Zihan and co. So the energy generated by this device comes from ambient heat. These guys say there were able to increase the current by heating the solution and also by accelerating the copper ions with ultrasound. They even claim to have kept their graphene battery running for 20 days on nothing but ambient heat. But there's an important question mark. One alternative hypothesis is that some kind of chemical reaction is generating the current, just as in an ordinary battery. However, Zihan and co say they ruled this out with a couple of control experiments." So if the current is not generated by a chemical reaction, this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics par excellence. Is it so unnatural that some particular ions easily kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene? Perhaps not - it seems that, for graphene, the process is easy in general: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/25/graphen e-emits-infrared-light "For example, it [the graphene] has an ideal "internal quantum efficiency" because almost every photon absorbed by graphene generates an electron-hole pair that could, in principle, be converted into electric current." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com report post as inappropriate Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences III Dead science is neither right nor wrong insofar as, of all the official scientists, not one could think of a reason why the truthfulness of the axioms or the consistency of the consequences should be discussed. Yet Lee Smolin needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would FQXi pay me if I suddenly declare that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is deeply wrong? If they do and if there is no other reaction, then this science couldn't be more dead!" Smolin's experiment proved successful: http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a$47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 28, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences IV

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views

Albert Einstein (1909): "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory."

One of those properties is the variability of the speed of light - the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. This means that, if light is considered as a continuous field of waves, one may be misled into believing that its speed is independent of the motion of the light source. In 1954 Einstein suggested that this false belief (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) had in fact killed physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433
a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Clues showing that "field concept" and "continuous structures" are implicit references to Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 06:21 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences V

Proving that false science is false is difficult; proving that dead science is dead is impossible. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's situation:

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

........................

Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

______________________________

[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 29, 2012 @ 12:06 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences VI

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, like Lee Smolin, needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would I become the most famous Einsteinian in France if I suddenly declare that Einstein's 1905 second (light) postulate is obsolete? Brothers Einsteinians in France and all over the world, let me inform you that the speed of light...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 11:32 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences VII

Julian Barbour also needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would FQXi pay me if I suddenly declare that the simultaneity is absolute (not relative as Divine Albert taught) and that the cosmological redshift is not due to an expansion of the universe? If they do pay me and if there is no other reaction, then this science couldn't be more dead!"

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlycareer/even
ts/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf

Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211021v2.pdf

Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an EXPLANATION OF THE HUBBLE RED SHIFT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE."

Barbour's experiment proved successful:

http://platonia.com/research.html

Julian Barbour: "In 2008 I received funding from the Foundational Questions Institute (fqxi.org) for my two-year research proposal Machian Quantum Gravity. The detailed proposal is here (pdf). In January 2011 I received further research funding for another two-year period for the project The Nature of Time and the Structure of Space (pdf). This new project follows on naturally from the first project, bulding on results obtained in it."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 2, 2012 @ 12:28 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences VIII

"Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

"From this anthology it emerges that although many prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration for the Second Law,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 06:16 GMT
What Michelson and Morley Really Proved

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

Alternatively, one can assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Now the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be EQUAL, in conformity with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

This means that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed that the speed of light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. Of course Einsteinians are free to start singing "Divine Einstein" and explain why, after 1887, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" had to be involved in the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 2, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Pentcho

I can demonstrate to you that actual c plus v and apparent c plus v are different. i.e. that a light pulse travelling through a block of glass passing you at v may indeed be recorded by you as apparent c plus v, yet the actual pulse speed within (measured from the frame of) the glass is c/n.

Is this not entirely intuitive? (as well as counter to SR). However, it is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 2, 2012 @ 13:27 GMT
Thermodynamics and Relativity: Dead Sciences IX

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161

Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. (...) To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... (...) In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.6688

"Graphene can collect energy from the ambient heat and convert it to electricity, which makes it an ideal candidate for the fabrication of self-powered devices. However, this technology is suffering the high cost, which limits the practical use of it. In this work, we demonstrated that the cost can be reduced by using low cost reduced graphene oxide (RGO), graphite electrodes and low cost glass substrates. The results showed that this technology can be of practical value for the "battery" industry."

Fifty years ago such a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics would have concerned primarily theoreticians and philosophers of physics (they would have gone mad with excitement) and to a lesser extent technologists. Nowadays theoreticians couldn't care less while philosophers of physics seem to have disappeared (almost no activity in the last two years or so).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Cindy Allison wrote on May. 12, 2012 @ 07:06 GMT
You have given most useful information here, I have no idea until now I read your blog.

pillows for back pain

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 19, 2012 @ 05:20 GMT
Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13
67611/pdf/biophysj00645-0017.pdf

POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, A. KATCHALSKY, pp. 13-15: "Let the polymolecule be a negatively charged polyacid in a stretched state and have a length L. Now let us add to the molecule a mineral acid to provide hydrogen ions to combine with the ionized carboxylate groups and transform them into undissociated carboxylic groups according to the reaction RCOO- + H+ = RCOOH. By means of this reaction, the electrostatic repulsion which kept the macromolecule in a highly stretched state vanishes and instead the Brownian motion and intramolecular attraction cause a coiling up of the polymeric chains. Upon coiling, the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance deltaL. On lifting the weight, mechanical work f*deltaL was performed... (...) FIGURE 4: Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

https://data.epo.org/publication-server/pdf-document
?PN=EP0830509%20EP%200830509&iDocId=5127209&iepatch=.pdf

Dan Urry, p. 14: "When the pH is lowered (that is, on raising the chemical potential, mu, of the protons present) at the isothermal condition of 37°C, these matrices can exert forces, f, sufficient to lift weights that are a thousand times their dry weight. This is chemomechanical transduction..."

It can rigorously be proved that the chemomechanical transduction described by Katchalsky and Urry does violate the second law of thermodynamics but even a cursory glance would suggest that anti-second-law behaviour is very likely. The work-producing force of contraction increases as hydrogen ions chemically react with the contractile macromolecule but the chemical reaction is spontaneous and, per se, does not consume work. (In a rigorous treatment, the work involved in adding and removing the mineral acid has to be evaluated).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 19, 2012 @ 15:09 GMT
Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics II

Chemical reactions are not true donors of energy when mechanical work is produced. A close inspection shows that they only channel the ambient heat into other forms of energy. Zihan Xu et al. seem to have found a way to get rid of the chemical-reaction camouflage accompanying the conversion of ambient heat into work:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161

Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. (...) To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... (...) In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.6688

"Graphene can collect energy from the ambient heat and convert it to electricity, which makes it an ideal candidate for the fabrication of self-powered devices. However, this technology is suffering the high cost, which limits the practical use of it. In this work, we demonstrated that the cost can be reduced by using low cost reduced graphene oxide (RGO), graphite electrodes and low cost glass substrates. The results showed that this technology can be of practical value for the "battery" industry."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 20, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics III

Various devices (not only chemical reactions) can channel thermal motion into a macroscopic force able to perform useful work. For instance, the electric field between the plates of a capacitor orders water dipoles so that any thermal stroke coming from ambient heat contributes to the emergence of an additional...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 20, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Chemomechanical Transduction and the Second Law of Thermodynamics IV

Another device that channels ambient heat into other forms of energy:

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.
097403

"Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale. (...) Decreasing the input power to 30 picowatts, the team detected nearly 70 picowatts of emitted light. The extra energy comes from lattice vibrations, so the device should be cooled slightly, as occurs in thermoelectric coolers. These initial results provide too little light for most applications. However, heating the light emitters increases their output power and efficiency, meaning they are like thermodynamic heat engines..."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48882

"At first glance this conversion of waste heat to useful photons could appear to violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics, but lead researcher Parthiban Santhanam of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains that the process is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. "The most counterintuitive aspect of this result is that we don't typically think of light as being a form of heat. Usually we ignore the entropy and think of light as work," he explains. "If the photons didn't have entropy (i.e. if they were a form of work, rather than heat), this would break the second law. Instead, the entropy shows up in the outgoing photons, so the second law is satisfied."

The light-is-not-work argument formally saves the second law of thermodynamics in this particular case but still the faith is undermined.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate