CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Preferred System of Reference Reloaded by Israel Omar Perez
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 16:43 GMT
Essay AbstractAccording to Karl Popper assumptions are statements used to construct theories. During the construction of a theory whether the statements are either true or false turn out to be irrelevant in view of the fact that, actually, they gain their scientific value when the deductions derived from them suffice to explain experimental evidence. Science is enriched with assumptions of all kinds and physics is not exempted. Beyond doubt, some assumptions have been greatly beneficial for physics. They are usually embraced based on the kind of problems expected to be solved in a given moment of a science. Some have been quite useful, some have not. Some others are discarded in a given moment and reconsidered in a later one. An illustrative example of this is the conception of light, first, according to Newton, as particle; then, according to Huygens, as wave; and then, again, according to Einstein, as particle. Likewise, once, according to Newton, a preferred system of reference (PSR) was assumed; then, according to Einstein, rejected; and then, here the assumption is reconsidered. It is claimed that the assumption that there is no PSR can be fundamentally wrong.
Author BioHolding a Ph.D in physics since 2010, Dr. Israel Perez is an active researcher currently performing at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. His main field of research is experimental condensed matter, particularly, he is focusing his efforts in the study of the electronic properties of High-Tc and iron-based superconductors. During his spare time he also does research in the philosophy of physics and mathematics. Recently, Zeno's paradoxes have become his prey. He is the author of several articles and essays in both fields. As before, this essay should not be taken superficially.
Download Essay PDF File
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi Israel,
You wrote: "...the second postulate of special RT cannot be and has never been experimentally tested."
I am not so sure. When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c). This (Doppler effect) is experimentally tested. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c' and...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
You wrote: "...the second postulate of special RT cannot be and has never been experimentally tested."
I am not so sure. When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/c). This (Doppler effect) is experimentally tested. The speed of the light waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c' and the wavelength shifts from L to L'. Let us assume that there is no wavelength shift: L'=L. Then the formulas f=c/L and f'=c'/L' imply that, by measuring f', the observer in fact measures c':
c' = f'L' = f'L = f'c/f = c+v
That is, the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:34 GMT
Hi Pentcho
What I mean is that the second postulate assumes that the one-way speed of light is constant but experiments actually measure the two-way speed of light. Therefore, no experiment has measured the one-way speed of light. I hope you understand this. Take a look at my references for details.
With regards to your comment you're talking about the classical Doppler effect. This...
view entire post
Hi Pentcho
What I mean is that the second postulate assumes that the one-way speed of light is constant but experiments actually measure the two-way speed of light. Therefore, no experiment has measured the one-way speed of light. I hope you understand this. Take a look at my references for details.
With regards to your comment you're talking about the classical Doppler effect. This does not apply to light waves. Please consult a book in special relativity and check the relativistic Doppler effect.
If the frequency changes for the observer in motion the wavelength will change also in the same proportion, thus the observer will measure c and not c'.
Now, you're making an assumption that the wavelength L' does not change, only the frequency. In this case, obviously the observer would find that the speed of light is different from c. But experimentally, it is found that the light speed is c and not c'. This contradicts your assumption.
Israel
view post as summary
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi Israel,
The formula f'=f(1+v/c) gives the RELATIVISTIC Doppler effect when v is low enough. If you don't believe me, see this:
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...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
The formula f'=f(1+v/c) gives the RELATIVISTIC Doppler effect when v is low enough. If you don't believe me, see this:
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."
Next you write: "If the frequency changes for the observer in motion the wavelength will change also in the same proportion, thus the observer will measure c and not c'."
For waves other than light waves, the motion of the observer OBVIOUSLY cannot change the wavelength. Both relativists and antirelativists admit that so when the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, they all agree the frequency he measures shifts from f to f'=f(1+v/V) and the speed of the waves he measures shifts from V to V'=V+v.
For light waves, it is again obvious that the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength but relativists would not admit that of course. Still the assumption that the wavelength does not change is indispensable in the derivation of the frequency shift (moving observer). So this assumption is implicit in such derivations but some scientists forget the danger and advance it explicitly (or directly say that the speed of the waves as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v)):
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/D
opplerEffect.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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppl
er.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 06:45 GMT
Israel, if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), which is in fact a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light, then in gravitation-free space the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the observer relative to the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. See...
view entire post
Israel, if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), which is in fact a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light, then in gravitation-free space the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the observer relative to the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. See this:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/general_re
lativity.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."
That is, the earth observer will measure the speed of light to be c'=f'(lambda)=cf'/f=c(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Equivalently, an observer in gravitation-free space accelerating against the flash of light with acceleration g will measure the speed of light to be c'=f'(lambda)=cf'/f=c+v. Needless to say, this is again a prediction of Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT
Hi Pentcho
I think you're confused and you're mixing several things and several interpretations.
Please take a look at this
web site you will find the complete and correct expression for the speed of light in a gravitational field.
You: if in a gravitational field the speed of light varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2)...
Me: Recall that this expression is an APPROXIMATION derived by Einstein from a relativistic treatment in the limit when v is very small compared to c. And when v is small compare to c the equation coincides with the Newtonian result. Also, the expression that you use for the frequency f' is an approximation. The fact that they are approximations means that the result is INCOMPLETE, not correct at all.
Now, consider that a ship is moving with velocity v relative to the water. Then assume that the ship is producing waves that move with velocity u and consider that v is less than c. I ask you. is the speed of the waves dependent on the speed of the ship for an observer at rest relative to the water? Then, does the addition of velocities v plus u apply in this case? No, the speed of the waves will be the same no matter the speed of the ship.
The case is similar to the case of light waves, if you assume that they travel relative to the homogeneous aether ("free" space). No inertial system can move faster than c. Thus an observer at rest relative to the aether will see c and not c plus v. Thus, the emission theory of light does not apply for light waves.
On the other hand, when we are under the influence of a gravitational field. The speed of light waves will vary according to the expression: c'=c(1+2Q/c^2), where Q is the gravitational potential, i.e. the instantaneous velocity of light will vary from point to point within the gravitational field. This can be reinterpreted in terms of frequency and this is the cause of the redshift or the blueshift. The real phenomenon is that the absolute speed of light is really changing within the aether because the aether is inhomogeneous due the gravitational potential.
The question now is: If the speed of light changes from point to point why nobdy has measured these differences? Well take a look at my reference 17, there you will see that the experimental techniques play an important rol.
I hope I have answered your doubts.
Israel
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 11:08 GMT
Israel, the site you referred me to is fatal for relativity:
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variab
le.htm
I have quoted this site countless times in my discussions but it always acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it, clever Einsteinians get petrified and never reply.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
Hi Petncho
I understand what you said about relativists. But I think there is a misconception from their part. Most of them are taught that the speed of light is always c, even if they do not have an intuitive picture of why this is true. The explanation they have is only mathematical. And since no experiment has contradicted this postulate they usually hold their position.
The...
view entire post
Hi Petncho
I understand what you said about relativists. But I think there is a misconception from their part. Most of them are taught that the speed of light is always c, even if they do not have an intuitive picture of why this is true. The explanation they have is only mathematical. And since no experiment has contradicted this postulate they usually hold their position.
The problem of why no experiment shows a value higher c arises from two factors: the experimental techniques and the fact that the speed of light is maximum in a given region of the gravitational field. To understand this you should keep in mind the following. If we consider the speed of light as our basic unit of motion, we will always get the same value independent of the place where we carry out our measurement. But here there is a conceptual difficulty, because traditionally, the speed is defined as the ratio of distance to time. So, when you compute the speed of something you define a length and you measure the time it takes for the physical entity (PE) to move from one place to another.
To understand my view, we can also assume motion as a fundamental quantity. And consider the speed of light (SL) as our basic unit of motion. If we adopt this convention we can refer any other motion of any PE, say a particle (P), relative to the SL. So, if we would like to measure the speed of P we have to define an arbitrary distance L and let a ray of light to travel L, when the ray arrives to the opposite endpoint we record the time t_l it takes. The value of L is for this experiment irrelevant but it has to be the same for both the ray and the P. Then, you let the P to travel the distance and again measure the time t_p it takes. As you can see the experiment resembles a race. What we want to know is what PE is faster than the other but considering the SL as the unit of motion, as a unit of "rapidity". So, the speed of P in these new units of motion can be defined as: v=t_l/t_p.
Likewise we can adopt the equivalent convention. We can define an arbitrary interval of time, say 1 second. During this interval we let the ray of light to travel and when the interval is complete we determine the last position of the ray of light, so we can obtain the corresponding distance d_l. Then, we do the same for the P and we will obtain the distance d_p. The speed of the particle will be v=d_p/d_l. If we assume that the SL is a limiting speed v will always be less than 1. If you have understood this measurement procedure then now you can understand why the SL is always the same in a gravitaional field. If we try to measure the SL at different regions of the gravitational field we will find that, despite that the fact that the speed of light is c'=c(1+2Q/c^2), the value will be 1 (or c in traditional units), because in that region of space the SL is maximum. If we go to another region, the speed of light is also maximum and we will obtain 1 again (or c).
I hope you have understood these ideas
Israel
view post as summary
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 19:52 GMT
No Israel I cannot understand how the speed of light can be both variable, c'=c(1+2Q/c^2), and constant ("the SL is always the same in a gravitaional field"). But FQXi member Steve Carlip can, so you have a good chance of winning the essay contest:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/Spe
edOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. (...) Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."
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."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 23:16 GMT
Pentcho
Lets try again. It is very easy and very intuitive. Think again of the waves in a liquid. If we consider that the liquid has the same density, i.e. the liquid is homogeneous, the speed of the waves, say c, will always have the same magnitude in any region of the liquid. Do you agree in this? The speed of the waves is not defined by the source but by the liquid. Once a wave is...
view entire post
Pentcho
Lets try again. It is very easy and very intuitive. Think again of the waves in a liquid. If we consider that the liquid has the same density, i.e. the liquid is homogeneous, the speed of the waves, say c, will always have the same magnitude in any region of the liquid. Do you agree in this? The speed of the waves is not defined by the source but by the liquid. Once a wave is generated the wave moves away from the observer at a given velocity. Ok?
Now let us make the next assumption that no ship and nothing moving through the liquid can move faster than the speed of the waves. The speed c is a limiting speed. No material object can go faster than c. ok? We can take advantage of the fact that the speed of the wave is maximum and constant in this homogenous liquid to determine the rapidity of other objects. I mean, we can take the motion of the wave as a basic unit of motion or speed, and refer all movements of physical entities (PE) to the speed of the wave. Ok? Conceive this as if it were a race between a wave and a PE. You will take as a criterion of motion the speed of a wave. Then you can evaluate the rapidity of something according to the fact that it moves slower, equal or faster than the wave.
Now, imagine that you wish to measure the speed of a (PE), say the speed v of a ship moving through the water. But you know that the ship cannot move faster than c. So, to determine the quantity of motion of the ship (i.e. how fast it moves relative to the motion of the wave). You place two buoys that will delimit a distance L. Then, you let the ship to travel the distance and measure the time it requires for the trip, say, t_s. Then you let a wave to travel the same distance and register the time, say t_l. Now keep in mind that you want to know what physical entity is faster, the wave or the ship. To make a quantitative estimate we can divide the speed of the ship by the speed of the wave. This is called beta, i.e. beta=v/c=(L/t_p)/(L/t_l). Since c is the maximum speed, beta for the particle will be less than or equal to 1. ok? This same result can be obtained if you divide only the times, i.e. beta=t_l/t_p. Do you understand my picture so far?
No, imagine that we have an inhomogeneous liquid. And this inhomogeneity is caused by the presence of a spherical source that changes the density of the liquid as function of the distance to the center of the sphere. In this case the speed of the waves will be no longer constant at given region of the liquid (do you agree?); the speed of the waves will vary, lets say, according to the expression c'=c(1+2Q/c^2). Then, imagine that you are in a given region of the liquid where the speed is not c but, lets say, 1.5c. But however in that region of the liquid, the speed of the wave is also the maximum speed that any PE can achieved. Nothing can travel faster than 1.5c. Therefore, if you would like to measure the speed of any PE according to the procedure above, you will obtain again that beta=v/1.5c is less than or equal to 1, but in this case v has as a limiting speed 1.5c and not c as in the case where the liquid is homogeneous. If you further go to another region, there you will find another absolute value for the speed of the wave, and again in that region the speed will be the maximum speed, in that region nothing can travel faster than the speed of the wave. Thus is you measure the speed of the wave, making reference to the speed of the wave you will get again 1.
Now translate these ideas into the case of the speed of light and keep in mind that light travels through the aether (free space or vacuum). In a homogeneous aether the speed of light will be always c. But under the influence of gravitational fields the aether is inhomogeneous and the speed of light is no longer c. Nevertheless, in a given region of space, it is the maximum speed any PE can attain, then, if you follow the experimental procedure outlined above to measure the speed of light, you will get a constant value, i.e. beta= 1. The same value is obtained both with a gravitational field or without it. This is so, because the speed of light at a given region of space is the maximum speed. Do you understand this? Do you understand why the speed of light is constant when it is measured although it is not in reality as it moves from region to region in a gravitational field?
Now, the next thing you have to do to fully understand these ideas is to read my reference 17. There I explain that the experimental techniques that we use to measure the speed of any PE are incapable of measuring the speed of any PE in one way. We can only measure average speeds, not instantaneous speeds. To the best of my knowledge, measurements of the one-way speed have not been possible so far.
I agree with the quote of Steve Carlip in your last post. But you should understand that theory and experiment are two different things.
I hope that this time I have elucidated this issue. Please let me know you got it.
Israel
view post as summary
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 04:50 GMT
Israel, your story is not so difficult to understand - the problem is that it is irrelevant. You wrote:
"Then, imagine that you are in a given region of the liquid where the speed is not c but, lets say, 1.5c. But however in that region of the liquid, the speed of the wave is also the maximum speed that any PE can achieved. Nothing can travel faster than 1.5c. Therefore, if you would like to measure the speed of any PE according to the procedure above, you will obtain again that beta=v/1.5c is less than or equal to 1, but in this case v has as a limiting speed 1.5c and not c as in the case where the liquid is homogeneous."
The essential information here is that the wave speed is 1.5c, that is, greater than c. Your claim that no PE (physical entity) can move faster may be true but is of little significance. Let us go to the original case:
The top of the tower emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter). The observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'>f, the speed of light to be c'>c and the wavelength to be unchanged, L'=L. That is what both Newton's emission theory and Einstein's relativity predict. However c'>c is incompatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (this claim needs a proof of course) so Einstein's relativity turns out to be inconsistent. And this important conclusion cannot be affected by the assumption that a PE can or cannot move faster than light.
THIS story is relevant, yours is not I am afraid.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 05:47 GMT
Hi Pentcho
I am sorry, you keep asking the same questions. My arguments were aim at explaining why experimentally the same value is obtained for the speed of light whether you are on the top or the bottom of the tower despite the fact that the speed of light is faster at the top and lower at the bottom.
You say: However c'>c is incompatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (this claim needs a proof of course) so Einstein's relativity turns out to be inconsistent.
Again you are mixing things. The second postulate is only true for inertial systems of reference, but it is no longer valid for non-inertial systems of reference (NIS). In virtue of the principle of equivalence, this mean that the second postulate is not valid for system of reference under the influence of gravitational fields. In such case the speed of light will be c'>c. Special relativity does not apply to study systems under the influence of gravitation. So, the fact that you found that there is a difference frequency which is different etc. is correct (to a first approximation) because your are considering the problem in a gravitational field of the earth.
Israel
Skunkworks replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 06:18 GMT
Pentcho
Reading your posts (here and elsewhere) it seems as if you are trying to apply the popular frames of Special Relativity to gravitational fields. Well you cannot because there is no gravitational potential in SR.
Assume you are floating in free space and Israel is near a black hole. You will measure the speed of light in your location to be 299792.458 km/s (c) however Israel will measure it in your location to be a zillion km/s. This does not mean that the speed of light changed in your location. This is just that Israel's clock slowed and his ruler shrunk. Now with his slower clock and a shrunken ruler he measures the speed of light in his location to be 299792.458 km/s (c); however according to your clock and ruler this is just a few meters/s (c').
So in the presence of gravity you will measure c' (not c). Only in "local inertial frames" is the measured speed of light c. This does not mean that c changed; however it does mean that the MEASURED speed of light is not necessarily 299792.458 km/s.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 07:16 GMT
Israel, you wrote: "I am sorry, you keep asking the same questions. My arguments were aim at explaining why experimentally the same value is obtained for the speed of light whether you are on the top or the bottom of the tower despite the fact that the speed of light is faster at the top and lower at the bottom."
Yes I keep asking the same questions but you keep giving contradictory answers. Below in this thread I asked you about the speed of light that the observer on the ground MEASURES:
Pentcho: "The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):
f = c/L
An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':
f' = c'/L'
The questions: c' = ? ; L' = ?
My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L "
You answered:
Israel: "To a certain degree, I agree with your result, namely
c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
but recall that it comes from an approximation."
Israel, please confirm or reject the following statement:
The observer on the ground MEASURES the speed of light to be greater than c (c'>c).
Yes or no?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Pentcho
I have explained clearly to you that calculations and measurements are different things. Your approximation is correct but the measurement will always yield c. If you had understood my wave illustration you would not have seen any contradiction but you considered them irrelevant. So, what else can I do? You see a contradiction because you are disregarding the measurements procedures, because you are not paying attention to how the speed of something is in practice measured. This is not irrelevant. Keep in mind how in real life and in practice the observer on the bottom will measure the speed of light when he receives the signal from the observer at the top, this is not trivial as you may think. You need to have an experimental setup to measure the speed of light, you need to have a system of units to measure, this is why I asked you to consider the speed of the wave as a unit of motion. For all of this that you are overlooking, you do not understand why when we measure the speed of light you will always get c instead of c'>c. Please read again my wave illustration and my reference 17. Otherwise you will never get out of your perplexity.
The answer to your question is no.
Israel
Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 19:25 GMT
Israel, I do indeed disregard your "measurement procedures" but this is because in the following text you say everything I need to hear:
You wrote above in this thread (Jul. 30, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT): "On the other hand, when we are under the influence of a gravitational field. The speed of light waves will vary according to the expression: c'=c(1+2Q/c^2), where Q is the gravitational potential, i.e. the instantaneous velocity of light will vary from point to point within the gravitational field. This can be reinterpreted in terms of frequency and this is the cause of the redshift or the blueshift."
I think the equation c'=c(1+Q/c^2) is the correct one but this is a minor objection. The essential points are that the speed of light does vary, that "this can be reinterpreted in terms of frequency" and that "this is the cause of the redshift or the blueshift".
Regards, Pentcho
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 23:10 GMT
Dear Israel,
Very clearly and succinctly written essay. Extremely relevant to the competition question, and insightful.
Feels like you've really put a few things straight that needed saying, with no messing around. Science and its aim, "laid bare" was one of things that resonated with me.(I have talked a bit about truth and science as I see it with J.C.N Smith in my essay...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
Very clearly and succinctly written essay. Extremely relevant to the competition question, and insightful.
Feels like you've really put a few things straight that needed saying, with no messing around. Science and its aim, "laid bare" was one of things that resonated with me.(I have talked a bit about truth and science as I see it with J.C.N Smith in my essay thread.)
I like what you said about the preferred system of reference- and the paradoxes which is something that has interested me for a long time now.
My only irritation is not to do with your extremely well written and insightful essay itself, its the feeling that this is just warm up before the match. You've given us the serious team talk, shown us what field we're playing on. Now I want to see the game started... because there is so much more that can be done.
Good luck in the competition. I hope you get lots of appreciative readers who will give your essay the high marks it deserves according to the judging criteria.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 04:47 GMT
Hi Georgina
Nice hearing about you again. Thanks for your comments. I'll take a look at your essay and your thread. As I can see there are too much essays, I will try to keep up with the development of the contest as much as I can.
As you can see, there are many things to say about this topic and one has to fit them to just 25 000 characters. So one has to summarize the whole story. Sorry for that. But here I am to try to add the missing 100 000 characters.
Let's see what comes. Thanks again you for your wishes, I wish you the best too.
Israel
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:51 GMT
Hi Israel,
you have nothing to apologise for. You have done a brilliant job of fitting a lot of important ideas into your essay. I hope it will be inspiring to lots of people.I was not implying that your essay is lacking in any way but expressing my impatience to see change, resulting from the kind of understanding of science and its wrong assumptions that you have talked about. I will be interested to read whatever else you add here.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Hi Georgina
Just to thank you for your clarification.
Israel
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Israel Omar Perez,
I enjoyed your essay immensely. You present a view that I have considered to be the likely case, and believe it comports very well with my first two FQXi essays. Reinterpreting the warping of space as change in the density of the field is extremely significant. Your essay is very well written, simple and clear, and I hope you do well in this contest. There must be something in the water in Saskatchewan.
I invite you to read my essay,
The Nature of the Wave Function, for still another perspective on the gravitational field (the gravitomagnetic aspect thereof).
Thank you for a very stimulating essay,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your comments. Definitely the view of space as a fluid can drastically twist our present views of the universe and make a lot of progress for science. I'm quite convinced of this.
Sure, I'll check your essay.
Good luck
Israel
Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:23 GMT
Dear Isreal,
It's interesting to me that we both live in Saskatoon, we've both submitted essays to this contest that argue for a preferred frame of reference, and that we've never met! I liked the way you set out your argument: beginning with an epistemological discussion, then moving on to discuss the historical development of the physics, and how that could have been different since a preferred reference frame is theoretically allowable, and then concluding with some considerations to support the assumption of a preferred state of rest. In your final paragraph, you mention that ''the expansion of the universe would need to be reinterpreted in the light of this new paradigm.'' Actually, standard cosmology already assumes an absolute rest frame. In my essay, I've argued that absolute simultaneity and the assumption of a cosmic rest frame should be revisited and reconceived more relativistically, since they are described in the most trivial way possible in standard cosmology. Maybe we could meet up sometime to talk about these kinds of things. In any case, I'd be grateful if you read and commented on my essay.
Good luck!
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Hi Daryl
I'm also surprised to see your post. Thanks for reading my essay. It would be nice having a meeting, I am working with the so-called beamteam, please send me an email to be in contact: iop998@mail.usask.ca. To be honest, I'am not well informed of the details of cosmological models so it would be great to take a look at your essay.
Certainly the implications of the PSR are very deep, and the price to pay for the shift paradigm is too high that most theoretical physicists are not willing to entertain.
Good luck too
Israel
Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you for a very well written and accessible essay. I was immediately interested in what you had to say due to your abstract being so simple and informative. I appreciate your knowledge of physics history with the mental concepts that our early great scientists held and the way these ideas came in and out of favour over the years. It was most enlightening. I did notice that my own essay topic, Newton's assumption of isotropy and the weak equivalence principle, was merely touched upon though. I have a new angle on this with regard to real data and have pursued an exotic matter hypothesis which has been most fruitful. I would much appreciate it if you would take a look at what I have discovered,
Newtons Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity That Has Led to Modern Day Mass Misconceptions of Reality.
The very best of luck to you,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Hi Alan
I really appreciate your comments. It would be interesting to read your work, I'm sure that it'll enrich the reader's view. As I mention in my essay the physical interpretation of the data may depend on the theoretical system under consideration. I think that the present data have been interpreted according to the prevailing paradigm, this is the natural way but as time went by, the new observations started to form a complex puzzle that became harder to reconciliate with the fundamental assumptions. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why theoretical physics has been in crisis for the last 3 decades. But reinterpreting data means that old present theories and models must be abandoned. This is the most difficult part.
I wish you the best too
Israel
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
Hi Israel,
You suggest the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field but do not treat the problem quantitatively. So let me ask you a question (I have already asked it to James Putnam who also claims the speed of light is variable):
The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):
f = c/L
An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':
f' = c'/L'
The questions: c' = ? ; L' = ?
My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
Hi Pentcho
Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again
Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again
Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v is less than c. Now, the calculations of the paper are made in the presence of gravitational fields. If we appeal to the equivalence principle, we are saying that the calculations assume a non-inertial system of reference (NIS). So, let's not mix things. In inertial systems of reference (ISR), in which space is assumed isotropic and homogeneous, the speed of light is always c relative to an observer at rest with the light source. If an observer moves relative to the source he will measure the relativistic Doppler effect. I agree with this. But for NIS the speed of light changes its values from place to place. To a certain degree, I agree with your result, namely
c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
but recall that it comes from an approximation (v
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again
Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
I do not know what happened but my previous reply was a failure. I'll try again
Ok, I checked the references you cited, particularly this: http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf. Let us first make something clear. First, the Doppler effect mentioned in this reference is the classical Doppler effect derived from the relativistic limit when v less than c. Now, the calculations of the paper are made in the presence of gravitational fields. If we appeal to the equivalence principle, we are saying that the calculations assume a non-inertial system of reference (NIS). So, let's not mix things. In inertial systems of reference (ISR), in which space is assumed isotropic and homogeneous, the speed of light is always c relative to an observer at rest with the light source. If an observer moves relative to the source he will measure the relativistic Doppler effect. I agree with this. But for NIS the speed of light changes its values from place to place. To a certain degree, I agree with your result, namely
c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
but recall that it comes from an approximation. Actually, Einstein obtained this expression in his article of 1911 (take a look at my references). There he explains that the bending of light is due to the fact that the refraction index changes in a gravitational field (see reference 23 too), and therefore c is different in different points according to the above formula.
With respect to your question: c' = ? ; L' = ?, in his article Einstein arrived at the same conclusion as you, i.e. f varies and L remains constant. I can explain this as follows. Recall that the speed of a wave in a medium is not determined neither by the observer nor by the properties of the source but only by the properties of the medium. Let's consider that the aether exists. Assume then that a light source emits at a given f and with a given L. So, we would expect that the light speed remained the same everywhere at any time. Now, consider that the same light source is placed in an inhomogeneous aether. In this case f and L will remain the same relative to the source, but the speed of the wave fronts will vary from point to point as the wave fronts propagate. One can model this speed variation either as a change of f keeping L constant or, the opposite, keeping f constant and varying L (or both but in different proportions). However, this will create the prejudice that what varies is the frequency/wavelength instead of the properties of the medium. One has to be aware of this. Like I said in my essay one can give to this phenomenon different physical/mathematical interpretations, the general theory of relativity models the inhomogeneous space as a warped space keeping c constant.
I hope I have helped to answer your questions. Please work out the idea that space is a fluid.
Israel
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Doctor Pérez,
I found your essay to be absolutely absorbing. Unfortunately, as I clumsily pointed out in my essay Sequence Consequence, I still have to question why scientists ignore the reality of what exists here and now in favor of trying to prove abstract theories about what ought to have been in the mystical historical there and then. For instance, just as oxygen has to be present here and now in order for one to be able to breathe, it is evident that visible light has to be present here and now in order for one to be able to see. Real visible light cannot have a real constant speed separate from the surface it is striking in order for it to become visible and that is why visible light is always present here and now while one is looking.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Hi Joe
Thanks for your comments. You should consider how physicists work. Most physicists no longer deal with direct "observations" detected by the senses but by measuring instruments. So, physicists interpret reality from data and some fundamental conceptions. Some times it's not a matter that they ignore the "reality" it is that they do not even envisage it. Some other times it is that they have to simplify their theories and disregard many important factors, like temperature or the gravitational influence. If they considered these factors the theory would become so complex to be handled. The more variables and factors you assume in your theory the more complex it becomes. For this reason, physicists look for principles and for this reason they even make false assumptions.
Physical theories are built on the basis of mathematics, because one has to quantify the reality. From mathematics physics acquires its abstract character. You should keep in mind that qualitative observations are not satisfactory for the exact sciences. If you cannot quantify you cannot find the correct mathematical model and then it is harder to use this knowledge for technological applications.
This is, in a simplified form, my view. Science progress very slowly finding strong pillars. I think this is one of the most difficult parts.
It would be great to take a look at your essay, as you can see there are many interesting works to read.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel Perez
I enjoyed your essay - it shows clear thinking on every level, and is not afraid to defend the usefulness and importance of the Newtonian concept of absolute space AS. Einstein was 'too clever' in presenting his elegant and seemingly foolproof system in SR. His system avoids AS by saying that the speed of light is constant. But by abolishing AS he abolished the ether, and his Leyden lecture on the ether clearly shows he regretted this later.
Your thought experiment about supposed knowledge of physics in 1898 is to the point. It shows how physics 'could have been'. I can add that the gulf between QM and GR could have been avoided had it not been for this 'too cleverness' of Einstein. He has created obstacles in physics because of his photon-as-point idea which as I discuss in
my fqxi essay Fix Physics! is the basis of the probabilistic interpretation in QM. And his warped spacetime in GR is unnecessarily complicated and anti-intuitive. As I have been advocating for years for example in
Beautiful Universe Theory , Eddington's refractive index idea should replace GR's unnecessary complexities. I am glad that you too have accepted the usefulness of this approach. I can add that even before Eddington Young had such an idea in relation to optical refraction at an open aperture. Another great 19th c. concept that Einstein swept into oblivion is that matter is permeable to the ether to use Fresnel's phrase, and the related idea of Hertz' that everything (matter and ether) is 'electrical'- concepts that are also, together with AS, inherent in my theory.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Thanks for your stimulating comments. I agree with your view in the sense that Einstein knew how to avoid the PSR. In his lectured at Leyden Einstein gave some strong arguments against the aether assumption which due to the lack of experimental evidence were quite convincing for the mainstream of physicist. The acceptance of his theory was based on the fact that the theory was a very powerful predictive tool and this is what physicists exploited. I hold that intuition cannot be ignored in the construction of a physical theory, and I think that most people agree that absolute motion is plausible and quite natural. The famous Newton's schollium still remains engraved in my mind. I see no contradiction in his line of thought. He was even aware that, it may be impossible to detect absolute motion, but nevertheless it cannot be disregarded.
Now, if we really wish to make historical justice, the credit must be conferred to Descartes. Newton's vision was inspired from him. Descartes had the conception that the aether was really dynamical, this was the cause of the motion of celestial bodies. Newton knew this very well but he decided to assume the aether static to simplify his theory. From ~1730 to ~1770 astronomical problems were solved following Descartes' approach in France and Newton's approach in England. At the end, Descartes approach was discarded not because it was incorrect but because it was more complicated (similar to the case of the geocentric model).
Certainly, if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion. Thank you for the invitation to read your work. I will take a look at it ASAP.
best wishes
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Israel,
Einstein's brilliance is the greater because of his intellectual honesty. He was always thinking back about the implications of his theories and if need be revise them. I think his attitude to the ether was ambivalent as you point out, but he needed it for GR in order for his grid of clocks and measuring rods to work (I am paraphrasing his words).
I agree with you about Decartes and highlighted his ideas about ether (together with his amazing illustration of the ether vortices) in Section 2.3 of my Beautiful Universe paper. Maxwell's gear-like mechanism to model electromagnetism in vacuum suffered the same neglect that befell Decartes' idea. My Beautiful Universe lattice of nodes with angular momentum in units of (h) are my way of recasting these ideas into modern physics.
Your sentence "if relativity is not accepted as a physical reality but only as a geometrical model, then one can argue that the marriage with QM is an illusion" is too general to understand in the context of what I said. Are you objecting to what I said about the need to reexamine some of Einstein's other ideas as you have done for AS? I am not saying relativity or QM do not work, but that they works despite their being so abstracted from the simple physical way I think Nature works at the tiniest level, a level that assumes the absolute space idea that you have so ably defended.
Best wishes
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Definitely Einstein was very smart, there is no doubt about it.
I am not objecting what you said. I just meant that maybe there is no need to unify Relativity and quantum mechanics as many physicists believe today. Both theories have been very useful as a mathematical tools, but, particularly, I think that relativity is not the only theory to account for the observations. I have seen a couple of other theories that do the same work as relativity.
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Israel
I completely agree with you that there is no need to unify Relativity and QM as they are now...the title of my fqxi essay implies that: "Fix Physics!- Reverse Engineer Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, Get Rid of Outdated Assumptions, Consolidate, and Reconstruct on New First Principles". I think if this program is ever accomplished successfully both Relativity and QM will look unrecognizable!
I would be thankful if you provide reference to the alternative relativity theories you mentioned to.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Vladimir
It would be great to see your work, but I am wondering if your proposal predicts new physical phenomena, can you comment something about it.
You can find the references, in my reference 19 section 9.2. Particularly, the papers of C. Christov.
Israel
Anonymous replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 00:46 GMT
Dear Israel
I looked at your ref. 19 and see you have taken the aether seriously. Excellent.
You ask about predictions of my theory..I was hard-pressed just to show it is feasable in explaining known pohenomena in a new way. But some experimental proofs I suggested in section 3 of
Beautiful Universe Theory can be taken as new phenomena or perhaps suggest other experiments. I think diffraction of light by a 'grating' made up of standing waves (Sec. 3.2) has in fact been demonstrated. Another idea is that neutrinos are produced as discussed in Sec. 3.4.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT
Israel,
After sending the above reply I realized that I have indeed predicted a new physical phenomena based on my Beautiful Universe theory that was not mentioned in my paper: that interference of particles in a double-slit experiment is possible even if the particles themselves are larger than the slits and do not pass through- only their gravitational fields pass through and interfere.
See the attached figure, taken from my Physics Forum comment as
valavel Apr17-12, 05:26 AMBy the way the PF discussion was with Eric Reiter (unquntum) please read his impressive fqxi essay proving another assumption of my theory - that the photon is not a point particle.
Vladimir
attachments:
Particledoubleslit_.jpeg
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Thank you for your feedback. So, from your posts I could figure out that you have work out a different interpretation of the physics that may lead to different and new insights, which it sounds good to me. But actually, the theory does not predict unknown phenomena. It seems to me that the interference of particles is already known for many particles even relatively large particles like fullerenes. Actually the phenomenon becomes highly intuitive if we assume that particles travel through the aether as if they where moving in a fluid and, as you show in your picture, the particles perturbed the aether, so, what we see in the screen is the interference of the aether waves produce by the motion of the particle near the slit. It is natural to think that the screen has to be placed relatively close to the slit otherwise the aether would dissipate the waves avoiding to reach the screen. As you can see assuming the aether makes the physics very intuitive and natural. Einstein insisted that a field is a physical reality that requires no bearer. Since then most physicists think that fields require no medium. I disagree with this. Fields are states of a medium, this simplifies enormously the physics. The next step is to get rid of the concept of particle and think of particles as if they were in reality solitons (solitary waves). At once, this eliminates the wave-particle duality. Thus, if "particles" are really waves the slit experiment can be explained very easily and intuitively.
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 02:19 GMT
Dear Israel
When we speak of the double slit interference with particles you and I seem to agree about what is going on - the field outside the particle is what interferes. As I understand it this is far from the realistic picture that comes in to the minds of quantum theorists - it is all mixed up with notions of probability, entanglement and God knows what. In my theory it is the systematic explanation of how the energy locked up in the node can create such a field is what is important. And to the best of my knowledge the experiment with fullerenes was made with slits wider than the C60 diameter.
Yes particles as solitons have been discussed over the years, - particularly by my email friend the Canadian researcher Gabriel LaFreniere. I was shocked to hear that he has passed away recently and that his website in which matter as standing waves is specifically described and simulated, was offline. Fortunately a copy of the website Matter is Made of waves is archived here:
Gabriel LaFreniere's website . Actually this is the 2009 state of the website - I think he added to it in the past 3 years, but the new research seems gone.
I hope young researchers like you will help preserve and propagate his work.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Indeed, the bottom line is the notion of aether and waves. This dispels both mathematical and intuitive perplexities in physics. I took a look at your work (BU). The motion of the nodes resembles the notion of vortex. I would consider both conceptions as equivalent from the epistemological viewpoint. I also sympathized with the entanglement explanation that you give.
I found the website very illustrative, I will consider it for future reference. Thanks for the link.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
Thanks Israel, my work is mostly qualitative as you see, stemming as it is from my geometrical approach to physics. Good luck to you too.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear Israel,
I truly enjoyed your essay. You have exposed with exceptional clarity some of the flaws in reasoning that led to abandonment of the preferred system of reference hypothesis.
I completely agree with you that the constancy of the speed of light is not experimentally founded. If a preferred system of reference existed, then any effect on the speed of light attributable to...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
I truly enjoyed your essay. You have exposed with exceptional clarity some of the flaws in reasoning that led to abandonment of the preferred system of reference hypothesis.
I completely agree with you that the constancy of the speed of light is not experimentally founded. If a preferred system of reference existed, then any effect on the speed of light attributable to the motion of a two way measuring apparatus relative to the PSR must cancel out. What a two way measurement gets is the average relative speed of light, not the actual speed of light.
But there is, I believe experimental evidence of the existence of a preferred system of reference. Though the measurements of superluminal neutrinos claimed last year by the OPERA group proved to have been flawed due to systematic errors, it provided an opportunity to detect the motion of the Earth against the preferred frame of reference, hence to prove its existence. An unbiased look at the data used by the ICARUS group to refute the earlier claim of the OPERA group shows variations in the speeds of seven neutrinos of than 18 nanosecond below and above the time of arrival of the speed of light. The measurements, which here were one way, were then averaged out to the speed of light (and thus replicated mathematically the error from two way measurements). But, if a preferred system of reference exist, then the larger variations may be attributable to the absolute motion of the measuring apparatus against the PSR. Of course, this may imply, as I believe, that the speed of neutrinos, like that of photons, is independent of its energy and is equal to c.
That said, I am convinced that the constancy of the speed of light is not incompatible with the existence of a preferred system of reference. That is, if space is discrete and emergent, as I describe in my essay, then the constancy of the speed of light becomes a direct consequence of the structure of space itself. This implies, that any apparatus located on Earth provides measurements of the relative speed of light (or any other particle) between source and target and not the absolute speed of light (or particles).
I am convinced that non-biased analysis of the data of neutrino speed measurements will be found to be consistent with the existence of a preferred system of reference.
Thank you for offering such a stimulating essay.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
Hi Daniel
It is nice to read your view. Thanks for leaving you comments. Due to the lack of space in the essay, I could not clarify that, within the context of special relativity, the PSR cannot be experimentally detected only for interferometric experiments realized in vacuum. However, non-vacuum experiments might show a positive result. My reference 17 (section 3, Eq. 14) exposes the steps of a very simple experimental procedure to roughly estimate the absolute velocity of an inertial system of reference (say the earth) relative to the PSR. Certainly, I dismiss gravitational effects, etc. If we consider temperature, angular, and gravitational factors the problem becomes very complicated. However, in principle it appears to be feasible. Some experimental works, following this approach, have been reported elsewhere. The measurements are in agreement with the velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation. Unfortunately, they are not recognized by the mainstream of physicist. Most of the physics community assumes that the PRS assumption and the material fluid are dead.
With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end).
Finally, I agree that the speed of light is only function of the properties of space, and it would depend on how you construct your theory.
I will look you essay ASAP. Good luck in the contest
Israel
james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Hi Isreal,
I haven't read your essay yet, but I am responding to the comment you made above. This is the the comment you made that I have issues with; "With respect to the one-way measurement of the speed of neutrinos or light, I have reservations. My investigations have shown that no experiment can measure one-way speeds of any physical entity unless you have an adequate clock synchronization (which implies the knowledge of the one-way speed of some physical entity, and thus this is a dead end)."
One of the first indications that the velocity of light was finite was observations of the moons of Jupiter. It can be determined relativily precisely when the moons of Jupiter will eclipse each other, or pass in front of Jupiter, or behind it. In the 19th century they were using this fact to determine a universal time relative to London, or Paris, or what have you. The issue that arose that called this into question was that when the earth was on the oposite side of the Sun from Jupiter, the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter arrived 16 minutes later then when the earth was closest to Jupiter. That is a one way measure of the velocity of light without "adequate clock synchronization". I'm sure there are others.
Jim Akerlund
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 21:57 GMT
Hi James
Thanks for your comment. In my investigations, I have considered most experimental techniques. Roemer approach is well known to me. And it is very controversial due to the fact that people assumed a system of reference at rest with respect to the sun, but time measurements are realized on Earth. So they are presupposing a clock synchronization a la Newton. The same time on Earth and the same on the sun, Jupiter, etc. Most authors who claim that this is a one-way method do not show convincing arguments against this and no detailed calculations. The Roemer approach is ambivalent. You can judge it from different perspectives. You can see Io moon as a mirror reflecting the sun light. In this sense it is clear that light goes towards the moon and then backwards to the earth (this resembles Fizea-Focault approach). The other way of seeing this experiment is based only on the variations of delay times in the moon positions (determined by the orbital period) and the difference of the distance between the Earht and Jupiter at different positions of the Earth's orbit. But like I said they assumed the Sun as the reference frame and not ther Earth. If you have any references where the calculations are explicitcly shown please send them to me, I will be glad if you can convince me that Roemer approach is a one-way measurement.
Best Regards
Israel
report post as inappropriate
james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
Hi Israel,
You seem to have missed my point. The light of the moons of Jupiter eclipsing each other was expected to arrive at a certain time on the Earth and it didn't. You could make this very same setup on a table top, where the (one way) light is expected to arrive at certain times due to the very geometry and math of your setup. No need to deal with whether we are using the Sun as a reference frame, or Earth, or Centari Proxima. My point was that the example I cited did not use clock synchronization. And I now add that this can be scaled down to table top.
Jim Akerlund
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 07:04 GMT
Hi James
Well, I have my reservations. I would appreciate very much if you have any reference available. In my investigations I analyze classical table top experiments. Particularly, those using only one clock without need of synchronization. I showed that what the experimentalist thinks to be a one-way measurement is in fact a two-way measurement.
Israel
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Israel,
Congratulations on another clear and logical entry. As you mention to Georgina, it does tie into a much larger field of inquiry. It is quite breath of fresh air to read Eric Reiter's and your essay together.
I happened to be discussing the very issue on a blog devoted to Julian Barbour's work, From Time to Shape. To save scrolling through, here are some relevant...
view entire post
Israel,
Congratulations on another clear and logical entry. As you mention to Georgina, it does tie into a much larger field of inquiry. It is quite breath of fresh air to read Eric Reiter's and your essay together.
I happened to be discussing the very issue on a blog devoted to Julian Barbour's work,
From Time to Shape. To save scrolling through, here are some relevant passages:
"The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions, yet that raises the question of what and where the singularity came from. If we assume a void, ie empty space, it doesn't need a cause. Only actions require cause. Yet it has an effect, ie, equilibrium."
"I understand Euclidian space is lacking motion, measurement, etc. That's why I call it an equilibrium state. The point is that when physics tries to eliminate it, the result is a singularity, which introduces a whole range of other issues and problems, which many in the physics community seem quite content to spend their careers wrestling with. Since the resulting speculations are leading in directions that are completely untestable, I think we might consider re-evaluating space as something defined by motion and measurement, rather than created by it. The vacuum as foundational state, rather than the singularity as starting point."
"What originally led me to question cosmology and eventually a lot of current physics, was the point that according to both theory and observation, space is flat. Expansion and gravitational contraction effectively balance out on the scale we can observe. The continued argument for an expanding universe is this is just due to the enormity of the entire universe and that just as a small portion of the earth's surface appears flat, so does our observed portion of the universe. Yet it seemed a lot of excess baggage was being attached to what might well be a simple cyclical process, a universal convection cycle, if you will, where radiant energy expanding out is matched by mass falling inward. It even seemed to me this opposite curvature of the intergalactic space between the gravitational well of galaxies was the cosmological constant, balancing out gravity, as Einstein originally proposed. So effectively there are "hills" between the gravity wells, such that they sum out to flat space. Keep in mind we only see the distant light that managed to thread its way past the intervening galaxies and thus traveled this empty space.
The curvature then, is not so much due to space, but the measurement of what occupies it, with expansion as much an integral feature of radiation, as gravity is an integral feature of mass.
Black holes are not portals into some other dimension, but gravitational vortices, which eventually spin that infalling mass out as jets of cosmic rays. Given they can be observed billions of light years out, that is an enormous amount of energy being ejected and logically explains the destiny of any and all mass which fell in.
Since I see space as infinite, entropy doesn't apply, as it is a consequence of closed sets. With infinity, any energy lost to one set is replaced by energy from surrounding sets. On this infinite scale, the galaxies and all the energy are really just cosmic vacuum fluctuations.
Dark matter might be due to gravity being a consequence of radiation condensing into mass and becoming ever more dense(M=e/c2). Dark energy wouldn't be necessary, since redshift would be a lensing issue, not the actual expansion of the universe. With gravitational lensing, we know the source is not moving, only the path of the light is being contracted around the field and thus bent, with expansion, it would be an opposite effect.
The black body radiation from the edge of the visible universe, that is presumed to be residue from the Big Bang, would actually be light redshifted completely off the visible scale and I predict that when the next generation of infrared telescopes get in service, they will find features of these distant galaxies that will be too old to fit in the age limits of current theory. Quite a few have been found which already push theory to the breaking point, but no one in the business is willing to risk suggesting the problem is in the theory."
We likely discussed this last year, but I stuck it here to add fuel to the fire of a debate that needs to happen. My entry this year is on my usual obsession with our perception of the direction of time:
The Problem: We See Time Backward.
Ps, The site has been losing comments, so it's best to copy your posts before sending them. I just had to rewrite this one.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
John/Israel:
I fully agree with the statement - ""motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place."
This has actually been vindicated in my paper - “
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.
This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.
Please read my detailed post below and my posted paper for further details.
Regards
Avtar
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear John
Thank you for leaving your comments. You touch so many topics which is difficult to talk at length about all of them. I just would like to make some comments about some particular things that you outline.
You: The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions.
Me: I assume you're...
view entire post
Dear John
Thank you for leaving your comments. You touch so many topics which is difficult to talk at length about all of them. I just would like to make some comments about some particular things that you outline.
You: The presumption of space arising from a singularity is based on this idea that space is created by measurements of objects and actions.
Me: I assume you're talking about the big bang singularity. So the singularity arises from two sources. First the assumption that space is continuous and the application of the general relativity, which assumes space as a continuous manifold. A singularity is an anomaly of our conception of the continuum. As you say, the conception of space arises out of the notion of material objects and not in the opposite way. Material objects are not adimensional as points are. Therefore, a singularity can only exist in the mathematical world.
You: I think we might consider re-evaluating space as something defined by motion and measurement.
Me: Indeed, I agree, motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place. The problem is that no one understands motion or change. This is one of the most difficult things in physics.
You: The continued argument for an expanding universe is this is just due to the enormity of the entire universe and that just as a small portion of the earth's surface appears flat, so does our observed portion of the universe.
Dark matter might be due to gravity being a consequence of radiation condensing into mass and becoming ever more dense(M=e/c2). Dark energy wouldn't be necessary, since redshift would be a lensing issue, not the actual expansion of the universe.
Me: I would say that if one assumes space as material fluid, one will need to reinterpret experimental data and the "expansion" of the universe may be reinterpreted as another phenomenon. May be there is no such an expansion. So far, I think the condensation of radiation into mass is plausible. Many theoretical physicists from condensed matter also argue in this same direction.
You: The black body radiation from the edge of the visible universe, that is presumed to be residue from the Big Bang, would actually be light redshifted completely off the visible scale and I predict that when the next generation of infrared telescopes get in service.
Me: If space is assumed as fluid, you may be correct. Actually, there is theory that predicts that there is a redshift even if space were static. The theory is already developed but one must understand that a new theory will be accepted not only because explains the experimental data but also because it makes new testable and unobservable predictions. If you have a theory that explains all observations, but it does not make new predictions the theory has few relevance for physics. What you should do is to try to promote your theory and verify experimentally the new predictions.
Well I hope you find my comments helpful.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
view post as summary
John Merryman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT
Israel,
Thank you for the reply and advice. Given the enormity of the situation, I have to stick with making predictions of what will be discovered, rather than experiment. Some of the recent observations of distant galaxies and galaxy clusters ,which push the boundaries of current theory:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 As for the idea of cosmic rays condensing into interstellar gases, resulting in a gravitational contraction, while they
haven't been able to find dark matter, there is an
excess of cosmic rays on the perimeter of this galaxy.
"motion is a fundamental quantity, above space and time. Motion makes us believe that things occupy a place. The problem is that no one understands motion or change. This is one of the most difficult things in physics."
Actually I think I offer a clue to this in my
essay. By deconstructing our misperception of time, I place motion within the equilibrium of space, with time as emergent effect.
Sorry for all the links, but they are generally interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear John
I found very interesting the links you sent me. Thanks for the information. As I mentioned before change and motion are very difficult concepts to grasp. I will take a look at your essay ASAP.
Israel
John Merryman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Israel,
You're welcome. Good luck in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Dear Israel,
First, I'm glad that you and Daryl are now in touch. Next, as indicated in my comment above, I find this statement fascinating:
"So, within this context, the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium."
from Xing-Hao, Ye, and Lin Qiang -- Chinese Physics Letters 25: 1571-1573 (2008).
I do not have access to Chinese Physics Letters. Do you have an alternate reference. I can't find one. Also, are they the only people to treat this topic? It seems like a very important issue to me.
Thanks,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Hi Edwin
I leave you a couple of useful references:
Dupays A et al 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 161101
Ahmadi N and Nouri-Zonoz M 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74
044034.
More complete theories are already well advanced but unfortunately not accepted within the mainstream of physics. Please take a look at my reference 19, there section 9.2 gives an comprehenive set of references about this topic.
Israel
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT
Thanks for those. I've already read 19 (once). Any other references on this topic would be very welcome. Thanks again.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Hi Edwin
Sure, no problem.
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 14:40 GMT
Edwin
With reference to warping of spacetime being interpreted as density, I have adopted Eddington's 1920 density idea
in my 2003 United Dipole Field and incorporated it into my Beautiful Universe theory
see Fig. 27 here captioned: A Schwarzschild metric for the gravity of a particle at the center, is interpreted in (BU) in terms of local density variations without invoking spacetime distortions.
Life goes on! Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
T H Ray wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Hi Israel,
I agree without reservation with Popper's view of science. It's a mathematician's view, after all -- that some premises are better suited to some problems than others. That a mathematical model is independent of physics, and only realized as useful to physics in the correspondence of the mathematics to the results of a physical experiment (Popper adapted this position from Tarski's correspondence theory of truth).
Your well argued hypothesis of a one-way measurement has the earmarks of a seminal idea. A few months ago when the faster-than-light neutrino controversy was in full swing, I argued that unless a two-way measurement could confirm that putative result, we could never be sure of its physical reality. That is impossible in principle, however. So I get your point that such an hypothesis might be deemed superfluous without actually being superfluous. I.e., it would meet Popper's criteria of metaphysical realism.
That's why I think that topology is the most useful mathematical framework to address foundational questions. We need the property of orientability to deal with one-way phenomena. I hope you get a chance to visit my essay site ("The perfect first question") to see why.
Best wishes in the competition.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Tom
Thanks for you comments, they are very welcomed. You have summarized my view very well. I consider that Popper's view is highly influential for scientific work. He is still one of the basic references in a epistemological paper. It is unquestionable.
You touch an relevant topic, the topic of truth. Actually, I have been studying the criterion of truth. I mean how can we know that something is true or false. This topic is interesting to me for several reasons.
As to the speed of neutrinos, I agree. A comprehensive understanding of the speed of any physical entity cannot be attained without the acceptance of absolute velocity. My reference 17 shows that if in a measurement, carried out in an inertial system in motion relative to the preferred system, the absolute one-way speed of the entity is close to the speed of light, the observer in motion will measure a value slightly higher than c, say 300 100. This effect is only a problem of the geometry of your experimental setup. If you change the geometry you will get a slightly different value. The reason for this is because of the length contraction that undergoes the apparatus. Another reason is the orientation of the setup relative to the motion of the inertial system. Please take a look at my reference 17 for further details. Of course, there are some many other factors that could affect the measurement like gravitational, temperature, etc. So, the task of measuring with high precision, as it is required for the case of neutrinos, becomes really challenging.
Indeed, topology gives a different view of the universe. Though one should be reserved about the physical meaning that can be extracted from topological approaches. I appreciate your comments which have been very inspiring.
It would be nice reading your essay. As you can see there are so many. I'll check it ASAP.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 08:04 GMT
Hi Israel,
Don't you declare Einstein a moron if you object to his Leyden lecture as if he simply overlooked what you now found out? I didn't find any hint to an insight or even an experimental result that was not yet known to him.
What about Akerlund's Roemer argument, I recall that it was treated in detail by Gift.
Good luck
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Hi Eckard
No, I cannot say Einstein was a moron but quite the contrary, there is no doubt he was very smart. But sometimes our own convictions fool us and make us believe wrong assumptions. Sometimes we do not realize our own mistakes until someone points them out. He denied the PSR based on his own convictions even when he knew that the PRS was not at variance with the principle of relativity, this is clear from the Leyden lecture. He found his own arguments to convince himself that there was no material aether (only gravitational). Poincaré and Lorentz were very well aware of this. For instance, the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction was not a mere hypothesis, it is the realization that rigid bodies do not exist in nature, all bodies deform when are subjected to forces or temperature changes. Einstein considered this hypothesis as unsubstantiated, because he could derive it from his theory. His view was more geometrical than physical.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of Akerlund's Roemer argument. I would be happy if you could quote it or leave the reference. Thanks a lot for your comments.
Good luck in the contest too.
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Israel,
You should be aware of Jim's Roemer argument. Didn't he tell you here and yesterday that Roemer's observations of Jupiter moons led to the insight that light propagates with limited speed and these observations were no round-trip experiments?
What about your attempt to correct Einstein in excess of his own self-correction in 1920, I quote from his Leyden lecture: "... the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility." If I understood your essay correctly, you are calling this immobility PSR. Einstein continued to know well that the PSR and his PR exclude each other. You seem to disagree. If you are correct then the proponents of Einstein's PR will perhaps be happy with you as their most brilliant PR manager. I regret that your essay is, with its only six pages, a bit too cryptic as to fully persuade me.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 01:30 GMT
Hi Eckard
Thank you for your comments. I am sorry, when I read your previous post I didn't realize that you were referring to James. I apologize for this.
As to the Roemer' argument I have exposed some arguments in reply to James. The Roemer's approach is controversial and I have analyzed a couple of reports who claim to have reproduced Roemer's measurement of the speed of light on a table top experiment. In my reference 17 I showed that this is not the case. I asked James for some references with explicit calculations of the experiments and he has not replied my last post. As well, I would appreciate if you have any references on this topic.
Another example of this is the Bradley's approach. Many people claim that the one-way speed of light can be determined from the classical aberration expression, i.e., tan (theta)=v/c. The problem here is, how we measure v? v is the speed of the earth relative to what? To simplify the calculations astronomers assume the speed of the earth around the sun or any other arbitrary reference system. Is this correct? If one determines v relative to jupiter one will get a different value. So, I ask: is not the expression suggesting that the speed v is the absolute speed?
On the other hand, I would like to add that Einstein denied the PRS because he thought there was a contradiction between the PR and the PSR. However, a universe deprived of a PRS only leads to a series of paradoxes. Once the PRS is restored the paradoxes fade away.
As to the extract, indeed I call the immobility (from a macroscopic viewpoint) the PSR. One can say, that this is the Lorentzian aether, an immovable and homogenous substance. But considering the action of massive objects, the aether is no longer homogenous and immovable. So, I appeal to Descartes's aether which Newton simplified as immovable. Even at the microscopic scale, quantum mechanics has shown that the vacuum is not immovable. Several other theories also hold that the vacuum can be assumed as a particular state of condensed matter. So many evidences from cosmology, to quantum mechanics, to condensed matter seem to suggest that PRS and the material fluid are the right assumptions.
In relation to the length of my essay I see no relevance in the discussion. Why do you point out this? The limit was 25 000 characters, they are compacted in 6 pages.
Finally, in relation to your comment "cryptic" I will be glad to elucidate any inquiry you may have. As far as I can see you seem to be in agreement with Einstein. So, I would appreciate if you could tell me if I am wrong and where I am wrong. I may be erred, but despite this, unquestionably, only the body of experimental observations will decide whether Einstein was wrong or not.
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Israel Perez,
Your all-inclusive PR is not the only attempt to maintain Einsteinian PR while nonetheless questioning the fundamentals it was built on: Cahill, Christov, Jackson, ... You wrote to Jason: "Relativity makes the correct quantitative predictions, although not the most cogent physical interpretations." Neo-Lorentzians like Selleri and van Flandern claimed their theories furnishing the same quantitative results more easily. I do not share such views. I am just curious.
The reason why I failed to be convinced and called your essay cryptic is on my side: Because you did not show illustrating Figures, my shaky command of English might have hampered me the more. Sometimes I did not even find words in my dictionary. What does schollium mean?
You wrote: "Once the PRS is restored the paradoxes fade away." How about restoring simultaneity as does Phipps?
So far I cannot see in what Einstein was wrong when he considered his PR based on his denial of a PSR.
Last contest was won by a fictitious Newton who easily understood Einstein. Sorry, I am not a Newton. I rather trust in the possibility of human fallacies.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Hi Eckard,
I hope you get a chance to read my
essay. I've argued that both Newton and Einstein were wrong about the meaning of simultaneity in the coordination of phenomena.
Best,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Eckard
You know that assumptions are discarded based on experimental evidence. It is evident that no experiment can rule out the PRS, but quite the contrary, some experiments can suggest its reality. Of course, one can build a theoretical framework in which the PRS does not figure. Like I said, the physical interpretation of observations depends to a high degree on the theoretical frame. So if you do not share their views then the issue may become only a matter of taste, prejudice or parsimony [See my questions in reply to Jason below, I kindly ask you to answer them as well].
Christov's theory, for instance, reproduces present experimental observations, unifies electrodynamics, gravitation and quantum mechanics, and in doing so, his theory removes the wave-particle duality and the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function. It also sheds light on the dark matter and dark energy problems. Besides all of this, the theory makes a new modest prediction. This same state of things happened with Maxwell theory until 20 years later, Heinrich Hertz proved Maxwell was right.
You wrote: How about restoring simultaneity as does Phipps?
I just have to say: simultaneity is related to clock synchronization and clock synchronization is related to the one-way speed of light and the one-eay speed of light is related to clock synchronization. Experimentally this is a dead end. If this is true, there is no point of discussion. I asked before if you or James know about any reference where the one-way speed of light a la Roemer has been measured, but none of you has replied. The unambiguous knowledge of the one-way speed of light is not only crucial to solve the issue of simultaneity but others as well. So, do you have anything to contribute for this cause? Daryl has something else to say with respect to simultaneity.
You say: So far I cannot see in what Einstein was wrong when he considered his PR based on his denial of a PSR.
From the experimental viewpoint the rejection of the PRS is not justified. Experiments carried out in the PRS will lead to the same physical laws as in any other frame of reference. So, if a theoretician acknowledges that experiments define the shape of the physical laws, the theoretician contradicts himself by denying the PRS. Einstein thought that all systems of reference are equally valid for the description of physical phenomena and assuming a PRS will imply making a special distinction in his theory, this was for him a theoretical asymmetry that for a theoretician was intolerable. Unfortunately, he believed that the word RELATIVE demanded denying absolute motion. This is not the case, it only means "relative to", so the assumption of the PRS is legitimate.
Israel
hide replies
Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Hi Israel,
I hope you won't mind if I list the acronyms. Thanks.
PSR-preferred system of reference
AS-absolute space
GF-gravity field
GPR-Galillean princip relativity
ISR-inertial system of reference
LP-laws of physics
RT-relativity theory
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 05:50 GMT
Hi Jason
I just wonder the purpose of listing the acronyms. Thanks
Israel
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Israel,
I just wanted to have the list of acronyms to refer to as I read your paper. I like your paper. It is well written, clearly articulated and interesting to read. I am sympathetic to your view that there is a medium of some kind. But I have to take issue with you that a preferred system of reference exists. I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect.
I thought that your closed circuit argument was a clever way to undermine experimental evidence for RT. Unfortunately, the GPS satellite system, which works very well, uses and confirms GR and QM to a high degree of accuracy.
Nevertheless, it was a good paper.
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 04:15 GMT
Hi Jason,
"I assume that a PSR has an absolute clock and an absolute reference frame. A Galilean reference frame is philosophically appealing, but it turns out to be incorrect."
An absolute time and an absolute reference frame does not necessarily mean Galilean relativity, which the argument I've given in my
essay may help you to see. Furthermore, as Israel has correctly pointed out, relativity theory is not inconsistent with a preferred reference frame, which is therefore not an "incorrect" assumption to make---only Einstein argued that it should be superfluous from the point of view of relativity, since SRT *can* be derived without it. The problem is therefore to reconcile Newtonian intuition with relativity theory, and furthermore, to justify that upon the basis of scientific evidence.
Cheers,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 06:29 GMT
Hi Jason,
The PSR has no Galilean character, in this PSR relativistic laws apply instead. So, I do agree that relativity makes the correct quantitative predictions, although not the most cogent physical interpretations. On the other hand, I would like to mention, that I found no contradiction in Newton's famous schollium about relative and absolute motion. This remain valid and fresh despite relativity theory. From my view, the term RELATIVITY does not mean that absolute motion is pointless as Mach and Einstein insisted, but that something is referred to something else, this is really the all-inclusive PR. If one acknowledge this, one can refer all physical quantities to any reference system even if the system is the PSR.
The close circuit argument was only aim at pointing out the importance of the experimental component of physics. I would not qualify it as "clever", I'm just underlining this well known fact that it seems to be unnoticed by most people. This fact does not undermine the theory but only states a clear distinction between experiment and theory. I do agree with the assumption that in an empty space (no gravitational fields) the one-way speed of light is isotropic despite that, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been measured. The reality is that one cannot get rid of gravity.
Best wishes
Israel
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 08:54 GMT
Hi Israel, Hi Daryl,
There could be some funky way to get a preferred reference frame. But you have to make some very progressive assumptions. You have to really use and abuse the laws of physics (which can be a very good thought experiment). But what is so intriguing about a PSR? What are you each looking for? Are you trying to satisfy a need for a philosophically pleasing set of laws of physics? I suspect that is the case for most physicists/physics enthusiasts. But what is the motivation for finding the holy grail of reference frames, the preferred frame?
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
Hi Jason,
Those are the right questions to ask, I think. One could argue, for instance, that from the realist point-of-view a block universe logically follows from Einstein's interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity, and that this is a metaphysical dead end---but that argument isn't scientific, so it's only a starting point for questioning the validity of the interpretation; i.e., we can take arguments like Minkowski's and Putnam's as the first part of a reductio ad absurdum, really ensuring we understand why the implication *is* what logically follows, given the standard point-of-view on the meaning of relativity, so that we can move on from them to complete the reductio.
In my opinion, Einstein's interpretation of the meaning of relativity is actually incompatible with cosmology and causal coherence, and therein lies the scientific evidence for a preferred reference frame. Furthermore, in my view the preferred frame can be reconciled with relativity in a way that does in fact make logical sense (i.e., isn't "funky") and doesn't really use and abuse the laws of physics, particularly with reference to the principle of relativity, beyond a clear distinction (as opposed to a fuzzy understanding) that the principle applies to the physical description of what is *perceived*, and not necessarily of *what is*.
Of course, that's basically an ontological distinction---but I stress that I think there is very good reason, from the point-of-view of cosmology, that the demands of relativity can only go as far as a description of phenomena, and definitely can't be applied as such to the true simultaneity-relation between noumena. My
argument for this is 24,996 characters long, not including spaces, and I do encourage you to read it.
Regards,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Hi Janson
I am going to be categoric, please do not take me wrong, this is not personal:
You said: "You have to really use and abuse the laws of physics "
What are the laws of physics? The laws of physics are a set of equations that are found and established by physics. However, the laws can be modified at will according to the experimental evidence. At the end, observations decide what the laws are. Today there is a crisis in physics, a puzzle that, as evidence accumulates, becomes more and more complex. As in the past, scientific revolutions demand radical solutions. So, this contest asks: Which of our BASIC assumptions are wrong? I am answering the question clearly: the PRS. I see that there is no experimental reason to reject it. It is not a matter of philosophical satisfaction. It's a matter of physics, of "reality", of simplicity, of intuition and of progress for physics. Like I said in my essay, assumptions are reconsider several times in several moments in the history of science in view of the fact that they are suitable to solve the problems that physics has, this is the case. Probably you do not see all of this and probably you do not care about all of this.
Now I ask you: What is wrong with reconsidering the assumption? If you understood my essay then you understood that the current laws of physics are not affected by this assumption in the least and, what is more important, no experiment is in conflict with it but quite the contrary, the fact that experiments lead to the same physical laws in any reference system speak for it. Since no experiment force us to abandon it, one may conclude that its rejection is only a matter of either prejudice or parsimony. If you have no objection in these respects, my question is: Why are you so reluctant to accept it? What are your arguments to reject it?
I argue in my essay that most of the problems in physics can be "easily" solved if one accepts both the PSR and the notion that "empty" space is not only composed of gravitational potentials (as relativity holds) but that space is a material fluid a la Descartes. This is the benefit for physics.
Best wishes
Israel
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 20:07 GMT
Israel,
Your own physical body is your preferred reference frame. Your own mind and point of view are a PSR. That is, unless a true PSR has detectable characteristics. Does it?
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Hi Jason
I wish you have answered my questions. Unfortunately, your reply does not help to settle our points of discussion. If you have no answer or you are not willing to answer them, one could only conclude that this is a matter of taste or prejudice. My questions are quite simple: Why do you think the PSR would not help to solve the problems of physics? What is the problem with reconsidering the PRS? What are your arguments to reject it? If I am wrong, I would be grateful if you could point out to me where I am wrong.
Israel
Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Hi Jason/Daryl/Israel;
Please read my detailed post below as to how PSR, GPR, and SR can be reconciled or bridged addressing many of the points you are making.
Regards
Avtar
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:48 GMT
Hi Israel,
I am struggling to answer your question: "What is wrong with reconsidering the assumption? (PSR)" There is nothing wrong with challenging assumptions. The problem "I" have is that it doesn't lead anywhere. If you could come up with an experiment for a gravity drive, a warp drive or something spectacular like that, but you had to question an assumption or a postulate of physics, then it could lead somewhere. Unless I have overlooked something...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT
Israel,
In all fairness, I'm actually proposing an aether medium made of waves. I think that pretty much puts an end to preferred frames of reference. Everything is really just a trick of light.
I wish you luck in the contest. :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 08:22 GMT
Hi Jason
You: If you could come up with an experiment for a gravity drive, a warp drive or something spectacular like that, but you had to question an assumption or a postulate of physics, then it could lead somewhere. Unless I have overlooked something...
Like I said, the aim of this contest is not to propose a theory or experiment but to point out which assumption is wrong. I argue that the assumption that there is no PSR and that there is no aether is wrong. If you want a theory considering these two assumptions, it is already developed and waiting for experiments to prove it. Certainly, you do not see the utility because you have some other ideas in mind. If you have developed an aether theory then you have to consider that the aether itself is the PRS. The theory I mentioned also argues that everything is fundamentally a wave.
I just want to ask you if your theory makes new predictions, and if so, what are they?
Good luck too.
Israel
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 06:39 GMT
Hi Israel,
Funny you should mention, "If you have developed an aether theory then you have to consider that the aether itself is the PRS. The theory I mentioned also argues that everything is fundamentally a wave. "
I define an aether as the set of waves that obey
Then it struck me that this is an absolute reference frame. So 3Gz,0.1m in the absolute frame will be time dilated/Length contracted to some other relative inertial frame of reference. So, uh, I think we agree and I can tell you what the PSR is, in terms of frequency and wavelength.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 07:31 GMT
Hi Jason
I do not know what kind of aether you have in mind. Any new unobservable prediction in your theory?
Israel
Anonymous replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
Hi Israel,
I picked an aether that would easily satisfy the first and second postulates of relativity. It is an amazing trick that nature is able to make the speed of light the same (c for a vacuum) in all inertial reference frames. Here we are with our clocks and our measuring sticks trying to take an honest measurement of the speed of light, and somehow, the speed of light (speed of photons) is the same for all observers. That's when length contraction and time dilation appear. It looks like something funny is going on, like a scam is being perpetrated. The scam is this: distance and time are measured by nature in such a way that the speed of light is always c. So how does nature pull it off? Well this is only the half of it.
I'm sure you know about the Schrodinger equation; its solution is the wave-function. There are plenty of complicated wave-functions. But when the potential energy is zero, you get quantum waves of the form,
It's just an oscillating plane wave at some frequency w=2pi*f. It vaguely looks like the electric (or magnetic) component of electromagnetic radiation,
I am far less mathematically adept than most others who have submitted essays. But I can spot very subtle patterns. The pattern is this: the laws of physics, in their simplest form, behave like a support system for light, the speed of light and the waviness of light. But light (photons) are not the only things that are wavy. Matter waves/de Broglie waves try to be wavy too. They have a wavelength,
I saw a pattern, and I decided not to resist it. I decided to embrace the idea that the ontological foundation of physics was nothing more complicated than a set of aether waves that obey
Basically, everything you can conceive of is made of aether waves that obey c. Everything including leptons, hadrons, bosons, fermions, the quantum vacuum, gravity, time itself and even the space-time continuum. The space-time continuum just this 3D Fourier series of aether waves. For lack of a better word, particles are kinks or knots of a frequency range of aether waves. It doesn't matter if the math of quarks or gluons tries to look different from aether waves. I'll simply argue that aether waves have wavelength and frequency as a primary characteristic, but they have more subtle characteristics that allow for particle behavior.
How can I go wrong with aether waves that are defined to have a wavelength-frequency pair that equal c? If the laws of physics are built upon these waves, then the postulates of SR can never be untrue.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Israel,
You asked: "Any new unobservable prediction in your theory? "
There is one important prediction. Aether waves and light are mutually causal: one causes the other to exist.
Gravity and acceleration fields have a specific aether wave configuration that, in one dimension, looks like a linear frequency chirp. But if you generate a frequency chirp as EM radiation, you will reproduce the aether configuration of a gravity field. If you do that, you will reproduce a very weak version of that gravitational acceleration. If you refine your technique, you can use it as a form of propulsion.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
Hi Jason
You say: Aether waves and light are mutually causal: one causes the other to exist.
This is more a assumption than a prediction. I meant what new unobservable physical phenomena predicts and how the predictions can be experimentally verify. For instance. Einstein predicted the bending of light. Quantum mechanics predicted quantum tunnelling.. etc. I am talking about this predictions...
Israel
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Hi Israel,
What I'm getting at is that aether waves are responsible for the existence of all phenomena of nature (time, space, gravity, electromagnetism, etc.). Even atoms are only able to exist because of the aether version of the atom which looks like hydrogen atom wave-function. If the aether didn't exist, then nothing would exist. In that sense, aether causes everything to exist.
In another sense, when we emit light using flashlights, LED's, radar, radio-wave antennas, etc, we also create the aether waves that support the EM radiations.
Now gravity and acceleration fields exist because of some particular configuration of aether. Now if were clever, we can figure a way to duplicate the aether configuration of gravity/acceleration fields with nothing more than light, specifically EM frequency chirps. So I am predicting that a train of frequency chirps will create the same aether wave configuration that exists due to gravity. If the experimenter detects an acceleration field caused by EM frequency chirps, which cause the aether to take the same configuration as that of gravity, then we've proven that aether exists, we've proven that we can manipulate aether waves.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 22:05 GMT
In a way, it's like a feedback loop. Everything exists because aether exists. But we can manipulate the aether using light because we can control light very easily. When we manipulate aether using light, it changes the aether wave which in turn changes how nature manifests. It's a feedback loop to manipulate how nature manifests.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Hmm..!! I don't understand your aether language. It is sort of ambiguous. I am having semantical problems. I better read your essay, I'll be back to you as soon as possible.
Israel
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi Israel,
Please let me know if I can answer any questions. The aether is this ontological substance that implements the laws of physics. In its simplest form, it's a probability wave. When excited by energy, it transmits photons. Particles with mass are like a range of frequencies of aether waves that are "knotted" or "kinked" together into a localized particle of mass. But the important part is that an aether medium gives us a strategy to try to manipulate gravity using light.
We don't have to understand the aether very deeply to be able manipulate it, and thereby manipulate gravity.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Jason,
Just few comments from a PicoPhysicst.
1. Preferred system of reference (PSR): Preferred system of reference has always been there and will continue to exist. It is the reference system realtive to which the observer is at rest. In most of our arguments we also believe the observer is at origin that enables use of different co-ordinate systems and easy interpretation of mathematical formulations.
2. Ether was a very different concept so was earth at center of universe.
3. There are many more assumptions that come to mind which are at core of mechanics - whether Newtonian or relativistic. First and foremost of them being the assumption of uniformity of space.
In the essay
5-Dimensional Universe we describe the universe as 5-dimensional with time dimension mapped in drift direction. This not only provides constancy of speed of light as well as seen as a proof for uniformity of space.
Thus time and one of the dimensions (in the drift direction) have conformal mapping and thus measures to same number. The ratio is unity - giving speed of light a character of universal constant.
If we try to meditate on means available to measure distance and time independently, we will find that is not possible without bringing into picture constancy of speed of light.
Now since drift can be any of the three directions, we have uniformity in space at least at micro level. (PicoPhysics believe it is limited to micro level, at macro level it is not uniform due to disturbance caused by presence of matter).
Thanks and Regards,
Vijay Gupta
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
Hi Vijay,
I will answer on your essay thread.
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Israel:
I enjoyed reading your well-written paper making a case for reviving the PSR based on its “usefulness”.
First of all I agree with the conclusive statement in your essay:
“The PSR assumption constitutes a paradigm shift that would demand a drastic change in the way of conceiving the present universe. Well established facts such as the expansion of the...
view entire post
Dear Israel:
I enjoyed reading your well-written paper making a case for reviving the PSR based on its “usefulness”.
First of all I agree with the conclusive statement in your essay:
“The PSR assumption constitutes a paradigm shift that would demand a drastic change in the way of conceiving the present universe. Well established facts such as the expansion of the universe would need to be reinterpreted in the light of this new paradigm. A theory based on this assumption can provide new insights with respect to the dark matter, dark energy problems as well as the acceleration of the universe.”
This has actually been accomplished as described in my paper - “
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”. The proposed GNMUE model integrating the physics of spontaneous decay with special relativity and Newtonian theories successfully predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies, resolves dark energy and dark matter problems, eliminates big bang singularity, and bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories describing the inner workings of quantum mechanics (The marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity is not an illusion but a confirmed reality via the proposed GNMUE). In this model, the PSR or Newtonian fixed space and time occur only at V =0, wherein relativistic effects are small and gravity effects dominate. As V gets larger and closer to C, space and time dilate due to the dominant relativistic effects (and diminishing gravity effects) and PSR in AS dissolves into GPR following special relativity. At V=C, space and time dilate to zero with no clocks or distances remaining within a continuum of the eternal and omnipresent un-manifested (zero mass) laws of the universe.
The point to note here is that the universal reality is a continuum between the lower limit PSR (V/C=0) and upper limit no space-time (V=C). In between these two limits, various V/C values represent varying level of realities that appear to us as the so-called multi-verses. So neither the assumption of PSR only nor GPR only are correct. The reality consists of transition from PSR in the near-field (earth to solar system) to GPR in the far-field (galaxies and universe). Hence, the current cosmological paradoxes – dark energy, dark matter, and quantum weirdness are shown to be artifacts of the incorrect assumption in standard cosmology of a fixed PSR with absolute space-time in the far-field (V~C). This confirms that motion or V/C is a fundamental quantity, above absolute space and time.
I think your statement extremely limits the role of science – “….it is legitimate to judge that the final aim of a scientist may not be the finding of the “truth" but merely the finding of a theory that reproduces and explains the body of experimental evidence. The knowledge gained during this process is then used for the convenience of mankind.”
I would like to promote the role of science and scientists to reveal the ultimate universal reality that not only enhances its material life and conveniences but also provides purpose and meaningfulness to life in the universe. My attached paper – “In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose” shows how science can achieve this.
I would like to invite you to read my paper and provide your comments in light of your paper.
Regards
Avtar
view post as summary
attachments:
1_Manus_MetanexusIn_Search_of_the_Universal_Reality__Purpose.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 05:35 GMT
Hi Avtar
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments. From what you say I am curious about your work, it appears that we have some points in common, I will read it ASAP. I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. I would appreciate if you could make some comments.
As to the aim of science. I would like to make a comment to state my point. I think that one should acknowledge that humans cannot be omniscient, if this were true there would be no more questions to answer and we will control nature at will. This leads me to reach the plausible conclusion that humans will never understand how nature really works. I wish you were right but I cannot overlook the previous statements. I may be wrong, in such case, I would appreciate also if you could persuade me of changing this belief.
Best wishes
Israel
Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Israel:
Thanks for your reply and after you have had a chance to read my paper, please post any comments on my paper under my post.
1. You asked – “I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. “
Answer_
Yes, some new predictions of my model include the evidence of...
view entire post
Dear Israel:
Thanks for your reply and after you have had a chance to read my paper, please post any comments on my paper under my post.
1. You asked – “I just wonder whether your theory besides explaining some of the most important problems in physics makes new unobservable predictions. “
Answer_
Yes, some new predictions of my model include the evidence of substantial matter or large galaxies in the far far field ie beyond 10-14 billion-yrs (see figure 8 and 10 in my paper). This has been already confirmed via recent observations (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48230452) . Another unobservable prediction of my theory is that no stable and sustained anti-matter can be observed in the amount of observable matter in the universe counter to the predictions of the quantum mechanics.
2. Your comment – “……. This leads me to reach the plausible conclusion that humans will never understand how nature really works. I wish you were right but I cannot overlook the previous statements. I may be wrong, in such case, I would appreciate also if you could persuade me of changing this belief.”
Response
I had similar belief about ten years ago until the belief started to bother me and I began to search for the right answers thru science. Our beliefs are mostly inherited and are like our own self-made prison. Just as a particle decays at its own free will and attains the speed of light in the form of light photons, we must decay our beliefs and attain enlightenment of our innate consciousness or awareness capabilities to realize the underlying implicit realities that are not measurable or seen with naked eye. Scientific instruments cannot reveal these realities. Science today is lost in dissecting its materialistic measurements made in fixed Newtonian space-time (PSR), which is like dissecting hair in the tail of the elephant to predict the elephant. Science today is lost in trees and has lost the vision of the forest.
You are right that humans will never be able to dissect each tree in the forest to understand the forest. But my point is that we should try to envision the forest and not get entangled in the fruitless pursuits of the trees. Chasing and dissecting individual particles, in my view, is such an exhausting approach to science. Even if the battles of understanding the individual few particles are won, the war may never be won in revealing the wholesome universal reality from an integrated wholesome approach to science not fragmented by limited local (PSR) (howsoever billions of dollars’ worth) experiments. There may be a lot of declared victories in individual battles, but war will remain un-won until the beliefs and mindsets are won to envision the elephant or forest as a whole. I would call this wholesome approach to physics a “holistic science” as opposed to the well-known and weird quantum or particle physics.
Bottom line, you will have to spontaneously decay your beliefs at your own free will (even if I tried, I cannot persuade you, just as I cannot persuade a particle to decay) to realize the wholesome reality of the universe rather than piecemeal reality revealed by quantum particles in a PSR framework, which are no more than peepholes giving extremely fragmented and limited view (worldly and utilitarian materialistic view) of the universal reality.
To me, a science that cannot reveal purpose to the universe and life in it, is a purposeless science; a science that cannot reveal beauty is an ugly science; and a science that is limited to the inanimate matter (particles) alone is a science of the dead. Science is ready for the next frontier – consciousness or free will if it has to progress any further. Consciousness or free will is the fundamental reality that must be the foundation of science, until then it is all building castles in the air. Free-willed decaying of the beliefs and mindset is essential to realize this fundamental reality of the universe.
Best wishes
Avtar
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Avtar
I thought I had the impression of having replied this post. I am sorry for this.
From your words, I can see that you are suggesting that one day I will change my position or opinion about it. However you agree that humans will never understand nature.
You: To me, a science that cannot reveal purpose to the universe and life in it, is a purposeless science; a science that cannot reveal beauty is an ugly science; and a science that is limited to the inanimate matter (particles) alone is a science of the dead.
I think you are right that science is gaining more appreciation from its followers, but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion.
You: Science is ready for the next frontier – consciousness or free will if it has to progress any further. Consciousness or free will is the fundamental reality that must be the foundation of science, until then it is all building castles in the air. Free-willed decaying of the beliefs and mindset is essential to realize this fundamental reality of the universe.
What you suggest about consciousness as the next step of science I also understand it. But I do not think science is ready for this step, there is at least one more step that science has to undergo before going to the consciousness part. First, it has to get rid of the mechanistic and materilistic view of the world, particles and so on... for this, probably more than 100 years will have elapsed (provided science and technology do not destroy us).
Israel
Avtar Singh replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Israel:
Thanks for your reply. Responses to your comments are provided below:
Your comment 1: “From your words, I can see that you are suggesting that one day I will change my position or opinion about it. However you agree that humans will never understand nature…… but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion”
Response:
No, I...
view entire post
Dear Israel:
Thanks for your reply. Responses to your comments are provided below:
Your comment 1: “From your words, I can see that you are suggesting that one day I will change my position or opinion about it. However you agree that humans will never understand nature…… but if what you say is true, then science will become some sort of religion”
Response:
No, I am not suggesting that you will change your position; I am saying that only your free will (and not an external imposition) would guide your future position. Also, I am not saying that humans will never understand nature; I am saying that when and if humans understand or realize that the free will or consciousness is the fundamental reality of the universe, the incomprehensible and diverging materialistic reality of matter alone will become only a purposeless or meaning less utilitarian need or pursuit. The top level or the ultimate objective of science is revealing the eternal universal reality which is the fundamental source (as well as sink) of everything including matter, energy, space, and time. When this ultimate objective is realized, the current approach of science – the lower level materialistic-only (matter represents only 4% of the universe) pursuit would appear only a ritualistic religion-like practice guided by the superstitious matter-only belief.
Your comment 2: “What you suggest about consciousness as the next step of science I also understand it. But I do not think science is ready for this step, there is at least one more step that science has to undergo before going to the consciousness part. First, it has to get rid of the mechanistic and materialistic view of the world, particles and so on... for this, probably more than 100 years will have elapsed (provided science and technology do not destroy us).”
Response:
You have hit the nail on the head in suggesting that the current materialistic-only view of science is hindering the progress of science. However, humans do not have to wait 100 years to break this shackle. The theme of my paper is to show that, right now, if the free will dimension of the spontaneity of the mass decay is integrated into the current theories, they can successfully predict the observed universe dissolving many current paradoxes, inconsistencies, and singularities. We are there now, no need to wait for hundred years.
I can only hope that scientists could be convinced of this missing physics of spontaneity well-observed in nature today so that they do not have to be shackled by a self-imposed belief (religious) and pessimism that humans cannot understand nature at its core or highest level. They just need to focus on the forest and not get lost in individual trees. Instead of focusing on the transient waves on the surface of the ocean they must see the ocean below. Time is our only enemy but time is only an artifact illusion of matter. As soon as, which can be now, science sees beyond the inanimate matter, the darkness is dissolved and lights turn on. This is my personal experience as a scientist.
Regards
Avtar
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 03:48 GMT
Hi avtar
Thanks for your reply. What you mention reminds me about Teilhard de Chardin and his omega point; so far, we haven't reach it. The problem is that for the majority of scientists, it would take so many years to understand what you said. Science does not evolve as fast as you may think. The process would take hundreds of years more.
You: "I am saying that only your free will would guide your future position." I interpret this as if I were to change my way of thinking about something as time goes by. The view and the feelings about something change because of experience and maturity, that's it.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 14:30 GMT
Dear Israel Omar Perez,
My view on Ether & ‘The Preferred System of Reference’
Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light...
view entire post
Dear Israel Omar Perez,
My view on Ether & ‘The Preferred System of Reference’
Arguments on ether may begin with carryover of Pre-Newtonian concept of space as extension of matter. Cartesian physics considered everything extended to be corporeal, thus rejecting the idea of empty space. Observation of interference and diffraction of light made some theoretician to relate light with sound. In parallel to this, conservation of energy led to unify kinetic energy, heat, light and sound to be collectively and inter-convertibly called energy.
As sound can not travel without a medium, it was argued by some theoreticians that a medium is required for light to travel. However, light travels through space devoid of any matter. For space to act as a medium for propagation of light a host of properties shall be assigned to space. Considering the fact the value of these properties are unreasonable and sound does not propagate through space, it was a dead concept at the origin it-self. So ether as an all prevailing medium concept was dead at birth. But as usual, in human nature, we prefer not to be negative in our conversations. This makes different thought processes co-exist in a given period of time. The ether concept continued to exist for some time. The argument in favour of ether was a possibility of providing it a unique characteristic of being at absolute rest. (Though, absolute rest was not defined clearly). In terms of Newtonian frame of reference, it was seen as a universal reference frame that assigns each object a value in each of three dimensions of space representing rate of change of position. This association of Ether with absolute rest was turned down by Michelson–Morley experiment. This was as big an effort as recent discovery of Higgs-Bosons. The proposed defining characteristic of ether at absolute rest was negated by observations by in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. So ether as a concept similar to a medium that is essential for sound waves died as a result of Michelson–Morley experiment.
During the time interval between Newton (& Galileo) to Einstein, science was in formative state. From flat earth, to universe with sun as center to doing away with any preferential location or reference was completed in this period. This purified concept of space from all the baggage it carried due to limitations of human intuition and observations.
In PicoPhysics, we define realities of Knergy and Space as host realities for two opposite concepts. Knergy of Konservation and space is antidote to Konservation. The unary law ‘Space contains Knergy’ describes the interaction between the two.
Five Dimensions of universe In PicoPhysics we can establish only three dimensions of space. So space has only three dimensions. There is no fourth or fifth dimension of space. Let us consider what a dimension means. Dimension is one of the observable aspects of reality. The universe includes both Space and Knergy. While Space has 3-Dimensions, Knergy has 2-Dimensions. This gives the universe its five dimensions.
Science also deals with degrees of freedoms in relation of dimensions. Though universe has five dimensions, the degree of freedom is less than four. The dimension of Time is maps conformal to space dimension in drift direction. The dimension of energy is less than one, since it does not allow for negative values. Thus degrees of freedom are at best four for universe.
Thanks and Regards,
Vijay Gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Vijay
Thanks for leaving your comments I appreciate them and I will take a look at your essay as soon as possible. I just like to make clear that neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor any other experiment can rule out the immovable aether assumption. None of these experiments proves that there is no aether. The aether was rejected only on epistemological grounds. I invite you to read my essay, there I elucidate these points.
Best regards
Israel
John Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
Israel,
"I argue in my essay that most of the problems in physics can be "easily" solved if one accepts both the PSR and the notion that "empty" space is not only composed of gravitational potentials (as relativity holds) but that space is a material fluid a la Descartes. This is the benefit for physics.'
I'm trying to figure out how space could be a "fluid," yet not be some form of causal spacetime.
It seems to me that to make space a true PSR, all dynamic properties would have to be washed out, leaving it as an equilibrium state, in which matter/energy/action interacts. There seems to be this insistence on some measurable function, aether, etc, filling it up. It seems to me the most irrefutable argument for space as the elemental frame, is centrifugal force. Once you rotate any defined frame and the component contents seek to follow a straight line, requiring some attractive property of the frame(gravity) to hold them in, that is evidence of the Euclidian equilibrium of space. Aether certainly wouldn't cause centrifugal force.
Yes, all of space is either dominated by energy radiating outward, or mass/gravity contracting inward, but they seem, according to measurement(COBE, WMAP) and theory, to be in balance, resulting in an overall flat space.
The only alternative to space as some form of elemental void, is the notion it emerges as a consequence of the singularity, which is a whole additional can of worms, one which incidentally grew out of the idea of "spacetime" in the first place.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:22 GMT
Hi John
Thanks for your stimulating comment. I have a long story to tell so you can understand my view. I am going to summarize it as much as possible but I need to divide it into two parts, because the space is limited here. This is part 1.
You should understand that the reality that we grasp through our senses is very related to intuition. The way we perceive reality is highly...
view entire post
Hi John
Thanks for your stimulating comment. I have a long story to tell so you can understand my view. I am going to summarize it as much as possible but I need to divide it into two parts, because the space is limited here. This is part 1.
You should understand that the reality that we grasp through our senses is very related to intuition. The way we perceive reality is highly complex and therefore it is a titanic task to model it as we perceive it. For this reason physicists prefer to model a cow as a point. Ancient thinkers use to philosophize a lot on all known hitherto phenomena. Their only tool were their senses and their reason. So, they knew very well the feeling of the intuitive world. Descartes was a typical case. In his work "the world" he presents the well known astronomical model. In this model Descartes realized that the notion of space arises from the notion of extension of material bodies (today most people think in the opposite way, that bodies live in space). He then denied total emptiness and assumed that all the universe was composed of a fine fluid, of an aethereal matter, certainly not observable by the eyes but by intuition. To explain the motion of celestial bodies he considered that planets were drag by the flow of this continuous fluid; the spinning of planets, etc. were due to the rotation of what he called vortices. His theory was so harmonious and beautiful that many philosophers and physicists considered very plausible, however there was a big problem. It was only qualitative. Then Newton appeared in the scene. In summary, Newton agreed that Descartes's model was very plausible but for quantitative matters, it would turn out to be impossible to make a practical model. Although Newton conducted himself with reservation about the nature of space and gravity he seemed to agree that space was some kind of aethereal substance. With respect to gravity he once wrote to Bentley in 1693:
"Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers"
So, we see here that Newton had the idea that gravity was related to some physical agent (now we call it field, what is a field made of?). He later confessed, in his work Gravitation, that space was obviously an aethereal substance. However, to model "reality" and intuition, he simply decided to keep space immovable and "empty". This simplification would help him to apply the principles of geometry and mechanics to study an astronomical problem. As consequence of the the elimination of this substance he was severely criticized. Many physicists and philosophers questioned him how two planets could interact without a medium. The reply to these critics was the famous phrase:
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
This is part 2
...From ~1710 to ~1760. Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning from a trip to England he became Newtonian... This is indeed the case. The Cartesian model was so complex to deal...
view entire post
This is part 2
...From ~1710 to ~1760. Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning from a trip to England he became Newtonian... This is indeed the case. The Cartesian model was so complex to deal with that its used started to decline during the rest of the century. Then Newtonian empty space became a prejudice for most physicists of the XVIII and XIX centuries. Celestial bodies were in communication with each other by an action at a distance, that is, no medium and infinite speed. Clearly this is non-sense and is the result of disregarding in the mathematical model the intuitive part of Descartes. During the development of electromagnetism Poisson-like equations were found. And here again action at a distance was also non-sense. So physicists were forced again to resort to the aethereal substance in order to get rid of this intuitive inconsistency. This substance was also material. To explain the mechanical effects on material bodies caused by electromagnetic phenomena Maxwell developed a model of vortices, but once again his model was so complex. Maxwell knew that his equations were valid despite the non existence of the aether but if there was no aether, we also have the problem of how electromagnetic bodies communicate. Unfortunately, in 1879 Maxwell died and left his work imcomplete. The so called Maxwellians (FitzGerald, Lodge, Heaviside, Hertz, Larmor, etc.) came to rescue Maxwell's work and gave shape to Maxwell electrodynamics. Actually, Hertz modified electrodynamics in way that would lead to new unobservable predictions (besides transversal waves, also longitudinal waves in the aether). But however there were still some problems to fix. It was Lorentz who finally get rid of Maxwell vortices and assumed the aether at rest. Again, this was just to simplify the physics. Everything was ok. Lorentz found the Lorentz transformations, Poincaré the principle of relativity and relativistic kinematics was developed. At this point Lorentz and Poincaré realized that no experiment could tell whether there is aether or not. But despite of that one can hold it. Then Einstein appeared in 1905 with an axiomatization of Lorentz' work. In this work he established two important things. First, he claimed that there is no aether. This not only means that he was leaving space again TOTALLY empty but also that he was depriving the universe of aethereal MATTER. And second, he argued that the real quantities are the fields. In analogy with the case of Newton this affirmation has become some sort of prejudice for intuition. Since then most physicists believe that material objects interact through fields that need no other medium than "EMPTY" space itself. Clearly this TOTALLY EMPTY space is non-sense for intuition, how could nothingness exist? In my essay I argue that no experiment can rule out the aether assumption so Einstein was just reinterpreting the physics in the language of fields. Ok, I have no problem with reinterpretation. Then we have no medium for electromagnetic fields, but what about gravity? Here the action at a distance persists. It is clear that there most be a medium, the medium that Newton rejected to simplify his theory. To solve this complication Einstein then developed the general relativity and argued that the new aether are the gravitational fields. The problem is that this new aether is not made of matter, but only of energy and momentum.
Since space was deprived of matter and conceived as a flexible geometrical vessel, the paradigm of relativity led physicists to believe in the expansion of the universe, the big bang theory and the interpretation that the Microwave background radiation are the remnants of the radiation emitted during the big explosion. This interpretation is ok, according to this paradigm. But it seems to me that it has led physics to a dead end. From my view, the crisis in physics was guided by wrong assumptions such as there is no PSR and no aether. How to explain the horizon problem? Physicists resort to assumptions such as the inflationary model or the varying speed of light theory in which it is assumed that in the early stages of the universe the speed of light was much faster than now.
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT
Well, I thought 2 parts, but they are actually, 3. Sorry
...So to avoid all of these complications, I'm reconsidering Descartes notion of space. Empty space does not exist. Space is a material dynamical fluid. Light travels through this medium and bends near the vicinity of massive objects because the object causes the density of the fluid to vary which means that the index of refraction changes from place to place within the gravitational field. Gravity is nothing but a flow of this subtle matter that points towards the center of a vortex. This causes all the celestial bodies to spin around its axis: the earth, the moon, the sun the galaxies etc.. The vortices of the fluid drag other objects around the sun; dark matter is part of this fluid; macroscopic objects (actually they can be model as solitons) are in a condensed state of this fluid and deformed when forces are applied (Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction); the cosmic background radiation is simply the temperature of the fluid, etc, etc... This theory is developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists.
In summary, to simplify the calculations one can assume this aether at rest a la Lorentz and place a PSR there. There is no problem with centrifugal forces. The complex option is a la Descartes, but as you say the notion of PSR appears to be lost if you think of objects as particles. Indeed the notion of particle is another issue that, from my view, has also caused noise to our understanding of reality. From this notion arises the problem of wave-particle duality at the microscopic level. The wave-particle duality is another assumption which one has to get rid of to see the physics with more clarity. It is obvious that something cannot be two things at the same time, particle and wave. To solve this problem one has to assume that either everything is a wave or a particle. The second option appears to be more complex. So one may conceive particles as waves, actually as solitons moving in the fluid and therefore the PRS concept is still valid.
I hoped I have clarified your doubts, some of your doubts.
Israel
John Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 03:58 GMT
Israel,
Thank you for the in depth and clear reply.
I don't doubt space is rather full of substance, but that doesn't negate an underlaying Euclidian space, which amounts to an equilibrium state. The reason C appears constant in any frame is that in accelerated frames, atomic activity is slowed in the direction of travel, so as not to exceed C, thus a slower clock is used to...
view entire post
Israel,
Thank you for the in depth and clear reply.
I don't doubt space is rather full of substance, but that doesn't negate an underlaying Euclidian space, which amounts to an equilibrium state. The reason C appears constant in any frame is that in accelerated frames, atomic activity is slowed in the direction of travel, so as not to exceed C, thus a slower clock is used to measure it. This, like centrifugal force, strongly suggests a inertial frame. I don't know if you happen to read my
entry, as it explains why I view spacetime as simply correlation of distance and duration, not an underlaying geometry of a fluid spacetime. (Because time is explained as effect, not basis of action.) It also goes into why particles are also waves, since without a dimensionless point in time, the particle cannot be completely isolated from its motion. Like fast shutter speed on a camera, it may appear almost motionless, but that is only a function of how it is observed.
I see radiant energy and gravitational mass as opposite sides of the same coin. Further up this thread, I made a comment, "Dark matter might be due to gravity being a consequence of radiation condensing into mass and becoming ever more dense(M=e/c2)." To continue that thought; When we release energy from mass, we get an explosion. So why wouldn't the opposite be true; When energy condenses into mass, there is effectively, an "implosion?" Say we start on the very perimeter of galaxies and have cosmic rays coalescing into interstellar gases, to photons being absorbed by atoms, all the way down into the core of stars, where protons, neutrons, etc, collapse into the heavy metals. The resulting creation of voids, as these energies and structures become ever more dense would be a continuous process, creating enormous galactic vortices, populated by innumerable star clusters, with stellar, planetary objects as an intermediate stage between light and total implosion, resulting in all infalling mass ejected out as jets of cosmic rays, for billions of lightyears.
As for intuition, physicists are not neurologists. Intuition is a function of how our entire body of knowledge responds to a given situation. Intuition for someone living a thousand years ago, vs someone today, or a five year old, a farmer, a doctor, an artist, a scientist, a politician, a preacher, would all be quite different. Most people today intuitively know the earth spins relative to the sun, but up till 500 years ago, the difference between the sun moving across the sky, versus a cloud or bird doing the same, was not completely clear. This idea of physics not being intuitional has been taken to the point of meaning it is not even rational and that is faith, not science. I would also point out the observation of my essay, that time is observed as a sequence of events and by treating it as a measurement, physics only re-enforces this intuitive impression, but the actual physical dynamic is the events emerging from action and thus the events going future to past, rather than the present moving along some apparent vector, from past to future. So we never know what intuitions might still be deeply imbedded in physics.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear John
Thanks for you reply. Indeed you have touched very important points. Your assumption that matter may create from an implosion sounds plausible. Unfortunately, I haven't read your essay, there are so many entries that it is impossible to make comments in them as one could wish but I'll do it as soon as I possible.
As for intuition I may have exaggerated, this perhaps gave rise to the impression that I put a lot faith on it. However, one cannot deny that intuition is highly connected with experience. For instance, String theory considers 10 spatial dimensions. This makes the theory to appear incredible even for physicists. In this case intuition and experience are playing an important role judging the acceptance of the theory. The theory appears so abstract, exotic and with so much metaphysical content that instead of attracting followers, it repels them...
Best regards
Israel
John Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Israel,
Keep in mind that for theoretical physicists, experience is manipulating a lot of abstract symbols. As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case, bits of information. When you have a lot of competitive people with the same predilections, it is a classic recipe for getting seriously off track.
Remember that epicycles were quite accurate and could have been made completely accurate, for the very simple reason that were are the center of our perspective of the rest of the universe, so it would be mathematically modelable. The problem arose when they tried to define the physical reality within the context of this model. Yet we still have this belief that math represents some underlaying structure to reality, rather than a best model of it. So today, they still do what the ancient cosmologists did; Whenever observation and theory diverge, figure out what new epicycle/particle/dimension/field is causing it, rather than question the assumptions built into the theory, because for theorists, theory is the reality. Theory is their intuition.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 23:55 GMT
John
I just want to make some comments in this topic you touch. You should keep in mind that math was only included in physics to quantify reality. Actually, it is well known that math was born from experience and from experience math gains its truth and scientific value. Oliver Heaviside once said: Math is an empirical science. There are many physicists, like Max Tegmark, who thinks that for every element of reality there corresponds a mathematical one. I do agree that one can find mathematical structures to explain reality. A mathematical structure is nothing but a logical structure. But I know pretty well that logic sometimes turns out to be illogic and irrational. There is no natural logic for reason, the logic is imposed by experience. This is like when we have a collection of random data. Data that follows no pattern is illogical. If a theorist sees no trends in the data the theorist finds no logic in the data. Once the data follow a pattern, the theorist will invent a logical structure to reproduce the data. So, the logical structure of a theory is determined by experience.
Today many theorists follow an heuristic approach to solve the problems of physics: What if I assume this potential, what if I assume this field... I'm going to propose this hamiltonian... What if I consider space-time discrete... If the proposal works, then good, otherwise to start over...
The heuristic approach resembles "guessing" in which no scrupulous analysis is followed. Some theorist follow this procedure because they do no longer question the fundamental assumptions, because they no longer consider philosophical reasoning and intuition as a tool to build a theory... However, I think that in science as in war everything is allowed insofar as the problem under consideration can be solved... intuition and analytical and philosophical reasoning still have a major role to play in physics, because they "see", what a logical or mathematical structure can not...
Thanks for your stimulating comments
Israel
Georgina parry replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Israel,
When you mention finding patterns in data I reminded of the Narrative fallacy, which is a common human bias that seeks to find causal stories within what may be unrelated events. Leading to mistakes of correlation for causation, in every day life and also sometimes in science and social science. I'm also reminded of the propensity to see human faces in inannimate objects such a piece of toast or a pebble, because the human mind is adapted to discriminate such patterns in sensory data with ease.
You final paragraph reminds me of what Richard Feynman said- "Now I'm going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First. we guess it (audience laughter). no, don't laugh, that's the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
Richard Feynman lecture Cornell university 1964 (from amiquote.tumblr.com )
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT
Israel, Georgina,
There is a bit of a dichotomy between inductive and deductive logic. Yes, we induce common patterns and principles from the phenomena around us, then use them to deduce further extrapolations in larger arenas of phenomena.
I think the point we are making is that math is a tool, and much like any tool, from other forms of language, to mediums of exchange, or computers, telescopes, even simple hammers and knives, we never quite know where our use of them will lead us. They are the principles we induce from experience, then apply to further exploration. The problem is when we start treating these tools as Gods, where everything which arises from their use must be true and unquestioned. That is when we lose control and chaos takes over, from wars, to economic bubbles, to physical theories run amok. We fall victim to our own beliefs.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT
Dear Georgina
Thank you for your interesting comments, definitely you are right. Humans instinctively look for patterns and familiar structures in observations... I've seen the 1964 Feynman lecture... what Feynman said is true... most theorists work that way.
Dear John
Thanks for your comments, again very stimulating, though this time I would prefer to reply with short comments. Induction has been rejected by Karl Popper as a method to achieve scientific knowledge because he claimed that there is no logic in reaching universal statements (postulates, axioms) from singular inferences, whereas from postulates logical deductions can be derived. I disagree basically because I think that one cannot arbitrarily postulate principles without first analyzing the correlations among single observations (data). The analysis and association of these observations constitutes the "logic" of the inductive method that, at the end, leads to the establishment of universal statements.
Israel
John Merryman replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Israel,
The irony here is that sometimes, what theorists proclaim as grand insights, are already fundamental to our intuitive knowledge, from millions of years of interacting with physical reality. Then our different languages and disciplines view these patterns from different perspectives and don't see the connections, with each insisting on particular interpretations. Discretion is foundational to knowledge, but like everything else, should be kept in perspective.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Israel,
You consider space "a material fluid a la Descartes" and told us that Bernoulli ascribed the Cartesian view to continental Europa but the Newtonian to England. Perhaps you refer to Jacob Bernoulli (1654-1705). Newton was born in the year 1642 when Galileo died. When Descartes died in 1650, Newton was a little boy. Between Descartes and Newton something decisive happened.
Otto Gericke had read speculations on empty space in the Meditationes by Descartes. He managed to build about 1650 the first vacuum pump in order to demonstrate in 1654 that there is an empty space. At that time he got aware of experiments in 1643 by Torricelli, Galileo's pupil. Von Guericke's Experimenta nova ut vocantur Magdeburgica led to the steam engine, his communicated to Leibniz experiments on electrostatic force at distance led to the play with electricity.
Concerning Maxwell's equations I wonder why you didn't mention Gibbs. If I recall correctly, the idea of an aether goes back at least to Ampere and Cauchy.
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 06:32 GMT
Hi Eckard
I'm going to reply to your comments in parts. This is part 1.
In 1632 Galileo published the "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief WORLD systems". In this work he compared the heliocentric model with the geocentric model by means of a dialogue among the three famous interlocutors: Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio. The work of Descartes (1596-1650) called "the WORLD" (I think...
view entire post
Hi Eckard
I'm going to reply to your comments in parts. This is part 1.
In 1632 Galileo published the "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief WORLD systems". In this work he compared the heliocentric model with the geocentric model by means of a dialogue among the three famous interlocutors: Salviati, Sagredo and Simplicio. The work of Descartes (1596-1650) called "the WORLD" (I think that the NAME IS NOT A COINCIDENCE) in which the aether ideas were presented was divided in several parts, because Descartes was aware of what had happened to Galileo. Descartes also upheld the Copernican view but denied empty space. He first published one part in 1644, but he avoid the publication of the other parts because their content was heretical according to the dogmas of the church. The other parts were published some years later after his dead in 1662, 1664 and the complete text in 1677. By this time Newton was 35 years old and he had already discovered the law of gravitation. So, the rest of the century Descartes' works were widely recognized.
Now, recall that Newton's Principia was first published in 1687, but it took some years to gain wide acceptance in England and some more years to be widely accepted in continental Europe. It was well known in England by the beginning of the XVIII century but not in continental Europe. The reason for this is that in continental Europe Descartes' theory of vortices was well established and more popular. Christian Huygens had improved it immensely from ~1670 to ~1690. This is also why Huygens (Hooke and Leonard Euler too) supported the idea that light was a wave moving through the aether. So, there were basically two beautiful theories competing to gain followers (similar to string theory and loop quantum gravity today). The point in favor of Newton's version is that his theory was a mathematical and elegant model based on the three laws of motion and the law of gravitation (his theory was axiomatic). From these laws he could derived Kepler's laws, whereas Huygens assumed Keppler's laws with no derivation whatsoever from any other law. That is, Descartes' theory had no gravitational law. This was a great disadvantage. If you take a glance at Newton's Principia, the final part is called: "The system of the WORLD". There Newton wrote in the introduction about the cause of gravity:
"...The later philosophers pretend to account for it [gravity] either by the action of certain vortices, as Kepler or Des cartes; or by some other principle of impulse or attraction, as Borelli, Hooke and others of our nation; for, from the laws of motion it is most certain that these effects mots proceed from the action of some force or other.
But our purpose is only to trace out the QUANTITY and properties of his force from the phenomena, and to apply what we discover in some simple cases as principles, by which, in a MATHEMATICAL WAY, we may estimate the effects thereof in more involved cases, for it would be ENDLESS and IMPOSSIBLE to bring every particular to direct and immediate observation... We said, in a mathematical way, to avoid all questions about the nature and the quality of this force..."
So, from here we see that Newton was aware of Descartes work and that he was simplifying his theory to quantify phenomena. However, the philosophical and intuitive conception of gravity was more in agreement with Descartes. To make clear Newton's notion of gravity, I will quote some extracts from correspondences of Newton's contemporaries. Recall the famous motto which was born from a Letter that Newton wrote to his rival Robert Hooke dated 1676:
"What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants."
In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:
"Gravity is the result of a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow..." [This is actually Descartes idea]"
To make clearer that Newton was actually Cartesian in the philosophical matters of gravity, in the third letter to Bentley in 1692 Newton wrote:
"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe 'innate gravity' to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 06:55 GMT
This is part 2.
...I just ask you to keep the previous phrases in mind henceforth. On the other hand, I also mentioned the following: ...From ~1710 to ~1760 Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning...
view entire post
This is part 2.
...I just ask you to keep the previous phrases in mind henceforth. On the other hand, I also mentioned the following: ...From ~1710 to ~1760 Astronomical problems were solved in England a la Newton and in France a la Descartes. Once Bernoulli confessed that in continental Europe most people were Cartesian, but in England Newtonian. Bernoulli was Cartesian but after returning from a trip to England he became Newtonian...
In particular, I was referring to Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782) son of Johann Bernoulli (1667-1748), nephew of Jacob Bernoulli and close friend of Leonard Euler. It is worth reminding an illustrative situation among the Bernoullis. At that time some academies used to organize public competitions for natural philosophers. In one of these competitions (I do not recall the exact year, perhaps 1724, and the problem) participants were asked to solved a problem about astronomy. Johann solved it a la Descartes and his Son, Daniel, a la Newton. Both found the solution and both were correct. This caused a split between Daniel and his father. So, the moral here is that despite the mathematical formulation, in essence, they were dealing with the same physics.
From ~1710 to the middle of the XVIII century the transition from Cartesian paradigm to the Newtonian took place. Just bear in mind, for instance, that the transition from the classical physics paradigm to the modern physics paradigm took at least 30 years, but in Newton's epoch the change of a paradigm took a longer time.
The other important factor that was crucial for the acceptance of the Newtonian version of gravity without a medium, i.e., in EMPTY SPACE, was the discovery in the middle of the XVII of vacuum (as you mention). Since vacuum was "feasible" then, some argued, there was no need of a medium. Nevertheless, during the XVIII century many physicists realized that there were different kind of substances. They classified them as ponderable and imponderable substances. As the word implies, the imponderable substances could not be weighted as the others, but most thinkers agreed that they did exist. And here again the phenomena were suggesting some sort of fine and subtle fluid. Electricity and magnetism were one of this kind. Now, recall that the Coulumb's law was discovered in 1785 and some other laws such as Ampere's law, Faraday's law, Ohm's law were all discovered early in the XIX century, only Gauss' law was published in 1866. By this time the notion of aether had already been revived not only because of electric and magnetic phenomena were suggesting it but also because optical phenomena was doing the same. The slit experiment realized by Young by 1799 was decisive in reviving the aether and considering light as a wave in a medium. Young based his ideas on Huygens investigations. So by the middle of the XIX century people had already discovered most of the equations of electromagnetism, but they were all "disconnected". It was only the monumental work of Maxwell that unified electromagnetic phenomena. In his book, the treatise of electricity and magnetism Maxwell wrote:
"The electromagnetic field is that part of space which contains and surrounds bodies in electric or magnetic conditions. It may be filled with any kind of matter, or we may endeaveour to render it EMPTY OF ALL GROSS MATTER as in the case of Geissler's tubes and other so-called VACUA. There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive and transmit the undulations of light and heat, and it is because the transmission of these radiations is not greatly altered when transparent bodies of measurable density are substituted for the so-called VACUUM, that we are obliged to admit that the undulations are those of an aethereal substance, and not of the gross matter, the presence of which merely modifies in some way the motion of the aether. We have therefore some reason to believe, from the phenomena of light and heat, that there is an aethereal medium filling space and permeating bodies, capable of being set in motion and of transmitting that motion from one part to another, and communicating that motion to gross matter so as to heat it and affect it in various ways."
To be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 07:46 GMT
This is part 3
...From here we see that for Maxwell vacuum only meant: "deprived of macroscopic matter". He also realized that electromagnetic experiments could be quantitatively explained whether the aether was included or not in his theory. Gibbs applied Maxwell's equations to refraction problems and also arrived at the same conclusion (notice that Gibbs was being mathematically pragmatic...
view entire post
This is part 3
...From here we see that for Maxwell vacuum only meant: "deprived of macroscopic matter". He also realized that electromagnetic experiments could be quantitatively explained whether the aether was included or not in his theory. Gibbs applied Maxwell's equations to refraction problems and also arrived at the same conclusion (notice that Gibbs was being mathematically pragmatic even though in philosophical terms the notion of aether was suggested). By 1887-8 Hertz in Germany discovered the electromagnetic waves and Hertz experiments were reproduced in England by Oliver Lodge corroborating Hertz' discovery. Hertz generalized Maxwell's equations to include the notion of the medium, but unfortunately his formulation was disregarded and considered as "unnecessary". As in the case of Newton in which the law of gravitation does not suggest any aether, Maxwell electrodynamics could live without it. This fact was exploited by Einstein when he rejected it in his famous article of 1905 "The electrodynamics of moving bodies" and later when he contented that fields were not states of the aether but physical realities independent of a bearer. But by denying the aether, space was left EMPTY. To avoid the action at a distance he reconsidered the gravitational field as the new aether. For Einstein also EMPTY space was a mere metaphysical artifice. He held that the gravitational field was space itself, He said that if there is no gravitational field, no electromagnetic field and no matter, then there remains nothing, and, again, nothingness was absurd for him. The problem with Einstein's aether is that it is, obviously, ontologically deprived of matter. Nowadays the astronomical observations suggest that there is more matter (dark matter) than the one observed. I think that this matter would be have easily related to the material aether that Einstein denied based only on epistemological considerations.
The application of the general relativity to cosmology has led physics to postulate the big bang model, the expansion of the universe, the microwave background radiation, etc. Nonetheless, despite the success of these models it is unquestionable that the INTUITIVE picture of the WORLD has been lost since the 1920s. I know also that the intuitive picture is highly disregarded in physics; modern physics no longer uses philosophical reasoning and intuition as tools to build theories. But like I mentioned before, mathematical reasoning cannot see what intuition and philosophical reasoning can. Descartes once said that it is good to learn all sciences because they are all the result of intelligence and reasoning. In this sense, those who also use philosophy as a tool to discover the mysteries of the universe have more advantages above those who only use mathematical reasoning. This is what Newton learned from Descartes. Newton was the model of a physicists: a magnificent mathematician, exquisite experimentalist and marvelous philosopher. Nowadays, it is really rare to find one scientist like this. Einstein was an excellent theoretician and an outstanding philosopher, but not a good experimentalist; perhaps this is the reason why he underestimated the importance of the experimental part in the principle of relativity. It is evident that, experimentally, the PSR cannot be denied. Since there is no experimental reason to reject it, there is also no reason to deny Descartes' (or Lorentz) notion of the aether. I'm convinced that these two concepts are the key for the progress of physics.
I hope I have dispelled some doubts.
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 04:37 GMT
Hi Israel,
"I hope I have dispelled some doubts." Thank you for so many historical details. Now you may read my essay and find my References 21 to 27 related to your essay. Gift claims having measured one-way speed of light. Do you still deny the possibility to measure the one-way speed of light?
I understand that you are facing distrust mainly by those who are firm believer in Einstein's relativity. My doubt still concerns your claim having reconciled it with the preferred system of reference (PSR). I didn't yet check whether or not you are or at least should be on lists like my References 5 and 6.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 08:30 GMT
Hi Eckard,
Well I tried to explain my points but it seems to me that you did not see the connection. I have already read your essay which I enjoyed, I made some comments and I am aware of the references you cited. I remember Gifts, he claims this:
"CONCLUSION
Using the synchronized clocks of the GPS, light speed variation c +/-v arising because of rotating Earth has been demonstrated in this paper. This is at variance with the principle of light speed constancy used in the Einstein synchronization procedure but confirms the GPS light speed findings..."
Gift based his measurements on the synchronization of clocks in the GPS. However, the calculations for the synchronization of clocks are carried out ASSUMING IN ADVANCE THE VALIDITY of the constancy of the one-way speed of light and the application of relativistic effects. The reference he cites says:
"The principles of position determination and time transfer in the GPS can be very simply stated. Let there be four synchronized atomic clocks that transmit sharply defined pulses from the positions r_j at times t_j , with j=1,2,3,4 an index labeling the different transmission events. Suppose that these four signals are received at position r at one and the same instant t. Then
from the PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
c^2(t-t_j)^2=|r-r_j|^2
where the DEFINED value of c is exactly 299792458 m/s. The principle of the constancy of c finds application as the fundamental concept on which the GPS is based..."
Obviously, with this in mind, the experiment is invalidated. Roemer's approach experiences the same fate.
As I said, I accept the mathematical formulation of relativity but not the physical content. It is not my wish to reconcile the PSR with relativity, I am aware that the PSR is not included per se in relativity, so it would be futile to endeavor such a reconciliation. Instead a new powerful theory in which the PSR is assumed may emerge. Just bear in mind that an experimentalist would not reject the PSR because if he conducts the same experiments in any other system of reference he will deduce the same physical laws as in the PSR.
Israel
hide replies
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
My Internet access was very limited and unreliable for the past month. Both that and my too abrupt reading of your first message to me in my forum caused me to not fully appreciate its importance. Professional physicists have occasionally communicated with me but it has been rare. Usually the messages I receive are from other amatuers. I do fully appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge with me. I have read your essay and welcome it as a greatly needed addition both to the contest and for asserting the rightful prominence of empirical evidence. Speaking only for myself, theory is either its follower or is unanchored invention. I liked your essay very much. Good luck in the contest.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Dr James
Thanks for your post. I invite you to read, some of my posts here in reply to Pentcho's inquiries, there you will find some other arguments in favor of the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field which is equivalent to having a fluid with a inhomogeneous refractive index.
Good luck in the contest too
Israel
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:55 GMT
Israel:
It's me as promised on my thread (a Fable).
As a useful tool I find PSR interesting.
A lot of game has to be played -as Georgina stated- in this field to find if it helps to have a better
-simpler - explanation for the several questions that remain open.
As an assumption I really belive is good.
Now, do you really think there is an "absolute space" in the sence Newton did?
I've reviewed your past essay and find you are quite interested in Philosophy,
In that line of thinking Do you think it is relevant if AS really exist even it is not perceived?
Regards
Juan Ramos
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Juan
Thanks for your comments, they are interesting.
Based on my research, I see no reason to reject the PSR. The PSR has already been found though not identify as such. In my reference 14 (eq. 3.14), I provide just one example that the PSR can be, in principle, experimentally determined.
One should understand that the physical interpretation of experimental evidence depends to a high degree on the theoretical framework under consideration. Based on the current paradigm in physics, it is evident that there is no PSR since its conception is no longer a fundamental part in any of the accepted theories.
But one can build a theory including the PSR and reinterpret the current observations within this new theoretical framework. Such theory (lets name it DKT) is already developed but not recognized by the mainstream of physicists. In DKT, the aether is conceived as a material continuum pervading the whole universe and at the same time as the PSR. However, what in DKT is interpreted as the PSR, the prevailing paradigm interpret it as the remnants of the big bang, now known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). From the DKT the CMBR is only the temperature of the material continuum.
The continuum can be assumed, in general, to be dynamic but in its simplistic conception one can assume it at rest. In this scenario, the continuum resembles the Lorentz aether and therefore the Newtonian absolute space. I have provided a couple of epistemological arguments in my threads here in reply to John Merryman and Eckard Blumschein. There, I elucidate that even Newton considered that space was not empty at all and that he attributed the cause of gravitation to the flow of the aether. This fact tell us that, in the philosophical conception about gravity, Newton was actually a Cartesian. I also explain some of the misconceptions about the aether, the vacuum and the notion of fields (please see my threads below). The assumption of the PSR and the continuum can solve most of present problems in physics relatively easy. The key point is to get rid of the preconceptions of the present paradigm. This is the most difficult part.
Best regards
Israel
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 10:37 GMT
Israel:
Thanks for the answers.
As you say a PSR is not main stream physics this days. Aether is being reconsidered but not main stream.
OK.
I can easely assume PSR and aether. And this is because I haven't done any personal work assuming the opposite. I even feel people who support the relativistic - based on GR- "block universe" tend to assume something quite "absolute" as PSR.
My impression on Einstein on his fight against quantum mechanics is that he is not relativistic at heart; and with relativistic this time I mean "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"
But I have no faith in PSR, as I have no faith in God, at least in the way most religions put it, and I still go to church and have very sincere friendship with people there.
If you can review my first essay on the limits of science you can follow my line of thought.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/524.
Now, trying to be more practical,
how do you think PSR would help to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?
Oh! And on the moral of my fable, there is no one moral, there should be one to each reader.
After all, this contest porpoise is not on which assumptions we make, is about wich assumptions we should forget.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi Juan
Due to the lack of space, I will split my reply in two parts. This is part 1.
Thanks for your comments. Certainly, the PSR and the aether are not mainstream so far, but I am optimistic that they will be in the following years to come because it is one of the most viable solutions to contemporary physics.
You said: I even feel people who support the relativistic - based on GR- "block universe" tend to assume something quite "absolute" as PSR.
I agree, some observations suggest the PSR. The essay of Daryl Janzen is one of this cases.
You: Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration"
Many people think that considering the PSR means abandoning relativism. This is a misconception. The PSR can go along with the principle of relativity.
You: But I have no faith in PSR...
I understand that many people do not believe in the PSR, some times it is matter of taste, but as I argue in my essay the PSR could be helpful to solve many of the present problems in physics. This is why it is important.
To be continued...
Israel
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
This is part 2.
You: how do you think PSR would help to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?
To answer your question we first need to understand how physicists arrived at the conclusion that space is expanding. For this purpose we have to go back to the beginning of the XX century before the discovery of the general relativity around 1915. By then the special relativity...
view entire post
This is part 2.
You: how do you think PSR would help to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe?
To answer your question we first need to understand how physicists arrived at the conclusion that space is expanding. For this purpose we have to go back to the beginning of the XX century before the discovery of the general relativity around 1915. By then the special relativity (SR) had been already developed. Astronomers thought that the Copernican principle was valid, this principle estates that the earth is not the center of the universe. They were also learning how to determine the distance of distant astronomical objects such as galaxies. But their methods were base under the assumption that the inverse square law for the intensity of light held. This was learned in previous centuries and is true as long as one thinks that light needs no medium, that is, that light propagates in EMPTY space or vacuum. The consideration that space was empty and infinite in extension led thinkers to arrived at the famous Olbers' paradox which says that the night should be as brilliant as the day because in every direction of the sky one will find a star. Astronomer and physicists were in real trouble and they did know how to solve this puzzle. Now, from the SR they knew that when a light source moves relative to an observer, he will experience the Doppler effect. If the light source approaches the observer the emission spectra will be blushifted, on the contrary, if the source recedes from the observer the spectra will be redshifted. By characterization of stars they learned how to estimate the distances of the objects by several methods, cepheid variables, etc. As well by applying SR they interpret the redshift found in spectra as a recessional velocity. Thus, if one constructs a plot of redshift vs distance one would obtain what by 1929 was known as the Hubble's law. This relationship of distance-velocity suggests two ideas if we based only their interpretation on SR, that is: galaxies are moving away from our own galaxy and that the farther the galaxy the greater the velocity. The Copernican principle can be used to support this hypothesis. So the expansion of the universe was one way to solve in part the Olber's paradox. In 1917 Einstein published a paper were he had added the cosmological constant LAMBDA to avoid the collapse or expansion of the universe due to gravity. In this model the universe was static. However, by 1922 a couple of models suggesting expansion were put forwarded. One of this was due to Alexander Friedmann. He showed that Einstein's Universe was a special case of the more general solutions, in which the universe is expanding. In 1927 George Lemaitre found a similar solution to that of Friedmann. By 1929 Hubble published his famous law (it was Vesto slipher and others who first discovered Hubble's law before 1929). Now we have data suggesting expansion and we have a theoretical framework where data can be given a physical interpretation. The rest is the history that we all know: big bang, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), acceleration of the expansion, horizon problem, etc.
Now let use imagine that we change a little bit the history of physics and keep in mind that the aether as the medium of electromagnetic waves was never rejected. Then, we will easily realized that, as any other medium, the aether is dissipative. This means that at the cosmic scale the inverse square law is not valid at all. This would imply that the determination of the distances and velocities of galaxies and stars by means of the measurement of brightness and the redshifts are in need of corrections. The fact that the aether is dissipative also explains why distant astronomical objects cannot be "seen" with "poor" optics. Since the aether is the bearer of electromagnetic waves, the energy of light emitted from distant galaxies is simply absorbed by the medium. As the distance increases the wave vanishes. This explains, at once, the Olber's paradox without need of assuming the expansion of the universe. Since there is no expansion, there is no need of Big Bang. And the CMBR can be interpreted only as the temperature of the aether, this also explains the horizon problem. Some other problems can also be solved such as dark matter. If we assume the aether as a material medium, this would immediately explain the rotational problem of stars in galaxies. As I said the theory is already developed, I think it is only a matter of time for the PSR and the aether to reemerge.
I hope I have answered your question.
Israel
view post as summary
Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 08:30 GMT
Israel :
Thanks for the answer. And don't worry : yes you did answer.
Now: I think you don't need luck with your essay in the contest, you are in the way of getting a good score here anyway as far as I can see.
But I wish you luck..
Regards
Juan Ramos
P.d. Aun que he expresado que no soy un creyente del aether,
No puedo negar que sirve para explicar muchas cosas. Si tienes interés en que nos contactemos fuera del contexto de este concurso este es mi correo: juanr@syc.com.mx
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Juan
Thanks for your wishes and for the invitation, I will keep it in mind.
Good luck in the contest
Israel
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
Israel
A stunningly brilliant analysis and exceptionally well written. After our consistency of thought last year I did expect something special. I would of course 'say that', because I agree with all therein, but truth is truth, and a rare commodity worth more than gold nuggets.
I must rely on you to comprehend my own essay, which considers your important concepts in wide application, but I regret I've crammed in far too much for most readers to be able to absorb. I greatly look forward to your fuller comprehension and comments.
I particularly pick out your 11 A Hidden assumptions, which identifies the issue of measurement with precision and where I have described a unifying solution proving your thesis.
The assumption of no preferred system of reference is also right on the money, and I derive a third option (to 'absolute' or 'empty' space) which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise. I'm sure you can do so with ease.
Thorny episode coming up for sure, with luck. I think yours is worth a top score and I hope you consider mine also worthy.
Best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Peter
Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.
You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.
I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.
Israel
Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Peter
Thank you for reading my essay, I really appreciate your comments. I haven't taken a look at yours but I will do it as soon as possible. I am sure I will have no problems to get your ideas.
You: I derive a third option which is of real and mutually exclusive spaces, which resolves about every anomaly in astronomy, but it seems it can't be published as it is too 'different' to the old paradigm so difficult to rationalise.
I am curious about it. Thanks for your wishes and I wish you the best too, I am confident that your work is also interesting for any reader and deserves a good score.
Israel
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Israel
I am also supporter of opinion that gravity is not a fundamental force. It seems to me that Sakharov's view about elasticity of space close to truth.
See detail my article "What Wolfgang Pauli Did Mean?"
http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0022
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi Yuri
I did not realize about your post. I am sorry for this. I have considered the problem and Vesselin Petkov has a different view though is a little bit different.
I will take a look at your work as soon as possible.
Best regards and good luck in the contest
Israel
Cnstantinos Ragazas wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Hello Israel Perez,
Thank you for your most interesting essay. You will find the following proposition relevant to the theme you expound in your essay: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. You can find the proof to this in End Note II) of my essay,
“The Metaphysics of Physics”. This establishes that the CSL Postulate contradicts the Photon Hypothesis. And it unequivocally shows light is a wave. And as a wave, certainly the speed of its propagation through a medium will be innate and independent of the source or the observer.
I have made reference to your essay in mine. You may wish to check this out!
Best wishes!
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Thank you for reading my essays and for your comments. I do agree that the speed of light is defined, as in any other wave, by the properties of the medium. So if light is envisaged as a wave its speed is determined by the medium. If the medium is isotropic and homogeneous then one would expect the speed to be constant relative to an observer at rest in this medium. The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case. Here the Lorentz contraction and the time dilation play their role in making the speed of light (the laws of physics invariant) a constant for all observes. The notion of photon per se does not require a medium but it is not clear what physical entity defines its speed. Actually, it is simply argue that its speed is constant and the same. If one considers relativistic effects then an observer in motion will measure the same value in any inertial system. So, for practical purposes, what matters is not whether light is a wave or a photon. However, if one wishes to be conceptually coherent and consistent, as you also point it out, the notion of photon leads to intuitive contradictions whereas waves do not.
I will take a look at your essay as soon as I can. Gook luck in the contest!
Israel
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Israel Perez,
You write, “The problem arises when there is an observer moving in relation to the medium and the question do not appear to be as simple as in the previous case.”
There can be no doubt light propagates as a wave. And as such, light will have an absolute and innate propagation speed in a medium. And that constant speed is what we measure 'locally' to the medium of propagation.
So the only question really is can we measure the speed of light in any other way but 'locally'?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi Constantinos
I agree with you, though I don't have a definite answer to your question. Above, perhaps, you will find the arguments that I gave to Pentcho and Eckard very useful, they are related to the speed of light. Please take a look at them.
Regards
Israel
Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Israel,
I came across this definition of "hume" in the Philosophical Lexicon (
www.philosophicallexicon.com) and I thought of your essay. You could have named your essay, "The Preferred System of Reference Exhumed":
hume, pron. (1) Indefinite personal and relative pronoun, presupposing no referent. Useful esp. in writing solipsistic treatises, sc. "to hume it may concern." v. (2) To commit to the flames, bury, or otherwise destroy a philosophical position, as in "That theory was humed in the 1920s." Hence, exhume, v. to revive a position generally believed to humed.
Best, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 01:38 GMT
Hi Daryl
Nice hearing from you again. I agree that the "hume" may well describe my essay's discussion, actually, the RELOAD part was the plus.
Cheers
Israel
DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Israel,
You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of motion (and extensions of it) in my essay Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else? , which are completely opposite views. I think we may have a very exciting discussion.
First, I will adress your question: i) Does the fact that the PSR cannot be...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of motion (and extensions of it) in my essay
Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else? , which are completely opposite views. I think we may have a very exciting discussion.
First, I will adress your question: i) Does the fact that the PSR cannot be experimentally detected mean that the PSR
does not exist?
As you have noticed in your essay, the introduction of any concept can be justified if it leads to useful empirical confirmations (that may have nothing to do with the concept in question). So we may say that there is a preferred system of reference (even tough it cannot be observed) in order to obtain a completely new theory with possible new experiments and empirical success, but it seems that such a theory will always have one drawback: it will produce statements that can never be verified.
For instance, what is my absolute position? This is a meaningful and unanswerable question in the PSR framework. It happens to be unanswerable because of the coincidence that no experiment can answer this question due to the particular form that the laws of physics happen to have. So any theory that does not need the invisible structure of absolute space and still produce the same results is superior. The introduction of the PSR need some extremely compelling arguments.
So now I turn to your arguments in that support the PSR hypothesis. You have written that
''Suppose that before the discovery of RT, particle accelerators had been already developed. And assume that the ALICE, ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the large
hadron collider had released the news, well know today, that the quantum vacuum is actually a perfect fluid [\LHC experiments brought new insight into the primordial universe" (21; 22)]. If this fluid were assumed to be at rest and
not signicantly affected by the presence of material particles it would immediately be identied as the aether or AS.''
That it not strictly true. Newton introduced absolute space in order to define motion. Suppose you have a snapshot showing physical objects in euclidean space. Now suppose after some time has elapsed, you take another snapshot. How can we know if any change has happened? It is necessary to have an equilocality relation: a relation that tell which point in one snapshot is the same in the other snapshot. The equilocality relation is necessary to make motion of objects in time a meaningful concept, and Newton´s absolute space does exactly that, and that was the reason why it was introduced (see Barbour´s book The discovery of dynamics).
The presence of a quantum vacuum field does not entail that there is a PSR, or that AS could be identified with it. The reason follows from the same argument above: suppose you have two snapshots of field configurations defined on a 3D euclidean space taken at different times. How can we tell what´s the difference between them without a way of identifying a point in one snapshot with a point in another?
You have also written
''And fourthly, it is also well understood that the paradoxes in special RT such as the clock paradox,
the Supplee paradox, etc. arise due to the lack of the PRS. For if one assumes that the PRS exists all paradoxes as
well as the intuitive perplexities inherent to the theory automatically vanish.''
What is the scientific value of the lack or presence of intuitive perplexities? The clock and Supplee paradox are not actual paradoxes: they are fully resolved and explained by special relativity without any problem. Why bother with them?
Another idea of yours is
''[...] keep space immovable a la Newton and assume it as a non-homogenous material fluid with different refraction indices that vary
as function of the distance between the observer and the source of GF. The gradient of the refraction indices is caused by the GF and will automatically make the speed of light to have dierent values as function of its position within the GF. So, within this context, the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of
the material medium (23).''
How can this framework explain how the time measurement differences of clocks situated on different points of space close to a massive objects (such as the earth)? This effect is considered everyday for GPS devices to work.
I´ll be waiting for your answers and invite you to read my essay and share opinions about a different view on time, space and motion.
Best regards.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Daniel,
The implication that we must live in a Block Universe, as realised through the
Andromeda paradox, is a significant issue, from the point-of-view of relativity, for any realist to overcome, if they would reject the relativistic possibility of a preferred reference frame.
As for experimental evidence, local experiments can't decide either way, since the physics is the same with or without a preferred frame; however, beyond the empirical fact that time really does pass, which can't be reconciled with relativity in any realistic sense without a preferred space, all empirical evidence from cosmology decidedly favours---and really can't work in the usual way without assuming---a preferred reference frame.
I hope you read
my essay as well, and I'll read yours, as I'd be interested to join in on this discussion you've proposed. I'd very much appreciate such a well thought out critique of my essay as you've offered Israel here.
Best, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your interesting comments. You have raised several issues that will provide a vast material for discussion and I will try to explain myself as clear as possible. I have divided my reply into two parts. This is part 1.
You: You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of...
view entire post
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your interesting comments. You have raised several issues that will provide a vast material for discussion and I will try to explain myself as clear as possible. I have divided my reply into two parts. This is part 1.
You: You have argued for a preferred reference system in your essay, and I have argued for the relational view of motion ... which are completely opposite views.
I do not think there is a contradiction though this would depend on our ontological conceptions of space, time, motion and particle. First, if one assumes Newton's space as a truly empty vessel, then you are right; this Euclidean space is nothing but a background and so it becomes useless as Mach contented. Here relating motion to nothingness has no meaning. I agree with you that the motion of a physical object has only meaning relative to another physical object. So the problem reduces to the conception of those objects. If one assumes space not as empty vessel but as a fine continuous massive fluid (aether or quantum vacuum as you prefer to name it) then motion of physical objects turns out to be truly relational. If one recognizes this it is quite legitimate to grant this type of space the status of a PSR. Why do I hold the opinion that space is a massive entity? Because this assumption is useful to understand, among many other things, the behavior of light. For the properties, such as the speed of a wave, are totally determined by the properties of the medium. If the medium is isotropic, homogeneous and with a constant temperature the speed of a wave has no option but to be a constant. Now, why is it necessary to hold the PSR? Because light (or any other object) must move relative to something and not relative to nothing as in Newtonian space. Light, once is generated, propagates at a constant speed and independent of the motion of the source. One rule here is that no material particle can move faster than the speed of the light waves. We should borne in mind that particles are part of the space and in this sense they move relative to it. Clearly, my vision is truly relational in spite of the fact that I am assuming a PSR.
With this brief explanation I hope I have laid down a conceptual framework to refute some of your arguments.
You: ... but it seems that such a theory will always have one drawback: it will produce statements that can never be verified.
As I argue in my essay during the construction of the theory whether the assumptions are true or false turns out to be irrelevant as long as the theory reproduce the body of experimental observations under consideration. No theory is perfect, all theories have flaws, but despite of this they are embraced in physics not for their conceptual or mathematical inconsistencies but for their usefulness to solve the problems at a given age in the history of physics. I see no problem assuming space as the PSR in as much as this help us to solve the problems that we have. I would say that it is premature to affirm that my proposal would produce statements that can never be verified. If you could put onto the table some specific examples I would appreciate it.
If you take a look at my reference 17 in my essay, Eq. 3.14 strongly suggests that an observer in motion can determine, in principle, its speed relative to the PSR (called there the isotropic system). Some other experiments have been put forward somewhere else.
You: That it not strictly true... ...dynamics.
Well I think that the word "true" is not the most appropriate; I am just saying that the identification of the perfect fluid could be considered as an experimental evidence that space is actually an aether or a fluid. Thought AS in the sense I described above, not in the Newtonian sense. Your example of snapshots implies a macroscopic scale and in this sense is a Newtonian vision. So, if one restrains oneself to the Newtonian picture I agree with you that one cannot find any differences, however, at the microscopic level the differences would be evident (of course under the premise that instantaneous snapshots could be taken).
You: The presence of a quantum vacuum field does not entail that there is a PSR...,
Again this depends on how you conceive space: as nothingness or as a sea of fields, as a massive fluid or what? Within the context of the current conception in physics, the vacuum is thought of as a field of energy which includes the fermion, gauge, Higgs and the electromagnetic fields, but besides this, it is assumed that all of this is embedded in an euclidean truly empty background (Newtonian space).
...How can we tell what´s the difference between them without a way of identifying a point in one snapshot with a point in another?
I answered this question above.
It entails a PSR specially for light.
You: What is the scientific value of the lack or presence of intuitive perplexities?...
Because by analyzing these perplexities one identifies the flaws of the theory which at the end may lead to further progress and improvements of a new theory. This is what Mach did, for instance, when he analyzed the Newtonian scheme.
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 21:59 GMT
This is part 2.
You: they are fully resolved and explained by special relativity without any problem. Why bother with them?
First of all, I am aware that the problem is not even recognized as a paradox by most theorists. So if we depart from this statement, there is no point of discussion.
However, if we insist on a paradox we may gain some valuable knowledge. The fact the...
view entire post
This is part 2.
You: they are fully resolved and explained by special relativity without any problem. Why bother with them?
First of all, I am aware that the problem is not even recognized as a paradox by most theorists. So if we depart from this statement, there is no point of discussion.
However, if we insist on a paradox we may gain some valuable knowledge. The fact the special relativity (SR) has no preferred frames forbids us to state that relativistic effects "REALLY" occur. The words "ACTUALLY" or "REALLY" in SR are prohibited since this implies accepting a PSR. So, in the clock paradox, the paradox consists in that one cannot decide who is really undergoing the time dilation effect, one can only say that both observers experience time dilation according to their own systems of reference. Since both undergo the same time dilation both observers must be either equally old or equally young. One way to get out of this conundrum is to assume that one observer accelerates whilst the other remain at rest, but this is obviously an external hypothesis to SR since this implies non-inertial systems of reference. In general, SR cannot solve the paradoxes without allusion to acceleration, that is, without the help of the general relativity. I have no problem with this, it is quite legitimate, but there is a simpler solution instead of alluding accelerated frames. The other way is simply to assume the PSR. Hence, any system in motion relative to the PSR will actually undergo relativistic effects whereas an observer at rest not. One can easily realize that there is no mathematical and intuitive conflict.
You: How can this framework explain how the time measurement differences of clocks situated on different points of space close to a massive objects (such as the earth)? This effect is considered everyday for GPS devices to work.
My example was alluding to that particular article in which it is shown that the bending of light due a gravitational field is equivalent to having a vacuum with a graded refractive index. The aim of this was to support the view that the geometrical interpretation of space-time is not the only alternative to explain physical phenomena. If you would like to see the mathematical details you may check reference 23 or
here. As you noticed this picture appears, at first sight, not to be satisfactory as an explanation of some other gravitational effects such as clocks. However, we may elaborate further this idea making some valid considerations. To visualize this, just bring to mind the typical light clock in which a ray of light bounces between to mirrors separated by a distance L, each round trip is a unit of time. At the surface of the earth (to a first approximation) the speed of light is slower because the vacuum has a lower index of refraction than at the top of a tower. This tells us that our light clocks will tick faster at the top than at the surface.
There is a further more complex explanation which implies the motion of the vacuum instead of assuming a degraded index of refraction, but at the end the effects on physical phenomena is the same as in the previous case. Again, this is only to illustrate that there are more alternative explanations.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
Israel
You said: 1)If one assumes space not as empty vessel but as a fine continuous
massive fluid (aether or quantum vacuum as you prefer to name it) then motion
of physical objects turns out to be truly relational. If one recognizes this it
is quite legitimate to grant this type of space the status of a PSR.
What I have tried to argue with the snapshot...
view entire post
Israel
You said: 1)If one assumes space not as empty vessel but as a fine continuous
massive fluid (aether or quantum vacuum as you prefer to name it) then motion
of physical objects turns out to be truly relational. If one recognizes this it
is quite legitimate to grant this type of space the status of a PSR.
What I have tried to argue with the snapshot example is that it is not legitimate to grant this type of space the status of a PSR.That is because you cannot identify space points with field values. You can imagine 2 configurations of the universe with field configurations ''translated 10 meters to the left'' in relation to absolute space. What absolute space does is define an equilocality relation between those snapshots, and the presence of a quantum field does not solve the problem. This argument is not new, but due to Julian Barbour.
It could be solved if there were any procedure by which we could find our ''preferred position'' (in relation to eh PSR), but experimental evidence, at least to the extent that I know, has never produced such information.
You said:'' I see no problem assuming space as the PSR in as much as this help us to solve the problems that we have. I would say that it is premature to affirm that my proposal would produce statements that can never be verified.
If you could put onto the table some specific examples I would appreciate it.''
I agree that we may introduce PSR if it is useful, But the statements that cannot be verified that I mentioned are precisely ''preferred position''. No experiment has ever revealed a ''preferred position'', but a theory built upon a PSR would necessarily refer to such positions (I can´t see how it could be done otherwise, if you have any idea please tell me). So this is why I concluded that the concept of PSR muct be REALLY useful if we are going to introduce it.
You have said:
''The fact the special relativity (SR) has no preferred frames forbids us to state that relativistic effects "REALLY" occur. The words "ACTUALLY" or "REALLY" in SR are prohibited since this implies accepting a PSR.''
I don´t quietly understand that. In relativity, there is only one space-time manifold, but different basis in which we may write 4-vector an so on. So yes, time dilatation DOES occur (see the experiment where clocks in the earth and in an airplane measure different intervals for a round trip on earth), lenght contraction DOES occur.
And finally:
''As you noticed this picture appears, at first sight, not to be satisfactory as an explanation of some other gravitational effects such as clocks. However, we may elaborate further this idea making some valid considerations''.
I agree with you in this point.
Best reagards, and thanks for an exciting discussion.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear Daniel this is part 1
You: What I have tried... ...the problem
The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to the continuous...
view entire post
Dear Daniel this is part 1
You: What I have tried... ...the problem
The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to the continuous activity of the vacuum. One unrealistic situation that I found in the idea of a snapshot is that one cannot take instantaneous pictures of an event, basically for two reasons: First because the uncertainty principle will play the role in the outcome of the snapshot and second because an instant implies an interval of zero time which is physically inconceivable and experimentally unrealizable (although mathematically is possible). The idea that a snapshot captures an instant of time is misleading. One can only capture intervals of time different from zero (this is also stated in the uncertainty principle delta t delta E=h). And the problem comes from the mathematical representation of space and time as a continuum. Weistrass assigned to each value of a variable t a corresponding value of the function x and defined a one-to-one correspondence between an element of a domain and its counterpart in the image group. By doing this he got rid of the problem of infinitesimals (small intervals). Which misled physicists by making them think that a physical object can occupy a point in space and time. Mathematically this is correct, but physically is inconsistent since physical objects occupy space intervals (volumes) and things occur within time intervals. In a point of time (interval of zero magnitude) nothing occurs, everything seems to be frozen and if nothing changes how can we justify motion? If one assumes that space-time is physically continuous (composed of adimensional points) one arrives at the well know zeno's paradoxes. This is a topic I do not wish to address here. And like I said, despite these paradoxes, the continuum conception has been useful so far.
You: but experimental evidence, at least to the extent that I know, has never produced such information... ...No experiment has ever revealed a preferred position, but a theory built upon a PSR would necessarily refer to such positions (I can't see how it could be done otherwise, if you have any idea please tell me). So this is why I concluded that the concept of PSR much be REALLY useful if we are going to introduce it.
There are many experiments claiming the detection of the PSR, but since the PSR is not even recognize by the mainstream of physics they are not widely known. My reference 17 (Eq. 3.14 for instance) shows that in principle the PSR can be detected. There I explain that the measurement of velocities is not a trivial task as most people think.
Your arguments to refute the PSR are the same arguments that have been given against the PSR since the special relativity was put forward. I have laid down some arguments in my previous reply to you and I think that my essay gives some others. The special relativity has used the principle of relativity to establish that there are no PSR, to argue that there is no privileged observer for the description of physical phenomena. All systems of reference are equivalent. And I think this is misleading. They are equivalent not because there is PSR but because an experiment has the same result no matter its state of motion, absolute rest or motion. I am going to express how the principle of relativity should be really understood. Just keep in mind that above all physics is not only a theoretical science but also an experimental one. So, imagine an observer equipped with his measuring instruments at rest in the PSR, i.e., in vacuum/aether. He then performs a series of experiments to find the relations among the different physical quantities. From these results he arrives at the formulation of the laws of physics. He then put his whole equipment in a rocket and moves at a constant speed in relation to the PSR. Then, he performs the same experiments and the same operations in the rocket to find the laws of physics. For his surprise he finds the same laws as those he found while in the PSR. He then arrives at the reasonable conclusion that the laws of physics should be the same in any other system of reference and hence establishes the principle of relativity. So far so good, but here it comes the anxious question: What experimental reasons does the observer have to reject the PSR despite the fact that he cannot identify with his experiments whether he is really at rest or in motion relative to the PSR? One will easily realize that there is no experimental argument to refuse the PSR, since he knows that the same laws will be found everywhere. If our friend accepts the existence any other system, why should he reject the PSR? Do you have an experimental argument to refuse it?
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
This is part 2
Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist. In my previous post, I asked you take a look at my reference 17. There I explain, for instance, that the one-way speed of light...
view entire post
This is part 2
Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist. In my previous post, I asked you take a look at my reference 17. There I explain, for instance, that the one-way speed of light cannot be experimentally determined and it has never been measured. So, if I follow your same line of reasoning I could argue that the second postulate of special relativity is meaningless because it can never be experimentally verified. Again the determination of the one-way speed of light is a technical problem but the fact that it cannot be measured does not imply that (in an isotropic and homogenous space) the speed of light is not isotropic. In this same article I made the calculation of the measurement of the one-way speed of light. I showed that it is necessary, if one wishes to be coherent, to introduce a special system of reference (isotropic system) where it is assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic. Then, if an observer in the isotropic system judges the operation of measuring the speed of light of another observer in a system moving at constant speed v relative to the isotropic system, he will find that the observer in motion should measure a one-way speed of light dependent of v, i.e., anisotropic. But since the observer in motion can only measure round trip speeds, the average speed he will find is c, in agreement with actual experimental observations. So the observer in motion thinks that in his system the speed of light is also isotropic. Hence again, from the point of view of the observer in motion, he assumes that his system is the isotropic system and concludes that in the initial isotropic system the one-way speed of light is anisotropic although the two-way speed of light remains constant. Again we have another paradox since no observer can decide which system is the isotropic system, both are isotropic and both are anisotropic. If you are really interested in this problem you should take a look at my reference and references there in. There you will familiarize with the perplexities of special relativity. And so, probably, you will understand why one has to reintroduce the PSR; this is one way to eliminate all these antinomies.
You: I don´t quietly understand that. In relativity, there is only one space-time manifold, but different basis in which we may write 4-vector an so on. So yes, time dilatation DOES occur (see the experiment where clocks in the earth and in an airplane measure different intervals for a round trip on earth), length contraction DOES occur.
My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist) but strictly speaking and in theoretical terms they are apparent. They are apparent because special relativity denies the PSR and therefore there is no real motion and no real effects (or absolute as you understand).
Israel
view post as summary
DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
Dear Israel, this is the reply of part 1
''You: What I have tried... ...the problem
The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to...
view entire post
Dear Israel, this is the reply of part 1
''You: What I have tried... ...the problem
The argument of the snapshot has some issues. The first is that it is referred to macroscopic situations. In this sense I agree with you that you cannot tell the difference because macroscopic objects do not change too much from time to time. But at the microscopic level this no longer holds due to the continuous activity of the vacuum.''
This is not the point. The point is the lack of an equilocality relation between any two time slices. You cannot know if a quantum vacuum field is unchanging without a first reference frame to identify points (say, (x,y,z)=(0,0,0))
in different time slices. I have argued better for this in my response to your post in my essay (for anyone interested following the discussion,
Absolute or Relative Motion...or Something Else?. If you can provide a way of defining a preferred position by using the ZPF (this is the same as defining an equilocality relation) then you could finally see the PSR. But even if that is the case, one may argue that QM is background dependent and that GR´s main lesson is backgound independence such that the final theory of QG should be background independent. Again, any assumption will ultimately be used upon its usefullness, and this is something you have argued I fully agree.
'' One unrealistic situation that I found in the idea of a snapshot is that one cannot take instantaneous pictures of an event, basically for two reasons: First because the uncertainty principle will play the role in the outcome of the snapshot and second because an instant implies an interval of zero time which is physically inconceivable and experimentally unrealizable (although mathematically is possible). The idea that a snapshot captures an instant of time is misleading. One can only capture intervals of time different from zero (this is also stated in the uncertainty principle delta t delta E=h). And the problem comes from the mathematical representation of space and time as a continuum.''
You have made a good point, and I will explain why the snapshot argument is still valid in quantum domain. First, you argue that the deltaX*deltaP>h/2 part of the uncertainty principle make the task of even taking a snapshot impossible. But, if we are to consider quantum effects we should change the argument a bit: imagine we have a the information of the existence of a WAVE FUNCTION y(x,y,z,t0). A moment later the wave function has changed to y´(x,y,z,t1). Now we can only compare these wave functions if we have a procedure to indentify (x,y,z) points in different time slices. And the snapshot argument shows that the presence of a field defined over the whole space does not provide such an equilocality relation. One needs a background for that, and the ZPF, by being a field cannot be taken as a background (due to the snapshot argument). If by some procedure the ZPF can be used to define an equilocality relation, then everything is different. I invite you to think about it, if you can design such a procedure that would be very interesting.
Now adressing the deltaE*deltaT>h/2 part of your argument, I agree that we extrapolate our empirical experiences to conceving motion as evolving continuously on time. But if you feel too uncomfortable with that, we should change all QM, because QM describes the continuous motion of wave functions(or kets/bras, or field values, if you wish)!! The snapshot arguments goes well for exploring the fundamental properties of continuous motion.
''Weistrass assigned to each value of a variable t a corresponding value of the function x and defined a one-to-one correspondence between an element of a domain and its counterpart in the image group. By doing this he got rid of the problem of infinitesimals (small intervals). Which misled physicists by making them think that a physical object can occupy a point in space and time. Mathematically this is correct, but physically is inconsistent since physical objects occupy space intervals (volumes) and things occur within time intervals. In a point of time (interval of zero magnitude) nothing occurs, everything seems to be frozen and if nothing changes how can we justify motion?
If one assumes that space-time is physically continuous (composed of adimensional points) one arrives at the well know zeno's paradoxes. This is a topic I do not wish to address here. And like I said, despite these paradoxes, the continuum conception has been useful so far.''
Agreed. Nevertheless, it remains an interesting proposal to fill these gaps of the continuum assumption.
''You: but experimental evidence, at least to the extent that I know, has never produced such information... ...No experiment has ever revealed a preferred position, but a theory built upon a PSR would necessarily refer to such positions (I can't see how it could be done otherwise, if you have any idea please tell me). So this is why I concluded that the concept of PSR much be REALLY useful if we are going to introduce it.
There are many experiments claiming the detection of the PSR, but since the PSR is not even recognize by the mainstream of physics they are not widely known. My reference 17 (Eq. 3.14 for instance) shows that in principle the PSR can be detected. There I explain that the measurement of velocities is not a trivial task as most people think.''
That is very interesting. The detection of the PSR however must provide us a way to define a PREFERRED position. I haven´t read your paper in full detail I would be very grateful if you can provide a quick summary on the relation between your paper and preferred positions. Also, there´s a work of people in MIT who have captured the motion of light with a supercamera of 1 trilion frames per second (I must also admit I don´t know all the details of this experiment). I have posted the video in the response in my entry. It would be interesting if you can explain the relation of that with your work.
''Your arguments to refute the PSR are the same arguments that have been given against the PSR since the special relativity was put forward. I have laid down some arguments in my previous reply to you and I think that my essay gives some others. The special relativity has used the principle of relativity to establish that there are no PSR, to argue that there is no privileged observer for the description of physical phenomena. All systems of reference are equivalent. And I think this is misleading. They are equivalent not because there is PSR but because an experiment has the same result no matter its state of motion, absolute rest or motion.''
It´s a possibility. Now if we can do it without a PSR, why should we introduce a PSR? The discussion inevitably goes to the paradoxes the PSR assumptions solves according to you.
'' I am going to express how the principle of relativity should be really understood. Just keep in mind that above all physics is not only a theoretical science but also an experimental one. So, imagine an observer equipped with his measuring instruments at rest in the PSR, i.e., in vacuum/aether. He then performs a series of experiments to find the relations among the different physical quantities. From these results he arrives at the formulation of the laws of physics.''
Ok.
''He then put his whole equipment in a rocket and moves at a constant speed in relation to the PSR.''
How is he going to know wheter he´s at rest or moving in relation to the PSR? The PSR is invisible. (Again, if you can show how ZPF could provide a preferred position, then thing would become more interesting).
''Then, he performs the same experiments and the same operations in the rocket to find the laws of physics. For his surprise he finds the same laws as those he found while in the PSR. He then arrives at the reasonable conclusion that the laws of physics should be the same in any other system of reference and hence establishes the principle of relativity. So far so good, but here it comes the anxious question: What experimental reasons does the observer have to reject the PSR despite the fact that he cannot identify with his experiments whether he is really at rest or in motion relative to the PSR? One will easily realize that there is no experimental argument to refuse the PSR, since he knows that the same laws will be found everywhere.''
The question actually is the following: why even bother introducing the PSR if the information it provides is unobservable?? You can take any physical theory and introduce 15 dimensions for instance, and then say they are simply unobservable. Is this procedure reasonable? Yes if these new dimensions are useful for something, but if we can do it without the 15 dimensions we definitely should! The same applies for th PSR. Once again, our discussion should turn to the problems the PSR solve-we should not bother so much discussing wheter the PSR assumption is legimate by its own existence.
'' If our friend accepts the existence any other system, why should he reject the PSR? Do you have an experimental argument to refuse it?
No. Nor I have arguments to accept it. It is not wrong or right per se, all that really matters is its utility or lack of it. But again, if we can do it without the PSR (and without all kinds of unobservable statements) then we should.
Daniel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:04 GMT
This is the reply of part 2
''Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist.''
Certainly. Its like the 15 dimensions case I argued above. Again, if we can achieve a theory as good as...
view entire post
This is the reply of part 2
''Of course one can argue as you did. If I cannot determine whether I am at rest or in motion it is meaningless to say ''what is my absolute position?''. Above all, this is just a technical problem but this does not imply that the PSR does not exist.''
Certainly. Its like the 15 dimensions case I argued above. Again, if we can achieve a theory as good as the PSR one which has less unobservable data, we should prefer it.
'' In my previous post, I asked you take a look at my reference 17. There I explain, for instance, that the one-way speed of light cannot be experimentally determined and it has never been measured. So, if I follow your same line of reasoning I could argue that the second postulate of special relativity is meaningless because it can never be experimentally verified.''
Yes, for instance if we could produce a theory solely upon observable data (round trip time measurements) then we should prefer it. I´m assuming that you´re right and the one way speed of light is not possible to determine even in principle, altough I didn´t read your paper in details.
''Again the determination of the one-way speed of light is a technical problem but the fact that it cannot be measured does not imply that (in an isotropic and homogenous space) the speed of light is not isotropic. In this same article I made the calculation of the measurement of the one-way speed of light. I showed that it is necessary, if one wishes to be coherent, to introduce a special system of reference (isotropic system) where it is assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic. Then, if an observer in the isotropic system judges the operation of measuring the speed of light of another observer in a system moving at constant speed v relative to the isotropic system, he will find that the observer in motion should measure a one-way speed of light dependent of v, i.e., anisotropic. But since the observer in motion can only measure round trip speeds, the average speed he will find is c, in agreement with actual experimental observations. So the observer in motion thinks that in his system the speed of light is also isotropic. Hence again, from the point of view of the observer in motion, he assumes that his system is the isotropic system and concludes that in the initial isotropic system the one-way speed of light is anisotropic although the two-way speed of light remains constant. Again we have another paradox since no observer can decide which system is the isotropic system, both are isotropic and both are anisotropic. If you are really interested in this problem you should take a look at my reference and references there in. There you will familiarize with the perplexities of special relativity. And so, probably, you will understand why one has to reintroduce the PSR; this is one way to eliminate all these antinomies.''
This is the main point of your whole thought. This is where the PSR assumption becomes useful. Notice that without an argument as this, we should not introduce the PSR. Now comes a question of relative merits. Because the PSR cannot be seen, but the one-way speed of light also cannot, which one should we drop? Once again, I haven´t read your paper in full details, but I will assume all your conclusions there are correct.
''You: I don´t quietly understand that. In relativity, there is only one space-time manifold, but different basis in which we may write 4-vector an so on. So yes, time dilatation DOES occur (see the experiment where clocks in the earth and in an airplane measure different intervals for a round trip on earth), length contraction DOES occur.
My above comments are related to this paragraph. What I can figure out is that you are confusing the experimental implications of the theory (i.e., the predictions of the theory) with the internal consistency of the theory. From the experimental point of view relativistic effects are real, they do occur (and they are real because the PSR must exist)''
Can´t see why they are real because the PSR exist.
''(...) but strictly speaking and in theoretical terms they are apparent. They are apparent because special relativity denies the PSR and therefore there is no real motion and no real effects (or absolute as you understand). ''
What I tried to argue is that, although space and time measurements may be different for different observers, the EVENTS are the same! That´s what I meant when I stated that ''there is only one space-time manifold'' in relativity.
Let´s get to a final conclusion. The PSR assumption weakens our theories in one respect (makes unobservable statements) but according to you it also explain some other phenomena. We should be aware of these strengths and weakeness in order to choose, finally, what´s the most FRUITFUL conception of motion.
Best regards, Daniel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 22:16 GMT
Hi Israel,
(After reading your essay for a second time I slowly starting to appreciate the gist. Why slowly? The overuse of unusual acronyms means that my brain has to multitask (which I am no longer good at); the first task digesting and appreciating the content and the second learning acronyms that have no relevance beyond the essay. This was now a self criticism regarding my short term memory or lack thereof that all scientific writers should be aware of; I am sure that I am not alone.)
Nevertheless, congratulations to the extremely well written and structured philosophical disquisition; explaining the historical background that moulded our way of thinking and raising the valid questions and presenting argument that there must be more.
Your essay and my essay ( .../topic/1458 ) support each other well; I, like you, raise the question of a, yet unknown, underlying absolute reality verses our only ability to model, possibly degraded, a relative reality.
Regards and good luck - Anton
PS let's stay in touch my email in my essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 02:30 GMT
Hi Anton
Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. Some other folks have pointed out my overuse of acronyms, I acknowledge this. Next time, I will reduce the number I promise.
I will take a look at your essay as soon as possible thanks for the invitation.
Best Regards
Israel
Author Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi FQXi readers
I would like to open a discussion about the red shift.
My arguments go as follows:
First let us bear in mind that science must be strictly rigorous and critical. And to make valid the following questions we must make a legitimate assumption. Suppose that at present we have all fields of theoretical physics at our hands with the exception of the general theory of relativity, which we shall concur for the moment that it has not yet been discovered or invented. This set of theories along with its conceptual assumptions will constitute our THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (TF). Under this TF the nontrivial questions arise in relation to the cosmological redshift: (1) What physical interpretation can be given to the redshift observed in the spectral analysis of emission / absorption of galaxies, stars, etc.? (2) Considering the kinematics of special relativity is it possible to conclude that the redshift is synonymous of recessional velocity? (3) What conceptual framework allows us to associate the red shift with recessional velocity (which leads to the Hubble law)? (4) Are there any other interpretations of the redshift? (5) is it possible to conclude that the universe is expanding? If so, Why?
I would be glad if anyone could leave some comments. I believe that the answer to these questions are crucial to figure out whether the universe is really expanding or not. The only rule here is simply, not to introduce general relativity.
Regards
Israel
John Merryman replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 03:54 GMT
Israel,
Was it you who linked me to this
article last year?
I think the whole issue of redshift only being possible due to recession is based on the assumption photons remain point particles during transmission. But why? Wouldn't quanta of light expand, much like a gas when emitted? Then when absorbed, there are various possibilities why this expansion would be causing redshift. The one I suggested in last years contest was simply that beyond a certain luminosity, the loading theory of quantum absorption would mean it would start to take longer for each photon to register.
As for 5, expansion is already balanced by gravitational attraction, so the space expanding between galaxies, is matched by the space contracting into them, leading to overall flat space.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi John
I do not remember but it is likely since I have cited before and I am aware of that paper. Actually, I consider it of great relevance as an alternative explanation to the problem. I have identified that the key of the expansion is the physical interpretation of the redshift. As mentioned in that paper it is pretty reasonable that a wave cannot travel infinite distances without losing even a minute amount of energy, certainly conceiving light as a wave instead of a photon. I have found in the literature that this picture is called the "tired light" model, a term that seems to me somewhat misleading. The general theory of relativity offers one way to solve the puzzle by postulating expansion of space though it does not seem to be very probable. The fact that expansion does not solve Olber's paradox at all makes me lean towards the other model. It is a simpler explanation and very plausible based on the conclusions drawn from my essay.
Israel
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear Israel:
"The general theory of relativity offers one way to solve the puzzle by postulating expansion of space though it does not seem to be very probable. The fact that expansion does not solve Olber's paradox at all makes me lean towards the other model."
!!!!!!!
First of all, GRT is NOT---*absolutely NOT*---needed a priori in order to describe the metrical expansion of space! The metrical expansion of space, described by the RW metric, is *assumed prior to bringing GRT into cosmology at all*. The RW metric is NOT general relativistic in and of itself, but GRT---viz. Einstein's equation---is ONLY subsequently imposed in order to constrain the FORM of expansion that such a universe can take, depending on the possible energy-content of space, according to the theory. One can presume to describe redshifts through the metrical expansion of space *in any case*. Second of all, the inference from the redshift measurements, that space is *actually expanding*---INSTEAD OF, as you say, associating redshift with recessional velocities of galaxies moving through space (which is NOT what's actually done!)---is by far the MOST NATURAL inference to make from the evidence (see below). Thirdly, Olbers' paradox is completely resolved by the standard model, which tells us that our particle horizon will monotonically increase, asymptotically approaching a FINITE comoving distance (i.e., finite coordinate distance in expanding space) from us (please see
comments I posted on Abraham Loeb's site on Aug 13 & 14). Olbers' paradox exists only if the Universe were infinite in age and not (asymptotically) exponentially expanding. In the latter case, even with infinite age (e.g., Steady State theory), only a finite amount of light can reach any point in space at any time. Actually, (see, e.g., references to Krauss et al. in Loeb's paper) in exponentially expanding space light becomes completely undetectable after only 10^11 years.
I posted a reply to Peter Jackson yesterday on
my site, describing in more detail the rationale behind the assumption of a preferred reference frame in cosmology, based on redshift observations and the *natural inference* that space is actually expanding (which, I MUST STRESS, does not require GRT *a priori* in order to construct an appropriate space-time metric). Here's what I wrote:
I thought I'd give some more details about why I think the cosmological evidence justifies the assumption---usually thought to be unjustifiable strictly from the point-of-view of relativity---of a Cosmic Time and preferred reference frame to describe the evolution of a three-dimensional Universe. To begin with, note the principal reason for inferring that the Universe is expanding: as Eddington wrote in The Expanding Universe,
"The lesson of humility has so often been brought home to us in astronomy that we almost automatically adopt the view that our own galaxy is not specially distinguished---not more important in the scheme of nature than the millions of other island galaxies…
"When the collected data as to radial velocities and distances [of these galaxies] are examined a very interesting feature is revealed. The velocities are large, generally very much larger than ordinary stellar velocities. The more distant nebulae have the bigger velocities; the results seem to agree very well with a linear law of increase, the velocity being simply proportional to the distance. The most striking feature is that the galaxies are almost unanimously running away from us…
"We can exclude the spiral nebulae which are more or less hesitating as to whether they shall leave us by drawing a sphere of rather more than a million light-years radius round our galaxy. *In the region beyond, more than 80 have been observed to be moving outwards, and not one has been found coming in to take their place*…
"The unanimity with which the galaxies are running away looks almost as though they had a pointed aversion to us. We wonder why we should be shunned as though our system were a plague spot in the universe. But that is too hasty an inference, and there is really no reason to think that the animus is especially directed against our galaxy. If this lecture room were to expand to twice its present size, the seats all separating from each other in proportion, you would notice that everyone had moved away from you. Your neighbour who was 2 feet away is now 4 feet away; the man over yonder who was 40 feet away is now 80 feet away. It is not *you* they are avoiding; everyone is having the same experience…"
So, if the basic inference is really justified, that the redshifts of galaxies outside this sphere are all due to the dominance of the Hubble flow over peculiar motions of galaxies (i.e., their motions *through* space), so that any peculiar motion (which includes our own) really does become increasingly negligible with distance according to Hubble's law, then of course it's justified to treat the peculiar velocities of all galaxies, including ours, as noise in the redshift measurement, and describe ourselves and all sufficiently distant galaxies that we model as remaining at rest at comoving coordinates of expanding space.
Therefore, even though our clock, here on Earth, doesn't measure Cosmic Time because we're moving through the Universe (as indicated by the CMB dipole anisotropy), from the point-of-view of cosmology this doesn't matter, and we *are* able to determine what the present value of cosmic time is, because the metrical expansion of the Universe (as we infer from the empirical evidence) totally overwhelms any [special] relativistic effects due to the random peculiar motions of galaxies [which would otherwise indicate that two randomly chosen galaxies couldn't agree on a cosmic time due to their relative motion].
In essence, since the CMB indicates that we're moving through the Universe a little faster than 0.001c, and by the cosmological principle and observations of nearby galaxies we infer that this velocity is likely a typical value, peculiar velocities of galaxies along our axis of motion would produce the largest errors to our assumption that we're all at rest with respect to a comoving rest frame, and these could be as large as (0.002 -- 0.003)c. But this value is much less than the cosmological redshifts we typically observe. Therefore, when inferring that cosmological redshifts are mainly caused by the metrical expansion of space, we're also inferring that all peculiar motion, including our own, is eventually negligible with respect to that.
Cosmology therefore demands an absolute foliation of space-time, against which all local space-time measurements, at all levels, can be made. I've discussed this in regard to general relativity in my response to George Ellis on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:53 [on my site].
Best, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 22:59 GMT
Hi Daryl
You wrote so much material that I am afraid it would take some time to give you a well-thought reply. But, for the time being I would like to ask you to answer me some specific questions. I would like to focus our efforts in one particular topic which I believe is pivotal for our future discussion. I hope you have the answer according to the mathematical tools they had at that time. The questions are very simple:
How did Slipher in 1912-15 (when the general relativity was not developed yet) or any other astronomer of that epoch calculate the radial velocities of galaxies? I mean, how did they measure the radial velocity of a galaxy? Why they associated the red shift observed in the galaxy spectrograms to the radial velocity? What equation did they use to obtain a relation between the red shift and the radial velocity? Eddington says: "When the collected data as to radial velocities and distances [of these galaxies] are examined a very interesting feature is revealed. The velocities are large, generally very much larger than ordinary stellar velocities... I would be grateful if you could tell me, how it can be inferred that the galaxy is moving away from the corresponding spectrogram where there is a red shift?
cheers
Israel
John Merryman replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT
Daryl,
How is it that space is expanding, yet a constant metric, the speed of light, is used to measure it?
If two galaxies, x lightyears apart, were to grow to 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, but increasing distance in stable space.
Also the effect attributed to expansion, is balanced by the contracting effect attributed to gravity, so it would seem space...
view entire post
Daryl,
How is it that space is expanding, yet a constant metric, the speed of light, is used to measure it?
If two galaxies, x lightyears apart, were to grow to 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, but increasing distance in stable space.
Also the effect attributed to expansion, is balanced by the contracting effect attributed to gravity, so it would seem space is like a rubber sheet, that when pushed in, in one spot, expands out in a corresponding manner in other areas. Since the overall result is flat space, whatever model is used, there doesn't seem any logic in assuming the universe as a whole is expanding.
As for dark energy, if this expansion is a form of cosmological constant, originally proposed to balance gravity, than we are only seeing the light that travels between galaxies and thus through those expanded areas, where the effect compounds, thus creating the impression the further the source, the faster the recession. So since it is a constant effect of space and not residual force from an initial event, there is no need to explain why it doesn't slow down at a rate proscribed by Big Bang theory, so no need for dark energy.
Israel,
The original formulation of "tired light" was still based on the notion of light as point particles and it was considered that they must be slowed by encountering some medium, but there was insufficient scattering to show this. The notion of light as a wave that expands, was not part of the original refutation.
Since redshift is proportional to distance, some form of lensing effect makes the most sense. In this regard, the cosmic background radiation, which is observed originating from the edges of the visible universe, is the logical solution to Olber's paradox, as it would be the light of stars over the horizon line of being redshifted completely off the visible spectrum.
Just because galaxies are redshifted must mean they are moving away, would like assuming gravitational lensing actually causes the source to move around at fantastic speeds, not that the light from that source has been bent.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 04:56 GMT
Hi Israel,
The term "recessional velocity" is given as synonymous with redshift. While this is somewhat true (according to the expanding universe model, since physical distances between galaxies should increase with time in an expanding universe) it is also quite misleading since redshifts are supposed to be caused solely by the expansion of space in which the galaxies are supposed to be...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
The term "recessional velocity" is given as synonymous with redshift. While this is somewhat true (according to the expanding universe model, since physical distances between galaxies should increase with time in an expanding universe) it is also quite misleading since redshifts are supposed to be caused solely by the expansion of space in which the galaxies are supposed to be all at rest, remaining forever at the same coordinates; i.e., it's not the galaxies that fly apart, but space itself that expands. Furthermore, the idea of redshifts arising due to an actual recessional velocity makes no sense at all when values are often larger than 1.
Slipher initiated a programme for measuring redshifts from spectra of the "spiral nebulae" in 1912-1913, but even in 1917 there were still only three reliable measurements available (one blue-shifted). It was only in 1922, when his extended list was published in Eddington's book, that there was any kind of reliable evidence for expansion, as they really were predominantly redshifted. But then it was only when Hubble confirmed that the redshifts actually increase linearly with distance (in our neighbourhood) that the expanding universe idea found serious support. Please try to understand Eddington's account of this. He's saying it's not that the desks are actually flying apart, but the space between them is expanding.
But we're way past the initial indication now, and we've got very reliable measurements of redshifts well above z=6. Those can't be due to actual recessional velocities of objects moving through space (more than six times faster than the speed of light!), and the idea that space itself expands, with galaxies consequently "receding" through the growth of physical distance, makes a lot of sense as an explanation of that phenomenon. The light is supposed to be redshifted as the wavelengths of photons increase while travelling through expanding space. But still, none of this yet touches on general relativity explicitly.
Hope this helps,
Daryl
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 05:08 GMT
John,
"If two galaxies, x lightyears apart, were to grow to 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, but increasing distance in stable space." You can't explain redshifts greater than 1 in such a model. Please read my last post, which I was writing at the same time as you.
"Just because galaxies are redshifted must mean they are moving away, would [be] like assuming..." And that's why it took Hubble's confirmation of a *redshift-distance relation* to provide the convincing evidence for expansion. Not everyone agreed already in 1922 that the Universe is expanding.
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Daryl,
That's my point. There is still the assumption of a standard metric. Yes, beyond z=1, it doesn't make sense. If the theory says that in billions of years, these galaxies will be so far away, that their light can no longer reach us, ie, assuming a standard speed of light, what is the basis of this standard, if the very fabric of space is being stretched? If the speed of light is the most basic measure of intergalactic space and this space is actually being stretched, wouldn't necessary proof of this be that the measure itself is also stretched? Otherwise it is just expanding distance in these standard units.
Of course, then if the galaxies were always x lightyears apart, because the speed of light increased to match the stretched space, then the universe wouldn't appear to expand!!!
As they say, can't have your cake and eat it too.
An increasing redshift-distance correlation would be symptomatic of a lensing effect, as it would compound over distance, since it would further magnify what had already been magnified.
An
interesting article from the point of view of an engineer who had to work with cosmologists.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT
Dear Daryl
This is part 1.
Unfortunately you did not answer any of my questions. Your reply was only alluding to the explanation of the redshift according to the expansion model. I asked the questions because I am interested in understanding, above all, the rationale that led physicists and astronomers to reach the conclusion that distant galaxies were moving away from us.
I...
view entire post
Dear Daryl
This is part 1.
Unfortunately you did not answer any of my questions. Your reply was only alluding to the explanation of the redshift according to the expansion model. I asked the questions because I am interested in understanding, above all, the rationale that led physicists and astronomers to reach the conclusion that distant galaxies were moving away from us.
I have some papers that date back to 1913-1917. The first one (1913) is due to Slipher. The title is: The radial velocity of Andromeda Nebula. He reported four measurements realized in the fall of 1912. The average is -300 km/s. The minus sign means approaching or blushifted. It seems that this was the very first estimation of the velocity of a nebula. He then concluded:
That the velocity of the first spiral observed should be so high intimates that the spirals as a class have higher velocities than do stars and that it might not be fruitless to observe some of the more promising spirals for the proper motion. Thus extension of the work to other objects promises results of fundamental importance…
Now, I would like to focus in two points. The first is in regard to the link between the frequency shift of spectral lines (i.e. blue or red shift) and the radial velocity of stars and nebulae. The second issue has to do with the realizations drawn from this correlation.
One of my pivotal questions was: how did astronomers calculate the radial velocities of galaxies? This question is equivalent to ask: under what theoretical and conceptual framework were the calculations of velocities performed?
The answer dates back to the end of the XIX century. Astronomers did not directly measure velocities v; the data they really obtained were spectra of the light emitted by the luminous object under study. They realized that the corresponding spectral lines were shifted with respect to a reference spectrum. The theoretical framework they used to link the frequency shift df with the velocity of an object was provided by the well known Galilean Doppler effect (DE). Indeed, on the basis of this relationship the most NATURAL inference to make from the evidence is that objects either approach or move outward. Thus, by the end of the century astronomers were using routinely and successfully the DE to estimate the velocity of celestial bodies by just paying attention to a shift in the spectral lines. Starting in 1905 the aether was rejected and the DE was generalized to the relativistic case. So, with no aether in mind, astronomers continue to make the same inference of radial velocity from noticing a df corresponding to a celestial body.
On the other hand, before 1908 astronomers used to estimate the distances by the parallax method. This method, as we know, is limited to some parsecs (probably some hundreds). From 1908-1912 Henrietta Leavitt overcame this problem by means of the variable Cepheid method. With these tools astronomers were able to estimate distances of objects of the order of thousands and even millions of pc. In 1915 Slipher published another article entitled: Spectrographic observations of nebulae. Here he reported the results of the studies realized on 15 spiral nebulae. Two of them with negative velocities (approaching), one unknown and, the rest positive velocities (moving away). In 1915-16, G. Pease also published articles in relation to the radial velocities of nebulae. In 1917 Slipher reported the study of the radial velocities of 25 nebulae estimated from 40-50 spectrographs, i.e., a statistics of 2 measurements per nebula. He found that 21 have positive velocities and 4 negative velocities. The range for the positive velocities went from 150 km/s up to 1100 km/s. From these data, he concluded: The average velocity is 570 km/s, is about 30 times the average velocity of the stars. And much greater than that known of any other class of celestial bodies.
Let’s halt for a moment to make a brief analysis about the previous statements. So far, all the calculations were carried out based on the DE and therefore the conclusions that the galaxies are approaching/moving away naturally follows. The important point here to stress is that the majority of galaxies appear to be moving away. This fact could be taken as an argument to support the hypothesis that nebulae are not part of the milky way. The other crucial point is that we have evidence to start to generate the idea that if most of the nebulae are moving away it is probable that we are at the center of the universe or an explosion. This is one of the most natural realizations on the basis of the prevailing conceptual-theoretical framework of that time. And therefore astronomers had some conceptual elements to conceive the idea of space expansion.
By 1916 Einstein met de Sitter at Holland. Each guy proposed a model of the universe. Einstein supported a static universe and de Sitter an expanding one. Both universes were unstable but the de Sitter model required that the average density of matter were close to zero. One of the peculiarities of this model is that it predicted a frequency shift towards the red as function of space expansion. Actually, they interpreted this not as a space expansion but as an increasing of distance in the sense of an Euclidean space which within the context of special relativity is equivalent to saying that galaxies are moving away. However, the astronomical evidences were not enough to settle the issue. In 1917 they published their results as you cited in your essay.
to be continued...
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:30 GMT
This is part 2
Three years later, in 1920, the Shapley–Curtis Debate took place and in 1922 and 1924 Friedman published his solutions.
During this period Eddington appeared in the scene (1923). From the paragraphs you quoted it can be easily grasped that astronomers have already estimated a considerable amount (80) of radial velocities as well as the corresponding distances. ...
view entire post
This is part 2
Three years later, in 1920, the Shapley–Curtis Debate took place and in 1922 and 1924 Friedman published his solutions.
During this period Eddington appeared in the scene (1923). From the paragraphs you quoted it can be easily grasped that astronomers have already estimated a considerable amount (80) of radial velocities as well as the corresponding distances. Eddington said: . .the results seem to agree very well with a linear law of increase, the velocity being simply proportional to the distance [this is of course Hubble’s law]. Then in 1927 Lemaitre put forward his expanding solution and, finally, Hubble made his report in 1929 with more reliable data.
Here it is valid to question how physicists came up with the idea of correlating distances (d) with v (which judged in retrospective appears to be wrong), but whatever the reasons were, it is evident that the conclusions astronomers such as Eddigton were reaching were based on the kinematics of the special relativity. Hence radial velocities can only have meaning within this framework and consequently have NOT any single relationship with the notion of expansion. It is worth noticing that Eddington had already developed the realization that it is quite weird that most galaxies were apparently moving away from the sun following the more-less linear relation d vs v. So, if we insist in following this line of thought, the picture one would arrive at is that our galaxy is at the center of some sort of explosion and --as you contend--, it could natural to speculate the hypothesis of expansion. The previous analysis has revealed us the error in the conceptual reasoning. The mistake was to consider that the df is proportional to v at any value of the distance. Slipher, Eddintong, Hubble, etc. were following an inductive reasoning in believing that the same physical interpretation granted to the case of planets and close stars also applied for distant galaxies. At cosmological distances this criterion is no longer plausible.
In the following paragraphs I elucidate how physicists made the connection of Hubble's law with expansion. To this purpose I shall quote what Einstein wrote in 1924 in his little book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. There he proposed two hypotheses to state his arguments as to the cosmological problem:
My original considerations on the subject (cosmological problem) were based on two hypotheses:
(1) There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space which is everywhere the same and different from zero.
(2) The magnitude (radius) of space is independent of time [not expanding].
However, already in the twenties, the Russian mathematician Friedman showed that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis (1) without introducing the less natural cosmological term [lambda] into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop hypothesis (2). Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in which the world radius depends on time (expanding space). In that sense one can say, according to Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space.
A few years later Hubble showed, by a special investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae (milky ways), that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increased regularly with the distance of the nebulae. This CAN BE INTERPRETED IN REGARD TO OUR PRESENT KOWLEDGE only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large -- as required, according to Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory.
The last paragraph is the key to understand how Einstein (and many other theoreticians and astronomers) linked Hubble’s law to the new theoretical framework (TF) provided by the Friedman solutions and, in general, by the GTR. From the Friedman solution, similar to the de Sitter case, the df is directly related to expansion. I intentionally emphasize: CAN BE... ...KOWLEDGE with the aim of stressing the fact that they are bounded to the TF in which the Doppler effect was embedded. So, Hubble's law expressed as correlation between v vs d is meaningless and even misleading within the context of expanding spaces (FR, FRWL etc). Under the expansion programme Hubble's law have a straightforward meaning only as relation df vs d. The rest is the story that we all know today: big bang, dark energy and dark matter, CMBR, etc.
to be continued
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:32 GMT
This is part 3
Ok, I understand that expansion is one explanation to df vs d. Then, what do I argue? Based on the preceding historical discussion, I ask: Is the expansion the only possible explanation? If, according to the conclusions drawn from the essay, the aether is reconsidered, the answer clearly goes in the negative. As we have seen, all that is required is to have a df as the distance increases. The theory of waves can easily reproduce this. And it tells us that the larger the distances the more energy is dissipated/scattered by the aether and therefore light will appear red shifted for an observer on the earth. In this model there is no expansion and space is essentially Euclidean avoiding in this way the horizon and flatness problems. This also explains Olber’s paradox even if the universe were infinite in extension. The CMBR it is not interpreted as a relic radiation but it is just the signature of a thermodynamic system in equilibrium. Since the universe had no beginning it has enough time to create the chemical elements required to form the stars and galaxies, etc.
This model also implies that not only the determination of red shifts is in need of corrections but also the distances; for the luminosity is function of the light energy per unit area per unit of time. Moreover, this model offers us another great advantage above expansion, since space is essentially Euclidean we do not have the conceptual difficulties that John Merryman points out. It is not necessary to compute the distance at the time of emission when the space was less stretched and so forth. We can see that this model is quite simple, explains many problems, it is more consistent and could lead to new insights.
Israel
John Merryman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Israel,
One possibility that might be worth considering is that light is the medium and waves are the features/information content of this expanding medium, rather than a stable aether as the medium, with light as the waves traveling through it. This would explain why sources are so clear from literally billions of lightyears away.
What that would mean is that it is the simple radial expansion of volume with distance that causes the light to expand and weaken. So when detectors/telescopes receive a quanta of light from this field, it is a sample of the field, not a particular corpuscular quantum of light which traveled individually for billions of lightyears and thus would be far more prone to scattering.
Not only would this fit with Christov's paper and the various loading theories of quanta, but in my
digital vs. analog essay, I point out another factor; Since light is received as quanta, past a certain point of luminosity, where there is so little light that it is being received as individual quanta, the loading will take longer, thus stretching out the reception. My analogy was to a dripping faucet. As you close it, up to a certain point, there is just a decreasing stream of water, but once it starts dripping, since the size of the drips remains constant, the times between each drip grow longer. If we are treating these quanta as waves, the effect is redshift.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
John
You: is that light is the medium and waves are the features/information content of this expanding medium.
It is hard for me to figure out how can light be a medium instead of a wave. From the perspective of wave mechanics, light is a feature of the medium. The medium is the thing that exist and the wave is a feature of the medium. How can the wave be the medium and the medium be the wave? I do not get this and I do not see why to should we interchange the roles. If you have a reference in which this idea is more elaborated I would appreciate it. In any case as I understand you bring expansion as main ingredient to explain the frequency shift. Whether space or light expands I see both equivalent, because in both cases the mechanism is expansion. I clearly understand that expansion is one possible explanation of the red shift. However, in my previous posts I argue in favor of a model where there is no expansion; light loses energy simply because the aether, as any other medium, is dissipative/dispersive and light (seen as wave) is absorbed as the distance grows, just as a water wave vanishes in a lake as it propagates. My point is: why should we resort to expansion if it is not necessary to explain the observations?
Israel
John Merryman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
Israel,
" The medium is the thing that exist and the wave is a feature of the medium. How can the wave be the medium and the medium be the wave?"
I'm saying light is the medium and waves are features of it and its interaction with mass and the resulting measurements.
Here is an
interesting interview with Carver Mead, in which he makes a similar argument for electrons and other quantum phenomena.
A water wave in an open area pool will dissipate much more quickly, as it spreads out, than one traveling down a narrow channel. That's what I mean by expansion being dissipative.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Hi John,
I am sorry I think I misunderstood what you said. Your last paragraph helped me to understand your point. As I understand your are talking about the expansion of a wave as is propagates outwards. I agree with this, the energy per unit area decreases as function of the inverse square of the distance. But there is an additional factor due to dissipation that should be added. On the other hand, one can assume, for the sake of simplification, the aether at rest, but in general it can be in motion. So this may be in agreement with you ideas.
Israel
John Merryman replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:52 GMT
Israel,
I have no problem with an aether, but I think it is an effort to give space a material quality that obscures some very important factors. Consider centrifugal force; if you had an object spinning in deep space, the centrifugal force affecting something on its surface would not be due to some distant point of reference, but because of motion relative to an inertial state. I think that inertial state is also a fundamental factor in the speed of light. Light appears to travel at C, in any frame, but that is due to clocks running slower in frames in motion, which points back to that inertial state. Physics likes to say it's all about measurement and observation, but empty space isn't easily measurable or observable. That doesn't mean it should be denied, just because there are conceptual biases against it. Any more than an aether should be denied, just because it is difficult to detect.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
John
Some times in ordinary language I used the word "aether" as a synonym of "quantum vacuum", "space" or "zero-point field"(ZPF), although I know that the aether has had different connotations along its history. The sense in which I mean to use the word "aether" is making allusion to the existence of a substance (which one can say that it is space itself) pervading the universe and at the same time as representative of the PSR. To be consistent we the prevailing view in physics we can convene in naming such substance the ZPF. The Casimir effect or the Lamb shift can be considered as proofs that the ZPF (i.e. space or aether, etc.) exists. Then we have a medium for light waves and this medium is slightly dissipative due to its massive nature. For relatively short distances (a few parsecs) its effect on light is negligible but at cosmological ones its effect is predominant. As to the speed of light you should take a look at my reference 17 there I explain why the speed of light is always measured to be c for any observer. So, we have the elements to hold that there is pervading massive substance.
Cheers
Israel
John Merryman replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 01:26 GMT
Israel,
An aether doesn't explain centrifugal force. If it did, then the more an object spins, the more it would cause the aether in its vicinity to swirl and this would presumably reduce centrifugal force. Which isn't how it works. No matter how much it spins, when the object on the surface is released, it flies off in the direction it is released.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Member Giovanni Amelino-Camelia wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT
dear Israel
it was good advice when you suggested, in commenting my essay, that I should have a look at your essay
I really ejoyed reading it. We have different views on preferred frames
and relativistic theories but we share the intuition that there are interesting issurs at the interface between fundamental physics and philosophy of science
best wishes for the competition
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Gionvanni
Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. You may be interested in joining the discussion above with John Merryman and Daryl Janzen in relation to the physical interpretation of the red shift that led physicists to the idea of expansion and thus to the the big bang model which in turn has led to the present problems in physics. There I explain the misunderstandings and that the aether assumption can solve most of the present problems all at once.
Best regards
Israel
S Halayka wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 01:17 GMT
Hi Israel,
I really liked your essay a lot. You bring up a good point about how it has been useful in the past to hunt for hidden assumptions like "a particle could obtain an infinite speed". This type of hunt is exactly what I tried to do in my own essay.
The hidden assumption that I identified was "the maximum energy scale of photon creation and annihilation (PCA) is infinite...
view entire post
Hi Israel,
I really liked your essay a lot. You bring up a good point about how it has been useful in the past to hunt for hidden assumptions like "a particle could obtain an infinite speed". This type of hunt is exactly what I tried to do in my own essay.
The hidden assumption that I identified was "the maximum energy scale of photon creation and annihilation (PCA) is infinite everywhere". I think that it's fair to say that this is indeed a hidden assumption that is built into both GR and the SM, and I also think that it's fair to say that past considerations of the counter-assumption (the maximum energy scale of PCA is *not* infinite everywhere) has proven fruitful (string theory).
Interestingly enough (or not), this counter-assumption could be linked to the GZK limit that you also mention in your essay. For instance, in my essay, I assume that the PCA limit at the surface of the Earth is roughly 10^19 Joules, which is roughly the same energy scale as the GZK limit. Now, I'm aware of the photopion production mechanism, and I believe that it is indeed the primary reason for the GZK limit, but perhaps a PCA limit could cause at least some of the currently unexplained dip that occurs right before the GZK limit is hit.
In any case, if you have time and interest, my essay is at:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1482I mentioned the cosmic ray / 10^19 Joules thing (but not in the context of PCA specifically) a couple of years ago at:
http://vixra.org/abs/1002.0009Please keep in mind that I am not a professional physicist by any stretch of the imagination, and so I may be totally wrong with these calculations. Even if my essay is totally wrong, it is at least nice to know that someone thinks that it's possibly useful to try such hunts for the hidden assumptions. Your essay is very inspirational.
- Shawn
P.S. Daryl Janzen pointed out to me that you were working in Saskatoon. I apologize for missing that when I went through the essays earlier. I was born in Saskatoon, and I'm currently living in P.A. It's a small world, for sure. Anyway, thanks again for your essay. I really enjoyed it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:01 GMT
Saskatoon seems to produce some pretty good physicists, professional or not. What's in the water up there?
report post as inappropriate
S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Haha Edwin. Mostly pickerel, jackfish, and freshwater whitefish. You should stop by and cast a line some time. :)
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:48 GMT
I'm in if we can talk about Life, the Universe and Everything.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi Guys
Nice hearing about you again!
Shawn
Thank you for reading my essay and for the stimulating comments, I really appreciate them. It is a surprise to gather here three guys from the same city. Daryl and Edwin are very smart guys, you should read their essays too. It took me some time to reply because I prefered to read yours first so I have a little more background to get your comments. I found your essay well structured and focused in a specific topic. I like that.
I fully agree that the maximum energy is an important assumption. I made this consideration a couple of years ago, derived from the fact that there must be a minimum length scale (similar to the maximum speed assumption). When I started to search in the literature for this theme I realized that there was already a theory that accounts for this. It is called Doubly special relativity or deformed special relativity. Check the
article in wikipedia. This formulation was developed for flat space, and it is claimed that the theory is a particular case of the more general loop quantum gravity. I suggest you take a look at them for comparison.
As to the GKZ limit, perhaps you may be confused, since I did not mention it in my essay. In any case, this is one of the most important problems in physics. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the details of this topic and I am afraid I could not be of great help here.
Daryl
I replied to you in relation to the red shift. I would be glad if you could leave me some comments. Of course, you guys are also invited to express any comment about this hot topic.
Cheers
Israel
Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT
Hi Israel,
I've now replied to the fresh thread you created over on my site, which is probably a good place to continue discussion.
Cheers, Daryl
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:25 GMT
Israel,
"If the frequency changes for the observer in motion the wavelength will change also in the same proportion, thus the observer will measure c and not c'."
That is what you wrote in your first reply on this thread. But this is an obvious absurdity, Israel - the observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v but the wavelength of the light chasing him automatically changes so that the speed of light relative to him gloriously remains c (c'=c-v is forbidden). Look at this video presenting the process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded
&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Dr Ricardo Eusebi: f'=f(1+v/c)"
Do you see the wavelength changing? No? Then perhaps it is the speed of light relative to the observer that changes? Do you see that change?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Pentcho
You are still totally confused. This "If the frequency...measure c and not c'." is true. Take a look at a book where you find the Doppler effect for observers in motion relative to a source at rest, and then take a look at the case in which the observer is at rest and the source in motion and work out the calculation only of the wavelength instead of the frequency. You will realize that L'=L/(1+v/c) (the sign will depend on whether the source-observer approach or move away).
Israel
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:49 GMT
Are Carl Mungan and Sidney Redner "totally confused"?
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarsh
ip/DopplerEffect.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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppl
er.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Pentcho
I am talking about light. You are mixing things again. The cases you are quoting are for the non-relativistic Doppler effect, that is, for other waves different from light. For light in inertial systems of reference the speed of light is always c, so if you have a frequency f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength has to L'=L/(1+v/c) otherwise you will have c' different from c which disagrees with experience.
Israel
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
A simple problem, Israel: If "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", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer? Could it be c'=c-Vo?
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) 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(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Pentcho
You have to understand that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.
The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.
Israel
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Again: If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", what is the speed of the waves relative to the observer, Israel? Is dividing distance by time difficult? Extremely difficult? Impossible? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Answer:
Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c. Tony Harker is wrong, this: "and our results will be applicable to sound or to light" is false. It is misleading and confusing. If people think that this is true, they will think that for light the speed will be c-Vo as it is for sound.
Israel
Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Israel: "Speed of sound is c-Vo, speed of light c"
But the frequency is f'=(c-Vo)/L in BOTH cases:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.p
df
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) 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)."
See no problem? Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 08:03 GMT
Pentcho
Please do not open a new post every time you reply, keep in the same conversation.
Thanks
When professor Roger Barlow says: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound...
He is saying that the phenomenon of frequency change (called Doppler effect) occurs to all kind of waves, i.e., all waves undergo frequency change due to the relative motion between the source and the observer. He is not saying that the formulas has the same physical interpretation as to the velocity of the waves, but only in relation to the frequencies. That the same formula applies for both kind of waves does not mean that the speed of light is additive as the speed of sound.
Sorry Pentcho, you keep asking the same questions over and over and you do not understand that the speed of light hast to be c in any inertial system, whether you use an approximation or not.
I also told you that the expressions you quote are for speeds v low compared to the speed of light. When astronomers use the formula f'=f(1+v/c) they are using it because v is low in comparison to c, but if v were much greater they would use the relativistic formula: f'=f sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]. The formula you quote is an approximation to this relativistic one which coincides with the Galilean Doppler formula but this coincidence does not mean that the speed of light acquires a different value from c (such as c+v), as the other wave speeds do (sound, etc.). Do not mix lines of reasoning.
The speed of light is always c in any direction and way,it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c.
Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Roger Barlow: "In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point."
That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point is c.
Roger Barlow: "A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)."
That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving point (moving observer) is c+v.
See also:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an...
view entire post
Roger Barlow: "In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point."
That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point is c.
Roger Barlow: "A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)."
That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving point (moving observer) is c+v.
See also:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://researcher.nsc.gov.tw/public/fangyuhlo/Attachme
nt/031016202571.pdf
Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: "Observer moves toward source: frequency becomes higher. Observer moves away from source: frequency becomes lower. How much higher (lower)? Wavelength does not change. Change in velocity: Vnew=Vwave±Vobs."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. THIS TIME, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Israel,
I have read your essay and I totally agree with your viewpoint. Your essay is well-written, most interesting and very impressive. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
I have read your essay and I totally agree with your viewpoint. Your essay is well-written, most interesting and very impressive. I wish you good luck in the contest.
Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.
In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.
I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.
You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"
Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.
Finally I wish to see your excellent essay high up on the list of finalists.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Sandhu
Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. As you have may know the mainstream of physics have considered the PSR and the aether a dead issue. However, I have realized that lately the quantum vacuum or the zero point field (the modern version of the aether) is making a lot of pressure to relativity. My bet is that in the following years new discoveries in quantum...
view entire post
Dear Sandhu
Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. As you have may know the mainstream of physics have considered the PSR and the aether a dead issue. However, I have realized that lately the quantum vacuum or the zero point field (the modern version of the aether) is making a lot of pressure to relativity. My bet is that in the following years new discoveries in quantum mechanics and cosmology will squeeze relativity from both sides. Theoretical and experimental investigations will raise in relation to the quantum vacuum suggesting the reconsideration of the PSR and absolute motion. On the cosmological scale, some new evidences will challenge the big bang model. This is matter of time. The reason of the crisis in physics is precisely the lost of philosophical analysis. Physicists are resorting to any imaginable hypothesis to try to save their models based on relativity. Many physicists have realized that either relativity or quantum mechanics must be fundamentally wrong but they do not "see" where the problem is.
I have read your essay which I found it interesting. I have done some works in the past similar to yours but they are totally rejected by journals. During this process, I realized that to try to contradict the established theories is futile. Instead, I think that the amount of experimental evidence will make pressure on theorists and hopefully they will realized their mistake. I believe our task is to underline the wrong assumptions and/or create a new model that competes with the prevailing one. From my part, I am endeavoring to build a new model based on the postulate that space is a fluid.
As to the contest, many people have made similar complaints in the past. We all know that the rules are unfair, since they are designed in a such a way so that contestants eliminate each other, that is, the organizers intentionally did it that way. We cannot do anything but what is allowed by the rules. I will keep in mind your suggestions.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Frank Ullmann wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT
Hi Israel,
I have read your essay with great interest (its structure is really well done). That is on the one hand because (as was only to be expected) I had similar thoughts. On the other hand this stems from the fact that it was new to me that the quantum vacuum can be seen as a perfect fluid (with respect to which one can detect one's own motion?). I do think that reflections like yours (and their discussion) should be a part of any lecture about special relativity.
(Even though I consider it to be impolite to combine my remarks to your essay with a hint to my own paper / essay I cannot fail to do so. I am anxious to know what you think about it.)
While I was studying (theoretical physics at the Goethe Universität in Frankfurt / Germany) by chance I came across something my professors judged to be just a mathematical curiosity without any reference to reality. Now I think that what I had shown at the time is actually of relevance. According to my "curiosity" there is a necessary condition for the validity of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity (considering space and time as space-time equipped with Minkowski metric) that is not satisfied. [That is synonymous with: Not all inertial frames can be equivalent to each other (and there has to be a preferred inertial frame if we assume that space is isotropic). But since only groups of inertial frames are compared to one another it is still impossible to point out one inertial frame to be the preferred one.]
I would be delighted if you would read my
essay .
Kind regards,
Frank
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Frank
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments I appreciate them much. The absolute detection of the preferred system of reference (PSR) has been very illusive though is not an impossible task. My reference 17 (Eq. 14) gives a clue, some others works have been proposed elsewhere (see also my reference 19).
A complete formulation of space as a fluid has been developed...
view entire post
Dear Frank
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments I appreciate them much. The absolute detection of the preferred system of reference (PSR) has been very illusive though is not an impossible task. My reference 17 (Eq. 14) gives a clue, some others works have been proposed elsewhere (see also my reference 19).
A complete formulation of space as a fluid has been developed by C. Christov. Please take a look at my reference 19 and references therein. As well you may be interested in the discussion I am having with Daryl Janzen (who also supports a preferred frame of reference) and Daniel Wagner (who denies the PSR) in both of our entires. Unfortunately, many people think that SR is the only possibility in town. It has been shown that Lorentz invariance can be derived from the assumption that space is fluid or in modern terms Planck plasma or quantum vacuum.
With respect to your last paragraph one should distinguish what intuition perceives as space or time, and the mathematical representation of space and time. In the sense of Newton the mathematical representation is Euclidean space. In the sense of SR is Minkowski space-time. Similar to the case of Newtonian absolute space which is devoid of substance, the Minkowski space is devoid of substance, it is just the mere geometrical abstraction of rods and clocks (read Einstein's essay, geometry and experience). According to SR, space is made up of nothingness and filled with fields. This view is the result of Einstein' conception that EM fields do not require a medium for its propagation. So, according to Einstein, fields propagate through totally empty space. For this reason in his lecture of 1920 he supported the idea of the gravitational aether represented by the metric tensor. So, this is what most people believe today. However, we can invert the situation and consider that space is a fluid and that EM fields are states of the fluid. This view could solve most problems in physics. If you are interested in the view that space-time is a reality you should read Vesselin Petkov books and articles. He defends the view that Minkowski space-time is real, I disagree. I hold that space (or vacuum or aether as you wish to call it) is a substance if you are also interested in this view you should see Christov's papers.
These days I have been very busy, I will add your essay to the list and I will make any comments I may have ASAP.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 15:51 GMT
Isreal,
Nice Essay! It looks like there are a growing number of people who realize that (using your words) SR is not the only game in town. I think I accomplished phase 1 in my essay, which is to show - using pure facts, that all of relativity cannot possibly be correct. Phase 2 is: What are the implications and what can we replace it with? One possibility (which I have been writing about since 2008) is that instead of all fundamental behaviors (responsible for motion, energy changes, etc..) being thought to exist "In" time - what if they actually "are" time? Then their interaction with background fields (or components of the fluid in the PSR that you mention) as they accelerate and move with increased velocity could be altered which might affect the rate at which all of these internal fundamental behaviors occur. This would provide a very simple local mechanism for time dilation. And when you place a system of particles in a gravitational field, the G field may be warping other background fields and/or something in the fluid to produce the same net effect. Another idea I had was similar but it relies more on the effect motion, acceleration and gravity may have on the moving particles own fields they carry.
If we can establish a core of responsible people to acknowledge that a problem with current theories exist, then more people will be able to contribute to producing an accurate alternative. I hope we can keep this conversation going.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT
Dear Chris
Thank you for reading my essay, I am glad you found it interesting. As I understand time is nothing but change, a series of processes (the problem is that nobody understands change). In the previous contest I discussed my ontological notions of space and time. I am sure you will find them interesting. I must tell you that there are already some well developed alternatives to...
view entire post
Dear Chris
Thank you for reading my essay, I am glad you found it interesting. As I understand time is nothing but change, a series of processes (the problem is that nobody understands change). In the previous contest I discussed my ontological notions of space and time. I am sure you will find them interesting. I must tell you that there are already some well developed alternatives to replace SR and GR. You may wish to take a look at my references 17 and 19 and references therein (particularly C. Christov' works). After studying for some years the foundations of physics I come across Christov' works which seem to me very reasonable. He explains all relativistic effects and unifies gravitation, electromagnetism and QM. So there is no need to build a new alternative since they are already developed. Regrettably, this kind of works contradict relativity and consequently they have been totally ignored by the mainstream. This is why they are not widely known.
You: If we can establish a core of responsible people to acknowledge that a problem with current theories exist.
Well, from my view, this is not a matter of responsibility but of utility, as I argue in my essay. SR was and has been very useful for the prediction of physical phenomena. And since experiments agree with its predictions the theory is held despite the paradoxes, which can be ignored for they do not affect the predictions. One should study the philosophy of science in order to understand how physicists work, what factors are crucial to overthrow a theory, why they accept or reject theories. Here as well, egos, scientific rivalry, economic interests and promotion play very important roles. So the success of a theory have several components. In order to overthrow a theory a new theory must emerge making new testable predictions and solving the problems under consideration. However a common belief among physicists is that the new theory must be reduced to the old well-established theory (which from my view is not necessary).
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Chris Kennedy replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT
Israel, (sorry - last time I mispelled)
Thanks for the references. I will read them along with your essay from the previous contest.
By the way - I recently posted a couple of items on Daryl's thread in response to something he posted on my thread awhile back. Afterward I noticed some very interesting conversation just previous - between you, Darly and John Merryman. I hope I didn't interrupt and hope it resumes - it looked like it was just getting good. I will keep an eye on it.
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT
Chris
No problem. Indeed our discussion is quite interesting, if you think you have something to contribute please feel free to express openly.
Best regards
Israel
hide replies
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT
Dear Isreal,
I've read your proposal concerning the existence of a preferred frame of reference. I am convinced, too, that such a PSR is really existing. But I attacked the problem of its existence from a quite different perspective.
I came to the conclusion that the speed of light c is given twice - in two different version: as a particle-like version and as a wave-like version. The background of this thesis of a DUAL PARAMETRIZATION OF C is the wave-particle-duality of light. My thought: If light has a dual nature, it is natural to assume that the speed of light is of dual nature as well.
This view has indeed far-reaching consequences, in particular with respect to the so-called Null experiments, that is, to the Michelson-Morley experiment (MM-Exp) and to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment (KT-Exp).
These two experiments are not experimental proofs of the Principle of Relativity (= non-existence of PSR), but experimental proofs of these two faces of c: MM-Exp = wave-like face of c; KT-Exp = particle-like face of c.
The ether-drift (i.e. the absolute motion) is obscured by these two faces of c in such a way, that only a very subtle residual effect remains.
But to say it clearly, this idea of a Dual Parametrization of c is still more a vision than an elaborated theory.
Good Luck for your essay.
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Dear Helmut
Thank you very much for your comments and for reading my essay. I glad we agree in the existence of the PSR. I had a very important discussion with Daniel Wagner who has a relational view of physics and so he rejects the PSR. One should recognize the weaknesses of our approaches. SR leads to a series of paradoxes and deprives the universe of PSR. On the other hand, the detection...
view entire post
Dear Helmut
Thank you very much for your comments and for reading my essay. I glad we agree in the existence of the PSR. I had a very important discussion with Daniel Wagner who has a relational view of physics and so he rejects the PSR. One should recognize the weaknesses of our approaches. SR leads to a series of paradoxes and deprives the universe of PSR. On the other hand, the detection of the PSR has been quite elusive and therefore most physicists see it as an illusion. They got a point. But as I discussed in my essay a theory gains its scientific value due to its utility to solve the problems under consideration. I have found the PSR quite useful to solve the present problems, although the price to pay for is too high...
As to light, I hold that there is a medium for the propagation of light, hence light has to be a wave with no duality. The duality was introduced by Einstein himself in 1905 when he assumed light as a particle. Judging in retrospective I think this was not a good idea, because this caused the confusion we are all familiar with. A more real situation is that an atom does not emit at a single-one frequency but at different frequencies centered around an average value. These frequencies interfere constructively and create what in optics is called a wave packet. The wave packet is a localized pattern in space, in this sense, the packet resembles a "photon". Light of a single frequency has never been measured. In a theory one has to be consistent mathematically and philosophically. The theory of C. Christov (see my reference 19 and references therein) solves all of these ambiguities by assuming that space is a fluid. Based on this simple assumption all relativistic effects are reproduced and most problems can be solved, cosmological and microsocopic.
I would suggest you read my previous essay, there I discuss some of the qualities that a theory should have in order to have success. Perhaps you may be interested in this topic.
Cheers
Israel
view post as summary
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:57 GMT
Hi Israel,
Thank you for your overlooked reply of Aug. 9, 08:30.
Having found flaws in papers by Gift myself. I nonetheless understood what you quoted from Gift as follows: Gift objected to Einstein synchronization. He assumed universal time and the constant speed of light relative to space.
Being aware of logically circular twists to justify Einstein's convention (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/) I see Einstein's application of Poincaré synchronization not justified in case the distance AB is changing.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Hi Eckard
I hope you have convinced yourself that the measurement not only of the one-way speed of light but of any physical entity is not a trivial task at most people believe (see my reference 17).
GPS clocks are synchronized assuming per se that c is constant, so any measurement of the one-way speed of light based on GPS is automatically invalidated. Despite of this, I hold that in an isotropic and homogenous vacuum (the PSR) the one-speed of light should be isotropic.
The synchronization of clocks is a big problem, perhaps an impossible task.
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:42 GMT
Israel,
Perhaps nobody questions that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in the PSR. However, Einstein's theory refers to the observer, not to the PSR. Einstein synchronization is part of this admittedly arbitrary monist convention.
I was curious what Wikipedia says about "one-way speed of light". [15] redirects to [1]. Isn't this strange? [1] points to an old textbook by Shang. Yesterday I was pointed there to what is now [3], a 2010 entry which ends with a remarkable sentence: "The debate about conventionality of simultaneity seems far from settled, although some proponents on both sides of the argument might disagree with that statement." I already gave the address: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/
Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Eckard
Yes, Einstein refers to the observer because in his theory there are no PSRs. So, I am considering another theory different from SR where the PSR is included (for instance, keep in mind Lorentz' theory).
You: Anyway, it is wrong to say one-way speed of light cannot be measured. It can only not be measured without an agreement on synchronization.
If we agree in a clock synchronization the result is not a pure empirical fact but it will depend on our conventions (therefore the one-way speed cannot be measured). Besides, you are saying that if a synchronization is defined the one-way speed can be measured. It is clear that for any synchronization convention we adopt we will get a different value for the one-way speed. Then let me know what synchronization is the best and why that one and not any other.
Cheers
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Dear Israel,
Isn't a synchronization best if it does not imply paradoxes? At first I would postulate fairness. It does not matter what A measures concerning B if not B measures the same concerning A. Both A and B can be affected by the Doppler illusion. Let's leave the subject of light and consider a duel with easily verifiable sound waves in air instead. An unbiased arbiter must be located permanently in the middle between A and B which may move relative to each other. Therefore he must not have an arbitrarily fixed position re A or re B. Instead, both times of flight must be taken into account. Fairness demands that A moves re the arbiter's absolute (PSR) time as does B.
Please read what I yesterday wrote to Daryl Janzen at 1364.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Eckard
One can chose only the most convenient clock synchronization, thought there is no fundamental justification to chose either one or the other. In any case, one has to assume a frame where the one-way speed of light is isotropic (the PSR). For frames in motion relative to the PSR the convention is arbitrary. So, I think that this topic has been extensively studied and discussed for many years and it is time to move on. I think I have found the way out of the conundrum and I just have to follow it.
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Israel,
George Ellis pointed me to Feynman's lectures, vol. 2 which refer to vol.1. I should stress that my primary concern is not questioning SR but questioning the related pre-determined from eternity to eternity spacetime. Of course, I realized some moot points.
Feynman considered an absolute frame of reference excluded by the MMX. My Fig. 5, Shtyrkov, etc. may give rise to question this. On the other hand, Feynman begun his explanation of SR with discussing convincing experimental results that can be interpreted either with the formalisms by Lorentz and Einstein or ascribed to a wave-like behavior of fast moving particles but not with traditional Newtonian mechanics.
I see already the idea of two moving relative to each other frames of reference along a common line rather unrealistic. The two origins may first come closer to each other and then move in opposite directions. SR calculates an average Doppler effect.
Einstein postulated constancy for the speed of light with the tacit unrealistic assumption that this c refers to the observer.
What about Einstein synchronization, this might indeed be an impossible task. Could you please point me to an explanation how did you manage reloading the preferred (absolute) frame of reference without denying its opposite: Einstein's postulate of relativity? Maybe you can tell me what it means in detail that the laws of physics must not depend on the chosen frame of reference. I know that Einstein followed a suggestion by Poincaré that all physical laws are invariant under Lorentz transformation.
Isn't a rigid frame of reference unphysical because its arbitrary motion would allow transfer of signals faster than light?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Eckard
I'm not sure if I got your point. I hope the following comments could be useful. As well, you should read the discussion about absolute and relative motion that I had with Daniel Wagner both here in my entry and his. There I exposed the weaknesses of both approaches.
First of all recall that Einstein assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in all inertial...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
I'm not sure if I got your point. I hope the following comments could be useful. As well, you should read the discussion about absolute and relative motion that I had with Daniel Wagner both here in my entry and his. There I exposed the weaknesses of both approaches.
First of all recall that Einstein assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic in all inertial systems of reference. It is said that he considered a particular clock synchronization that left the physical laws invariant under certain transformations (i.e. Lorentz transformations). My reference 17 discusses that the one-way speed of light has not been measured. It also says that to get an accurate clock synchronization it is indispensable to know the one-way speed of light. Thus, it is clear that we are in vicious circle. This technical problem tells us that no experiment can be used to decide in favor of Einstein's theory or any other with different clock synchronization. What we measure is average speeds or round trip speeds. Despite this, any theory should assume that in at least one system of reference Maxwell's laws are valid. This system is the system I called the PSR. Now I explain how the principle of relativity should be understood.
As I argue in my essay, experiments guide us in finding the laws of physics. Experiments represent the "facts", the "observations". But the interpretation of the facts, lately, has become dependent of the theory. An "experimental" fact is nowadays not only an experimental fact but a theoretical fact, a subjective fact because it gains its meaning within the context of a given theoretical and conceptual framework. So, keeping this in mind, we have to understand the following:
Imagine an observer placed at rest in space and let us put a system of reference there which we will call the PSR. This observer wants to find the laws of physics in this system and to do so he has to conduct a series of experiments of several kinds (mechanical, electromagnetic, etc.). After he finishes his experiments he has obtained the data (the facts), he then analyzes the information at hand to find the relationships among the variables. And finally, with a series of assumptions (principles) and his mathematical tools he develops a theory hoping that it will be capable of reproducing the observations. He now wonders which laws of physics would be in another system of reference that moves at constant speed v relative to the PSR. He then builds a ship, put all his instruments in the ship and travels through space at constant speed. He then performs the same experiments as before and repeat the same operations. For his surprise he finds the same correlations and arrived at the same physical laws.Without hesitation he infers that the same laws of nature should be the same in all inertial systems of reference and he proclaims the principle of relativity. In this sense, this is how I argue that the principle of relativity should be understood. The fact that one could not determine the absolute motion of the ship relative to space does not mean that space (or the PSR) does not exist.
If you have noticed, we have another technical problem, the PSR seems to be undetectable although is not physically inconceivable. But as well we have the same problem with the one-way speed of light. This technical issues however should not hold us back from supporting our assumptions, in my case the PSR, in Einstein case, the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Thus, if you have grasped the sketch you should understand how theories are laid down.
Daryl Janzen attempts recocialition of the PSR with relativity for logical reasons. By contrast, although I also consider the PSR for logical arguments, I do not attempt reconciliation with relativity because this theory, by definition, denies per se the PSR, the PRS is not part of the theory. My idea is then to support or build a new theory that assumes the PSR as a fundamental element. One such theory which I sympathize with is Christov's theory. This theory is still incomplete and some improvements has to be worked out.
There is another difference in the way relativity deals with modeling nature. Relativity assumes that space-time exists independent of matter and fields. Fields and matter filled space-time, i.e., fields and matter are placed IN space-time, and by doing so, they modify it. For this reason, it is said that GR is a background independent theory. In contrast, I follow the opposite view. I assume space (the PSR) as a material fluid and particles and fields are states or excitations of the vacuum. Hence this is a background dependent theory. This view can easily reproduce the relativistic effects and account for many other problems in physics.
As to your last question, I don't understand the relation of a rigid frame of reference with the faster than light signals. Could you elaborate more.
I hope these comments had been useful.
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Israel,
Why didn't you quote Christov in your essay if you are sympathizing with his theory?
He wrote: "The Effect of the Relative Motion of Atoms on the Frequency of the Emitted Light and the Reinterpretation of the Ives-Stilwell Experiment" in Found. Phys., 40 (2010), 575–584.
He also wrote what I quoted, and he wrote: "Frame indifferent formulation of Maxwell’s elastic-fluid model and the rational continuum mechanics of the electromagnetic field" in www.elsevier.com/locate/mechrescom.
I have to admit that I mistook you. When you defended relativity, you meant the Galilean principle, not Einstein's generalization of it. I only do not yet understand why you seem to question the idea that the PSR is the absolute space. Well there are various alternatives including Pashsky, Rashevski, Marinov, Tangherlini, and Selleri. I have to admit, being not yet sure myself. I naively imagine that Galilei's relativity does not apply for electromagnetic fields propagating into the unlimited space is different from the encapsulated view of Galileo's ship without windows.
You asked why I consider an infinitely extended rigid frame of reference unphysical. I consider even the cosine function and the harmonic oscillator merely approximations to aspects of reality. Imagine a rigid body of 600,000 km length shifted within one second. This would transfer an action twice as fast as light.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Eckard
I didn't mention Christov's works, because the topic I deal with doesn't demand his citation or quotation.
You: I have to admit that I mistook you. When you defended relativity, you meant the Galilean principle, not Einstein's generalization of it.
This paragraph tells me that you are not understanding my ideas. Your statement is a misunderstanding. One can talk...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
I didn't mention Christov's works, because the topic I deal with doesn't demand his citation or quotation.
You: I have to admit that I mistook you. When you defended relativity, you meant the Galilean principle, not Einstein's generalization of it.
This paragraph tells me that you are not understanding my ideas. Your statement is a misunderstanding. One can talk of three principles of relativity: The Galilean principle, the principle of relativity and the generalized principle of relativity. The Galilean principle only applies for Newtonian mechanics. I do not defend the Galilean principle. The fact that I talk about the absolute frame of reference or the PSR does not mean I am talking about the Galilean principle. The second one applies for special relativity and the third one for general relativity. What I support is the idea that the same laws of physics should be find anywhere and at any time, that is, if I carry out an experiment here and right now and somebody else in another part of the universe moving or not relative to me also right now carries out the same experiment, he would find the same laws of physics. This is the generalized principle of relativity. In my essay I argue that there should exist a PSR to which we can relate all motions. But I know that relativity theory is a theory that does not accept PSRs, therefore I have to find another theory where I can put the PSR. This theory is a theory in which we assume that space is a material fluid. Any body in motion relative to this material space undergoes length contraction and time dilation. Christov's theory renames the generalized principle of relativity as the principle of frame indifference because he's dealing with another theory in which there exists a PSR (the material space itself) but the idea of invariance or covariance is the same as in the case of relativity (the laws of physics should be the same for all observers) although the approach he followed is dynamical (as Lorentz did) and not geometrical as relativity does.
You: I only do not yet understand why you seem to question the idea that the PSR is the absolute space. Well there are various alternatives including Pashsky, Rashevski, Marinov, Tangherlini, and Selleri.
These authors also provide a geometrical interpretation of space (an empty arena) and hence their approach doesn't differ considerably from the interpretation of space given by relativity. For instance, Marinov transformations reduce to Tangherlini transformation for a given selection of the constants. From the perspective of Tangherlini theory, it is assumed that space is a geometrical flat empty container (similar to Newtonian space that is mathematically represented by Euclidean geometry) and then a reference frame is placed at rest relative to this space. In this theory this system of reference is the PSR and, similar to SR, the length contraction or time dilation are nothing but kinematical effects. On the contrary, Christov's theory models space as a material fluid, and therefore, in analogy with Lorentz' aether theory, length contraction and time dilation are not kinematical but dynamical effects. Can you see the great difference between both approaches and how reality is modeled in each case?
You: I have to admit, being not yet sure myself. I naively imagine that Galilei's relativity does not apply for electromagnetic fields propagating into the unlimited space is different from the encapsulated view of Galileo's ship without windows.
Indeed, the Galiean principle of relativity is incompatible with the laws of electrodynamics. Here there is no point of discussion.
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...
view entire post
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Israel,
After noticing some interesting comments of yours on another thread, I was drawn to read your essay. I must congratulate you on an excellent submission! I have a few comments and questions.
Let me first remark that while I don’t dispute your arguments for treating the existence of the PSR as “not an issue of parsimony but of usefulness,” I believe that there...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
After noticing some interesting comments of yours on another thread, I was drawn to read your essay. I must congratulate you on an excellent submission! I have a few comments and questions.
Let me first remark that while I don’t dispute your arguments for treating the existence of the PSR as “not an issue of parsimony but of usefulness,” I believe that there are good reasons, particularly in regard to the possibility of spacetime microstructure, to reinterpret the principle of covariance in such a way that the assumption that “all (suitable) frames of reference are created equal” is not only “not useful,” as you characterize it, but actually “false.”
1. Regarding your distinction among true, false, and useful assumptions, would you agree that an assumption that is “useful” for the purposes of one theory might be “false” for a more refined theory? For example, you mention the unsettled (and possibly unsettle-able) question of whether the universe is infinite, and in many contexts, the answer to this question is irrelevant to the derived predictions. However, there are discrete theories that use the assumption of a finite universe to try to predict the small nonzero observed value of the cosmological constant, and for these theories, the answer is not irrelevant. Similarly, for your other example of time-reversibility, some theories of spacetime microstructure require a fundamental local “arrow of time” and others require its absence (examples of both appear in this essay contest!)
2. I think we can agree that one of the most “useful” assumptions since the beginning of the scientific revolution has been the smooth manifold structure of space/spacetime. However, I believe that this assumption may be nearing the end of its usefulness. Riemann himself did not take this assumption for granted, and my own opinion is that it has persisted largely because the associated mathematical tools were quickly developed and reasonably tractable. Information-theoretic, order-theoretic, category-theoretic and graph-theoretic constructs, for instance, were largely inaccessible or nonexistent at the time.
3. It is possible to reinterpret the principle of covariance in the following way. In relativity there is a local causal order (partial order) on Minkowski spacetime defined by light cones. A given event succeeds the events in its past light cone, precedes the events in its future light cone, and is unrelated to the events outside its light cone (which is why the order is only “partial”). A frame of reference imposes a time order, which is a refinement of the causal order; in this refined order a given event either succeeds or precedes every other event except those in the same “spacelike section.” Traditionally, a frame of reference is given by a coordinate system, and two (inertial) frames of reference are related by a Lorentz transformation. However, this requires the manifold structure to persist down to arbitrarily small scales. In many theories of quantum gravity, there is a nonmanifold spacetime microstructure, and frames of reference can no longer be viewed in this way. However, order-theoretic ideas still apply as long as there is a causal order, and a “generalized frame of reference” may be defined simply as a refinement of the causal order. The point of all this is that even if one restricts to refinements “resembling” inertial frames in relativity, it will usually no longer be true that all such frames are “created equal.” For instance, arbitrary boosts may be problematic. Theories that exhibit some of these features include causal sets, causal dynamical triangulations, and deformed special relativity (DSR).
4. When you mention “dark matter” (section III part A) you suggest that this phenomenon is an aspect or property of spacetime. Now, I lean toward the same view, but my impression is that the mainstream view still regards dark matter as simply particles that don’t interact electromagnetically. Is your statement here deliberately at odds with the mainstream view, or am I misinterpreting your statement?
5. I agree with your analysis that the concept of the “aether” would likely have been merely “reinterpreted” or “refined” rather than discarded if various high-energy and cosmological phenomena had been recognized at an earlier date.
6. The ideas you present in section IV B may be radical, but are certainly worthy of serious consideration. Of course, this would require more details than one can be expected to present in a short essay!
Thanks for the great read! Take care,
Ben Dribus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Benjamin
Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:
In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a...
view entire post
Dear Benjamin
Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:
In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a metaphysical character and therefore they could be outside of any experimental verification. But, on the other hand, by applying the laws of logic along with its criteria and methods one can "proof" whether they are right or wrong. So, I would answer your question with a "yes".
The issue of the finiteness of the universe has some different connotations depending on the meaning of the word "infinite". One can deal with these concepts in either physical terms or mathematical ones. For example, some people consider that the surface of the earth is infinite because it is "unbounded" (despite that we know that in 3D space it is finite). This concept is extrapolated to the universe in order to justify the possibility of its infiniteness. However, when I refer to an infinite universe, I mean in the Euclidean sense. As we all realize we do not even have a intuitive idea of what we mean when we say that a particle is placed at an infinite distance. Despite this, as I argue in my essay, for the purposes of modeling one can make the assumption that the universe is either finite or infinite (even though the experimental verification of the latter may not be feasible) as long as this assumption is useful to solve the problems under consideration.
As to points 2-6 my comments are these:
Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) founded on a certain number of useful assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the problems may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An examples that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether (PSR). Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field is a state of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in his time, has led physics to the present state: Big bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these matters are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.
After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is not emptiness but a massive fluid with an internal structure (and thus a PSR), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different (in some cases, the problems do not even exist). So, inevitably this view rejects relativity altogether (I hope I have answered your questions, in particular that one from point 4). But, the fact that relativity is rejected does not mean that Lorentz covariance is rejected. You may recall that Lorentz developed a theory based on the existence of the aether from which he derived Lorentz symmetry. This teaches us that Lorentz covariance is an emergent property of space (understanding space as a material fluid). So, in a certain sense we are replacing SR by Lorentz' theory. The former has no PSR whereas the latter does.
There is a more developed theory [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to solve most problems in physics. IMO, this is the right theory, but, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I think I have found a consistent TF that is not only in agreement with the body of evidence but with intuition too.
I hope I have answered some of your questions.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Dear Benjamin
Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:
In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a...
view entire post
Dear Benjamin
Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay, I appreciate it very much. Concerning your point 1 I have to say the following:
In a logical construct (a theory) I would prefer to replace the words "true" or "false" by "right" or "wrong". This is one of the distinctions that K. Popper remarked in his works in view of the fact that sometimes assumptions have a metaphysical character and therefore they could be outside of any experimental verification. But, on the other hand, by applying the laws of logic along with its criteria and methods one can "proof" whether they are right or wrong. So, I would answer your question with a "yes".
The issue of the finiteness of the universe has some different connotations depending on the meaning of the word "infinite". One can deal with these concepts in either physical terms or mathematical ones. For example, some people consider that the surface of the earth is infinite because it is "unbounded" (despite that we know that in 3D space it is finite). This concept is extrapolated to the universe in order to justify the possibility of its infiniteness. However, when I refer to an infinite universe, I mean in the Euclidean sense. As we all realize we do not even have a intuitive idea of what we mean when we say that a particle is placed at an infinite distance. Despite this, as I argue in my essay, for the purposes of modeling one can make the assumption that the universe is either finite or infinite (even though the experimental verification of the latter may not be feasible) as long as this assumption is useful to solve the problems under consideration.
As to points 2-6 my comments are these:
Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) founded on a certain number of useful assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the problems may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An examples that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether (PSR). Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field is a state of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in his time, has led physics to the present state: Big bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these matters are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.
After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is not emptiness but a massive fluid with an internal structure (and thus a PSR), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different (in some cases, the problems do not even exist). So, inevitably this view rejects relativity altogether (I hope I have answered your questions, in particular that one from point 4). But, the fact that relativity is rejected does not mean that Lorentz covariance is rejected. You may recall that Lorentz developed a theory based on the existence of the aether from which he derived Lorentz symmetry. This teaches us that Lorentz covariance is an emergent property of space (understanding space as a material fluid). So, in a certain sense we are replacing SR by Lorentz' theory. The former has no PSR whereas the latter does.
There is a more developed theory [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to solve most problems in physics. IMO, this is the right theory, but, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I think I have found a consistent TF that is not only in agreement with the body of evidence but with intuition too.
I hope I have answered some of your questions.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thanks, I understand better now. You characterize your approach as "radical," but without radical ideas, we'd never get anywhere. I wish you the best of success with your work! Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Dear Israel,
You have written an interesting and important essay. I very much like the way in which you clarify concepts up front and then argue in those terms. Such philosophical discipline is too often neglected by theorists. Your argument shows the power of this approach.
I support your defence of space as a material medium, and particularly liked your inference that "the warping of space can be physically reinterpreted as the change in the density of the material medium". The model that Julie and I defend in
our essay is consistent with such a view - we argued that space is a kind of material substance which can interconvert with an even more fundamental substance we call "energeum", and argue that "dark energy" is the result of energeum converting into space. The reverse transaction, of space locally converting into energeum would allow for space to have a physically effective variable density, which can present mathematically as a 'warp in space' just as you propose.
I enjoyed reading your essay, and hope you will find ours interesting too. Good luck in the competition!
Best regards,
David
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear David
Thank you for reading my essays and for your stimulating comments. Indeed, modern physics have neglected philosophy as a tool to create theories. But the fruitless attempts of the last 30 years have been a lesson for physicists to recognized that philosophy based on analysis and intuition has a very important role to play in science. I think this is one of the reasons of this contest (Most of the organizers of the FQXi project share the view the physicists should recover the old way of doing physics). Vesselin Pektov (one of the contestants) has recently inaugurated the Herman Minkowski Institute at Montreal. The aim of this institute is to do physics including analytical and philosophical reasoning. These events reflect the recognition that the way of doing physics today is leading to a dead end.
I follow the traditional way of doing physics. This approach has led me to understand the problems from another perspective and some of the consequences are laid down in my works. I am sure you will find very interesting my previous essay where I exposed my deepest notions about the universe (space, time, etc). Probably you will find a relation with your view.
With respect to the notion of space and some of its consequences, please take a look at my reply to Benjamin Dribus above and my discussion with Daniel Wagner in both of our entries. Also check the discussion I had with Daryl Janzen in his entry and mine where I defend the view that the expansion of the universe could be a mere illusion just as dark matter, dark energy, the Big bang, etc. These are the results of the General theory of relativity which denies space as a substance. If one assume that space is a material fluid, one is contradicting relativity. Thus, either we keep relativity or we drop it altogether.
Best Regards
Israel
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Hello Israel. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am doing my best to read as much essays as I can.
best luck in the contest
Israel
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel Perez,
I agree with most of the readers’ comments about your very well presented essay. However, the aspect that is of fundamental importance in it is that it lays the basis for a full blown critique of physics as it has evolved and thereby providing us with a handle to address the prevailing crisis. This is where I find your essay to be most valuable.
This does...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Israel Perez,
I agree with most of the readers’ comments about your very well presented essay. However, the aspect that is of fundamental importance in it is that it lays the basis for a full blown critique of physics as it has evolved and thereby providing us with a handle to address the prevailing crisis. This is where I find your essay to be most valuable.
This does not mean that I am in full agreement with everything that is stated in your essay. It is quite understandable that you were not able to express everything relevant that you wished to express within the 25,000 character limitation and thereby there would be obvious gaps (as it would be the case in all essays in the competition). In my view we can begin the critique of physics as it has hitherto developed, by starting with a discussion of some of the gaps and understatements in your own essay.
One of the very important matters that I feel that I differ is your statement: “It is worth elucidating the fact that the special RT has ONLY ONE POSTULATE, i.e., the PR, since the second one is already implicit in the first one”.
Actually, according to Einstein SRT has not two but THREE POSTULATES. It is true that in the 1905 paper, Einstein states only two postulates. And he states that these two are “irreconcilable”. If they are irreconcilable from the point of view of the creator of the theory himself, then WE MUST UNDERSTAND that there must be something deeper in the STRUCTURE of the Relativity Principle (RP) which the popular notion of it (as the mere equivalence of all ISR) does not reveal to us in a naïve interpretation of it. Therefore, it is apparent that your statement that the principle of the velocity of light (PCVL) is IMPLICIT in the PR deems to be incorrect.
This position of Einstein that the first two postulates are in contradiction with one another is something that Einstein never changed, but surely it would have bugged him, how to find a way to transcend this contradiction. 44 years later, when he wrote his Autobigraphy (in 1949), he wrote: “The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME.”(1, p. 55).
So it is by the introduction of the THIRD POSTULATE he claims that the contradiction of the first two gets reconciled. However, we are still in the dark as to what this contradiction is.
What is this contradiction? In which way does PVCL contradict PR?
In place of Lorentz’ proposition that a moving body contracts by the ‘Lorentz factor’, Einstein’s position was that the space (of the frame CO-MOVING with the object) contracts and the time in that frame dilates by that factor. Now along with it there is also a velocity transformation that occurs by the same facctor. Why? (For the sake of clarity, let us discuss in concrete terms of a particle moving relative to earth since all experiments human beings have ever done, have been done on earth).
According to Newton’s second law, if a force F imparts a velocity v, when a force gamma.F is applied, it has to impart a velocity of gamma.v. But it is found that when gamma.F is applied the velocity (in the first approximation) is v (relative to earth). So in order to circumvent this problem SRT’s position amounts to the following. Although from the observer’s frame (earth) the velocity ought to be gamma.v, in the ISR co-moving with the particle the force and the velocity get scaled down by the factor gamma, and the velocity in that frame turns out to be v. It is by this scaling down of velocity which is structured into RP that LP are found to be the same in all ISR.
Then this poses a problem in regard to the motion of a photon. Can we apply the same principle of scaling down by the gamma-factor to the motion of a photon? In the frame co-moving with the photon the contraction factor is (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. So RP cannot be applied to the motion of photons. This is why to two postulates are contradictory.
SRT has never explained how the Lorentz transformation reconciles this contradiction between the other two postulates as it claims. It is a pure bluff. This is why what it cannot explain or prove it has wriggled out by postulating.
I have mentioned above that in the “first approximation”, it appears that gamma.F imparts a velocity v in the frame co-moving with the particle. This is because, when the displacement is measured, it is not found to be x = vt (as in classical mechanics), but it is x’ = gamma’.(x –ut) where u is the velocity of earth’s orbit. Note that gamma’ here is not a function of v (the supposed velocity of the particle) but a function of the earth’s velocity; gamma’ = 1/(1 – u2/c2)1/2. How this difference in the displacement occurs is a matter that needs to be explained. Instead Einstein postulates what needs to be explained and in the process pretends that the contradiction of the first two postulates is solved by this postulation.
Now there is a very interesting point that needs to be pursued. Einstein has stated that the contradiction is solved by “relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME.”
Now it has to be clear that the linch-pin that holds SRT together is the position that both co-ordinates and TIME are converted in accordance with LT.
In a laboratory on earth when the displacement of a fast moving particle is measured we get x’ = gamma(x –ut) instead of x = vt. This can happen by the velocity v having got reduced for some dynamic reason to v’ = gamma(c-u). Then, x’ = v’t. However, if this is admitted it would immediately contradict that LP are the same in all ISR. To uphold this, it requires to insist the x’ = vt’ (i.e. time unit changes while the velocity remains invariant). Then it can be claimed that LP remain the same, and thereby the velocity remains the same at v, and at the same time in the frame co-moving with the particle, the time changes to t’ = gamma(t – ux/c2).
But there is one hitch here which SRT cannot escape from. The displacement is measured as x’=gamma(x –ut) relative to the lab-frame on earth using the ‘meter-stick’ of the lab. Then the time t’ = gamma(t –ux/c2) too must be measured by the laboratory clock. But this clock does not give this time as SRT claims.
I asked Dr. George Ellis (and two other relativists too) during the past weeks, whether there has been a single experiment that has confirmed LT time conversion equation t’ = gamma(t- ux/c2)against a measured displacement of x’ = gamma(x –ut).
They very confidently pointed to the time dilation equation t’ = t/(1 – v2/c2)1/2 which is the wrong answer.
For instance George Ellis: “Yes - THE DECAY OF COSMIC RAY PARTICLES. This is discussed in most standard texts on special relativity, for example Flat and Curved Spacetimes (Ellis and Williams)”.
(They are not even aware that there are TWO DIFFERENT TIME EQUATIONS are involved with SRT. Or more likely they conveniently forget this thorny issue).
Anyway when I persisted with Dr. Ellis for him to provide me with an answer whether LT time equation has been verified by even a single experiment, he wrote:
“I have no intention of reading in detail this or any of the other hundreds or so papers per year trying to show special relativity wrong. I have scanned your paper briefly and YES I AGREE THAT THAT SPECIFIC EQUATION PER SE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED but time dilation has, which is its core element. The whole point however is that SR is a TIGHTLY INTEGRATED PACKAGE which is the foundational basis of present day particle physics and has been verified by many millions of experiments”.
I attach and extract of the discussion with Dr. Ellis for your reference.
The next point I would like to discuss, is how faith and belief in SRT is maintained by reference a “TIGHTLY INTEGRATED PACKAGE”, which have nothing to do with the space-time theory, but a set of empirical equations elicited by iterations of data (independent of the theory), and which empirical equation are reconfirmed by repeated experiments.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
DISCUSSION_WITH_ELLIS.doc
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Viraj
Thank you for reading my essay and for your well-thought comments. This time I have been very busy with my work here at the university, and I hadn't had a opportunity to reply some of the post in my entry. After analyzing the foundations of relativity I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories....
view entire post
Dear Viraj
Thank you for reading my essay and for your well-thought comments. This time I have been very busy with my work here at the university, and I hadn't had a opportunity to reply some of the post in my entry. After analyzing the foundations of relativity I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories. People wonder which theory, GR or QM, is wrong. I have reached the realization that background dependence is an essential ingredient of a theory. So, GR should be modified or replaced in the future. I came to the conclusion that the flaw of relativity is the lack of a PSR for once we reintroduce it the inherent perplexities of the theory vanish. However, I am aware that relativity will not embrace a PSR and therefore one should build a new theory with different pillars in which space seen as material fluid is the fundamental postulate. From this postulate one can derive Lorentz symmetry and reproduce the predictions of relativity.
There is a well developed theory that I am supporting [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to explain most physical phenomena (IMO, this is the right approach). This theory is in need of further improvements and experimental verification. But, unfortunately, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view, in particular, it contradicts the background independence of relativity. Despite this, I think I have found a consistent theoretical framework and for the future my task, as a physicist, is to show that this is the right direction.
As Ellis argues, there is no experiment contradicting relativity (special or general) and therefore it turns out to be futile trying to disprove it. The theory makes the correct mathematical predictions but, from my view, not the most cogent physical interpretations. So, if we have identified its Achilles' heel, from my part, I have nothing more to say about relativity. We should, instead, move on. This is how science works. What we should do is to seek for new foundations and build a new theory that in a given limit reproduces the empirical observations as relativity does.
I don't see the two postulates irreconcilable because, as I said, there is only one postulate, the PR. Einstein considered them as irreconcilable although it is not clear why. It is clear that there is no need of introducing the second postulate for it is already implicit in Maxwell equations. The "deeper structure" that I can see is the PSR, that there is medium for light, space itself.
You: In place of Lorentz' proposition that a moving body contracts by the 'Lorentz factor', Einstein's position was that the space contracts and the time in that frame dilates by that factor.
Well, to be honest in his article of 1905, Einstein interpreted Lorentz contraction as if objects really contract and as if clocks really dilate. The interpretation that space contracts and the time dimension dilates came later when Minkowski introduced its space-time, later Einstein had to support this mathematical interpretation to keep up with the mathematical trend.
You: Then this poses a problem in regard to the motion of a photon. Can we apply the same principle of scaling down by the gamma-factor to the motion of a photon? In the frame co-moving with the photon the contraction factor is (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. So RP cannot be applied to the motion of photons. This is why to two postulates are contradictory.
Here you are assuming that light is a particle like any other and thus you attached a frame of reference to it with the aim of evaluating the physics in this system of reference that moves at the speed v=c. At this speed relativity breaks down completely and nothing can be said about the physics. It is not clear to me why you claim that the postulates are contradictory.
You also say: But there is one hitch here which SRT cannot escape from. The displacement is measured as x'=gamma(x-ut) relative to the lab-frame on earth using the 'meter-stick' of the lab. Then the time t'=gamma(t-ux/c2) too must be measured by the laboratory clock. But this clock does not give this time as SRT claims. I asked Dr. George Ellis (and two other relativists too) during the past weeks, whether there has been a single experiment that has confirmed LT time conversion equation t'= gamma(t-ux/c2)against a measured displacement of x'=gamma(x-ut).
Well, I am sure if I get your point, but if I do, as I argue in my essay, the one-way velocity of any physical entity cannot be measured, we only measured averages. So, when we measure a distance, the measurement of distance takes a time interval. The equations assume points in space and time, whereas in reality we can only measure time and space intervals. The theory assumes a set of synchronous clocks placed at each point a long a system of reference and considers that space intervals are measured simultaneously (which in practice is not true) and that time intervals are measured in the same space location (which is not also true if the earth moves through space). Perhaps my reference 17 could help you understand this problem better.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:59 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Frank Ullmann wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Israel,
I just realized that the link (in my post) to my essay did not work. So:
About the length of world lines … (my essay)
I would be happy to hear what you think about it.
Kind regards,
Frank
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:39 GMT
Hi Israel,
Many physicists seem to go back and reconsider PSR, for various reasons, mostly related to quantum theory. It would not be the first case in which an apparently perfect symmetry is broken, the most clear in my opinion is that of the electroweak force. It is good to challenge this from time to time. Your essay is very beautifully written.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear Cristinel
Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. After analyzing the foundations of physics I have understood that the criterion that will decide the future of theoretical physics is the background dependence of theories. People wonder which theory, GR or QM, is wrong. I found that background dependence is an essential ingredient of a theory. So, GR should be modified.
Good luck in the contest!
Israel
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 02:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
I would like to draw your attention to my post above of Oct 03, with refer to your essay.
I hope you would find the time to address the matters raised.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez.
I appreciate from your other posts too that you have a very busy schedule with the University, but still you somehow find the time to answer the posts as comprehensively as possible.
I have to bring to your notice, that you have mixed up my arguments against SRT on the basis of Einstein’s own positions, and your answers have been as if they are my positions. I...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Perez.
I appreciate from your other posts too that you have a very busy schedule with the University, but still you somehow find the time to answer the posts as comprehensively as possible.
I have to bring to your notice, that you have mixed up my arguments against SRT on the basis of Einstein’s own positions, and your answers have been as if they are my positions. I would like to clear this misunderstanding.
First of all, I would like to let you know I have my own positions which are different from SRT. Incidentally, I read somewhere, that you tried to develop a thermodynamic- like theory without space-time. This is very interesting to me. I would like to refer you to my essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 . Therein I have developed such a theory. I have shown that in all interactions field energy is involved and energy moves in to one part of the system from the field while energy moves out from another part of the system to the field. What if what I call field energy is what you call ‘aether’? I have avoided even suggesting terms like ‘aether’ or ZPF because the readers would at once associate these terms with their pre-conconceived notions and prejudices. (I also attach the Word.doc of my paper because the diagrams have not come out well in the pdf version in FQXi site)
Now to respond to your comments:
(1)
Viraj wrote: “Then this poses a problem in regard to the motion of a photon. Can we apply the same principle of scaling down by the gamma-factor to the motion of a photon? In the frame co-moving with the photon the contraction factor is (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. So RP cannot be applied to the motion of photons. This is why to two postulates are contradictory”.
You replied: “Here you are assuming that light is a particle like any other and thus you attached a frame of reference to it with the aim of evaluating the physics in this system of reference that moves at the speed v=c. At this speed relativity breaks down completely and nothing can be said about the physics. It is not clear to me why you claim that the postulates are contradictory”.
Viraj writing: I am not assuming that “light is a particle” but it is Einstein who does. So from HIS stand point the contraction factor becomes (1- c2/c2)1/2 = 0. Therefore from Einstein’s standpoint RP cannot be applied to motions of photons. And this is why from Einstein’s standpoint the two postulates are contradictory.
(2)
Viraj wrote: “But there is one hitch here which SRT cannot escape from. The displacement is measured as x'=gamma(x-ut) relative to the lab-frame on earth using the 'meter-stick' of the lab. Then the time t'=gamma(t-ux/c2) too must be measured by the laboratory clock. But this clock does not give this time as SRT claims. I asked Dr. George Ellis (and two other relativists too) during the past weeks, whether there has been a single experiment that has confirmed LT time conversion equation t'= gamma(t-ux/c2)against a measured displacement of x'=gamma(x-ut)”.
You wrote: “Well, I am sure if I get your point, but if I do, as I argue in my essay, the one-way velocity of any physical entity cannot be measured, we only measured averages. So, when we measure a distance, the measurement of distance takes a time interval. The equations assume points in space and time, whereas in reality we can only measure time and space intervals. The theory assumes a set of synchronous clocks placed at each point a long a system of reference and considers that space intervals are measured simultaneously (which in practice is not true) and that time intervals are measured in the same space location (which is not also true if the earth moves through space). Perhaps my reference 17 could help you understand this problem better”.
Viraj writing: You have completely missed my point. As you also say in your essay, Science is a human endeavour. Further we human beings have conducted experiments only on earth. So any abstractions we do in formulating theory must first of all be in strict conformity with the concrete experiments we have conducted on earth.
In the light of the above, Einstein’s following statement must be testable against experiments conducted on earth.
“The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME.”(1, p. 55).
In this regard let us take the CERN experiment on the delay in decay time of a muon. The muon decays when at rest in the lab in time t (= 2.2 microseconds). Then when it is set in motion, it takes a time t’ to decay. We measure the space interval (displacement) from the point of birth of the muon to the point of decay.
The displacement is given by: x’ = gamma’(x – ut) (where u = 30 km/s –EARTH’S ORBITAL VELOCITY and gamma’ = 1/ (1-u2/c2)1/2
So if Einstein’s above contention is correct when the muon has moved a displacement x’ the time has to be t’ = gamma’(t – ux/c2).
This equation can be re-written as t’ = t [(c-u)/(c+u)]1/2
Clearly in this case t’ IS LESS THAN t !!!.
But the actual time measured is given by t’ = Gamma.t where Gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2. where v = the VELOCITY OF THE PARTICLE.
Here clearly t’ IS GREATER THAN t. !!!!
For instance it is found that t is 2.2 microseconds, and when the muon moves at a velocity 0.9 c, t’ = 5.04 microseconds.
The Lorentz transformation is considered as the heart of SRT, because iti s by the strength of this that the relativists vouch for it by saying that “in the millions of particle physics experiments it has been confirmed”. By this what they mean is the displacement. They conveniently forget that for SRT to be validated both x’ and t’ must me experimentally conformed.
It turns out that LT is not the heart, but its Achilles heel. If SRT is correct the same experiments that conform x’ must also confirm the CORRESPONDING t’.
By the way I have explained how the delay in decay time of a muon and an atomic clock slows down in orbit in my essay.
BTW: just as a passing comment, you would agree that every theory evolves. It does not matter whether Einstein in his 1905 paper held the view that lengths of bodies contract in the same manner as Lorentz. What the relativists now accept as SRT’s position is what matters.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
13_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 21:17 GMT
Dear Viraj
Thanks for your reply and your interest.
You: What if what I call field energy is what you call 'aether'? I have avoided even suggesting terms like 'aether or ZPF because the readers would at once associate these terms with their pre-conconceived notions and prejudices.
Well, you may be interested in reading my essay from the previous contest where I discuss my...
view entire post
Dear Viraj
Thanks for your reply and your interest.
You: What if what I call field energy is what you call 'aether'? I have avoided even suggesting terms like 'aether or ZPF because the readers would at once associate these terms with their pre-conconceived notions and prejudices.
Well, you may be interested in reading my essay from the previous contest where I discuss my philosophical view of what the stuff the universe is made of. There I proposed that matter can be considered as the most fundamental substance. It could also be energy but energy is generally believed to be a derived entity. In fact, the name for me turns out to be irrelevant although I agree with you that its acceptance could be greatly influenced by preconceived prejudices. In any case, what matters is that we all agree in the same notion.
With respect to your point (2) and your calculations. I notice two issues: First, I do not understand why your are considering three systems of reference. The system of the sun (because you are considering the orbital velocity u of the earth), the system of the earth (the lab frame) and the system of the particle (the muon). So, since experiments are conducted on earth, the system of the sun has nothing to do with this problem. We just have to consider two systems of reference, the lab system and the particle system.
The second issue is that you are misunderstanding the problem and your approach to make the calculation of time intervals is incorrect. I am going to make the calculations step by step to show you that there is no conflict with time measurements.
Imagine that we have two systems of reference, one the unprimed system attached to the earth (lab) and the other, the primed system, attached to the particle. Assume for simplicity that the particle is placed at the origin of coordinates. Then, let us assume first, that the muon is at rest relative to the lab. This means that both systems of reference are at rest with respect to each other. Then we measure the time interval dt that it takes for the muon to decay and we obtain dt=2.2 ms. This is the decay time as measured in both systems since they are at rest relative to each other.
Now assume that the muon is moving at speed v relative to the lab and we on the lab want to measure again the decay time Dt. Suppose that we synchronize the clocks of both systems such when we start to measure, our clocks read t_0=t'_0=0 and our rulers read x'_0=x_0=0. Then at a later time t_1 the muon decays. So the decay time Dt in the lab is Dt= t_1-t_0=t_1 and his position at the moment of decay is x_1. Thus, the space interval as determined in the lab is Dx=x_1-x_0=x_1. Remember that dt and Dt are the decay times of the muon at rest and in motion, respectively, as determined in the lab system. So, when the muon is in motion we would expect (due to time dilation) that Dt would be greater than dt. Let us understand this.
The next step is to calculate the decay time in the system of reference of the muon, that is, the system of reference where now the muon is at rest. For this we use the transformations equations: t'_0=gamma(t_0-vx_0/c2) and t'_1=gamma(t_1-vx_1/c2), where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v2/c2). Hence the time interval in the system of the muon is: Dt'=t'_1-t'_0=t'_1=gamma(t_1-vx_1/c2), and since x_1=vt_1 we have that Dt'=gamma(t_1-v2t_1/c2). Factoring out t_1=Dt we have Dt'=gammaDt(1-v2/c2); and considering that (1-v2/c2)=gamma^(-2) we finally arrive at the famous expression for time dilation: Dt'=gamma^(-1)Dt. Since gamma^(-1) is less than 1, Dt' is less than Dt as we expected. This means that the decay time in the system where the particle is at rest is smaller than in the lab system in which the particle is in motion. There is no conflict and relativity is in agreement with experience. By measuring time dilation we are testing the transformation expression t'=gamma(t-vx/c2).
Now I point out your mistake in the calculations.
You say: ... the time has to be t'=gamma'(t-ux/c2).
First from here I can infer that you consider that t' is the time as measured on earth (the lab frame) because you use u which is the speed of the earth relative to the system of reference attached to the sun. But later you say:
"t' = Gamma.t where Gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2. where v = the VELOCITY OF THE PARTICLE"
Actually, in this case t' corresponds to the frame of the particle but you do not specify if v is the speed relative to the system of the sun or the earth. Implicitly it seems that you are considering v relative to the earth.
I notice another mistake. In your calculations it seems that you assumed that x=ut. Following your line of thought, then replacing this expression in t'= gamma'(t- ux/c2) we have that t'=gamma't(1-u2/c2) and since (1-u2/c2)=gamma'^(-2) we arrive again at time dilation: t'=tgamma'^(-1). So, your expression below is wrong, it does not follow:
"This equation can be re-written as t'= t [(c-u)/(c+u)]1/2."
It is also wrong because you are considering the orbital speed u of the earth with respect to sun. This, as I just showed you, is irrelevant for the problem. The system of reference attached to the sun it is unnecessary for the calculations in this particular problem.
I hope you have understood your mistake. I will take a look at your treatise and if I have any comment I will let you know.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
Thanks for your lengthy reply. However, I am surprised that you, as a proponent of the Preferred Reference Frame, are not familiar with Lorentz’ FINDING of a term involving EARTH’S MOTION, in his 1904 paper in the equation he empirically discerned which we now call the “Lorentz transformation”.
Please do not misunderstand that I do not appreciate the fact that...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Perez,
Thanks for your lengthy reply. However, I am surprised that you, as a proponent of the Preferred Reference Frame, are not familiar with Lorentz’ FINDING of a term involving EARTH’S MOTION, in his 1904 paper in the equation he empirically discerned which we now call the “Lorentz transformation”.
Please do not misunderstand that I do not appreciate the fact that you have gone out of your way to explain what you thought were my mistakes. I do appreciate it very much. However, if you refer to Lorentz’ above the paper, you would find out that all the alleged mistakes you attribute to me are in fact not so. I go by the fact stated therein. They are “mistakes” when viewed through the distorted lens of SRT’s deliberate misinterpretations, which you unfortunately seem to quite unconsciously hold through your early education, (although presently on the surface you want to challenge SRT and you think that your views are radical).
The mistakes you attribute to me are:
(1) That I consider 3 frames.
Actually, if you look at my essay, which is developed in TD style, there are no frames.
But if I were to interpret it classically there are only two frames. There is no frame attached to the particle. Particle moves relative to the lab frame (actually ECIF), and ECIF moves relative to the frame of the sun. (You may recall, what is now called a ’frame’, was called by Newton a ‘place’. The ultimate moving body in a problem is not considered the ‘place’ by any means, but the body on which the first body is located is the ‘place’ (See, Principia p.9). And there is a hierarchy of such places. But the body in motion is never considered as its own place. To consider the moving body has a frame attached, in which the body is at rest is a deliberate screw up by SRT to wriggle out of the contradiction it falls into by distorting the Galilean principle of relativity and making all ISR to be equivalent. (I have explained this in my essay).
You wrote:“So, since experiments are conducted on earth, the system of the sun has nothing to do with this problem. We just have to consider two systems of reference, the lab system and the particle system”.
Do you know what the whole problem of LT is all about?
When analyzing data of Kaufman’s experiments conducted on earth, LORENTZ FOUND THAT THERE IS A TERM INVOLVING MOTION OF THE EARTH RELATIVE TO THE SUN!!! Please have a look at Lorentz 1904 paper (the very first paragraph).
“The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)
Do you still say that the system of the sun is not involved? When the displacement of an electron in Kaufman’s experiments conducted on earth is found to have a term involving earth’s motion, what makes you think that the displacement of a muon in CERN experiment (conducted on earth) does not have a term involving earth’s motion?
How can you categorically say: “It [t'= t [(c-u)/(c+u)]1/2] is also wrong because you are considering the orbital speed u of the earth with respect to sun. This, as I just showed you, is irrelevant for the problem. The system of reference attached to the sun it is unnecessary for the calculations in this particular problem”?.
(2) You say: “The second issue is that you are misunderstanding the problem and your approach to make the calculation of time intervals is incorrect. I am going to make the calculations step by step to show you that there is no conflict with time measurements”.
What you have done, is you have exactly repeated the Relativists’ stratagem to conceal, that there are two contradictory time equations involved, in SRT. A) the time dilation equation and B) the LT, time equation. They get out of this problem by reducing the LT time equation to time dilation equation. This is a trick right out of the Relativists’ text book
So let us look at the problem in another way (without muons). In the data of Kaufman’s experiments that Lorentz analyzed, he found that an electron moving relative to the lab frame (on earth!!), the displacement undergone in time t is given by:
x’ = gamma( x –ut).
(Note that there was no corresponding time equation in Lorentz work in this regard).
However by dividing the above equation by c we can construct an IMAGINARY TIME EQUATION, given by:
t’ = gamma(t – ux/c2) (This is the same displacement equation scaled down by c!! t' here is only the ghost of x')
Hence this imaginary time equation is not true, for the simple reason that when x’ is measured relative to the lab frame, the corresponding time interval measured by the lab clock is t.
(I will follow this up with the Part II)
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
According to you, in the motion of a muon (particle), there are only two frames involved. A) The frame attached to the muon, B) the lab-frame. And you have categorically stated that the frame of the sun is not involved. For argument’s sake I will accept that there is a frame attached to the muon.
I would like to ask you where does your Preferred Frame of Reference...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Perez,
According to you, in the motion of a muon (particle), there are only two frames involved. A) The frame attached to the muon, B) the lab-frame. And you have categorically stated that the frame of the sun is not involved. For argument’s sake I will accept that there is a frame attached to the muon.
I would like to ask you where does your Preferred Frame of Reference come in, if only two frames of reference are involved in the motion of a particle? I would also suggest that you have another look at P.W. Bridgeman’s (Nobel Laureate) essay that goes alongside Einstein’s Autobrigraphical Notes (p. 343) (where he insists that there has to be a ‘third observer’ even in SRT and he states that this leads to the idea of there being preferred reference frame).
SRT illegitimately attributes a reference frame to the moving particle. This means the particle itself is an observer. When you move (walk), does it have any meaning to say that you are at rest wrt the frame attached to you? Do you measure the ‘spatial intervals’ with respect to your own frame?
Going back to the experiment with the muon. If you granted that attributing a frame of reference to the moving object is methodology, still, the experimenter is at rest on the lab frame (of earth), and the lab frame is moving relative to the sun.
The point of interest is that the displacement of the muon is measured relative to the lab-frame. Still somehow a term involving earth’s motion appears in the equation for the displacement, x’ = gamma(x - ut) where u = 30 k/s (orbital velocity of the earth). So whether you like it or not does this not mean that the third frame is implicit in this equation.
You wrote: “Actually, in this case t' corresponds to the frame of the particle but you do not specify if v is the speed relative to the system of the sun or the earth. Implicitly it seems that you are considering v relative to the earth”.
I will try to answer this in terms of Lorentz’ 1904 paper. H ewrote: “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION” …. The problem “admits a simple solution, so long as only ….the first power of the ratio between the velocity of translation (of Earth) u and the velocity of light” is taken into account. ….. “Cases in which quantities of the second order, i.e. of the order u2/c2 may be perceptible, present more difficulties.” (p. 11)
To clarify the problem posed by you above: (Note: Lorentz was dealing with velocities where v tended to c. So v and c are interchangeable in this limiting case of v/c tending to 1).
Lorentz could have taken v as velocity of the electron relative to the sun if the equation was x’ = x –ut (which is the same as x’ = vt( 1 –u/c). This is what he means by the solution being simple when the ratio is of the first power only).
In this case the electron moves with velocity v relative to the sun (or the aether frame), and hence with velocity relative to the earth is (v-u). He could have supported this by invoking the UNDERLYING CAUSE OF GALILEO’S PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY:
-------------------------------------
Here is an account on Galileo’s Principle of Relativity:
In his book “Dialogue Between The Two Chief World Systems” in the chapter on Second Day (157 pages in all) he takes example after example and showed that the reason why the effects of motion of a place (i.e. observer’s location) in uniform motion cannot seen by the observer is because the observer and the observed objects (in motion relative to the observer) shared a COMMON MOTION with that place.
Galileo started off his discussion on the principle of relativity in the following way: “Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION” (p. 114).
“The CAUSE OF ALL THESE CORRESPONDENCES of effects is the fact that the ship’s MOTION IS COMMON to all the things contained in it” (p. 187).
---------------------
All Lorentz had to show was that the electron was PARTICIPATING in earth’s motion. For this common motion with the earth, a fraction of momentum of the electron is usurped. And therefore the electron moves relative to earth with velocity v-u.
But the problem for him was how to account for the u2/c2 term in the gamma-factor. Hence Lorentz wrote: “Cases in which quantities of the second order, i.e. of the order u2/c2 may be perceptible, present more difficulties”.
So he means that if the term for momentum left for motion relative eto the earth is Mv( 1-u/c) only, the solution to the problem is simple. But since it is Mv(1-u/c)/(1 – u2/c2) the solution becomes difficult. If one takes the momentum route, then there has to be a change from
v to v’ = v(1-u/c)/(1 – u2/c2).
Poincare found a quick fix to the problem. Instead of a VELOCITY CHANGE giving x’ = v’t, why not a TIME CHANGE giving the same result x’ = vt’? For this he had to construe that ‘laws of physics are the same in all ISR’ so that v remains the same.
‘
Poincare in his St. Louis Missouri Speech (1904), attacked the “Common Motion” concept in Galileo’s principle which is at the foundation of classical physics and renounced it. And insisted that all ISR are equivalent. Then suggested that the earth’s velocity comes into the expression of LT by CHANGE OF TIME UNIT (and not by a velocity change). This way the u2/c2 term in the gamma-factor gets postulated without having to be accounted for in terms of a velocity change. Thus the stage was set for SRT.
Einstein beat Poincare to it, and produced the 1905 paper. Rest is history.
(See my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 for the derivation of the Lorentz transformation in terms of state changes of energy)
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
15_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Viraj
I made the calculations following the paradigm of SR, I thought you were talking about the problem within the context of SR. Therefore according to this theory what I did is correct and I showed you that What you did is incorrect.
Now you argue that the Lorentz' theory assumes the speed of the earth u relative to the sun. Then the problem is that you did not express...
view entire post
Dear Viraj
I made the calculations following the paradigm of SR, I thought you were talking about the problem within the context of SR. Therefore according to this theory what I did is correct and I showed you that What you did is incorrect.
Now you argue that the Lorentz' theory assumes the speed of the earth u relative to the sun. Then the problem is that you did not express yourself appropriately because you are having in mind Lorentz' approach which I am not familiar with. And you want me solve the problem a la Lorentz instead of a la Einstein.
Since I am not aware of Lorentz' approach and all what you say, I cannot contribute with something useful to your inquiries and so I think I am not the right person to answer your questions.
I don't know why you say "There is no frame attached to the particle". I do not understand the reason of introducing the frame of the sun. I don't know what TD style means or what ECIF is, you are talking to me as I knew your theory and the meaning of your acronyms.
You also say: what makes you think that the displacement of a muon in CERN experiment (conducted on earth) does not have a term involving earth's motion?
Again, this depends what system of reference you consider for the motion of the muon. You may judge the motion relative to the earth, the sun, any star, the preferred system of reference, etc... Why the sun is so special?
You: What you have done, is you have exactly repeated the Relativists' stratagem to conceal, that there are two contradictory time equations involved, in SRT. A) the time dilation equation and B) the LT, time equation. They get out of this problem by reducing the LT time equation to time dilation equation. This is a trick right out of the Relativists' text book
I performed the calculations based on SR step by step and I showed you that the time dilation equation (B) follows from the time transformation (A) and you still argue that I did the tricks found in textbooks. What is the trick? I am wrong (based on ST) tell me please were I am wrong. Otherwise, again, it seems then that your are talking about other theory and therefore I cannot help you.
If you know the right calculations I do not see your argument.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 00:33 GMT
Dear viraj
For the same of order, I would be appreaciate if you keep in only one conversation, please do not open a new post every time you reply. Thanks.
I am in favor of doing good and critical science. After your overwhelming arguments, I think it is not simple to reply to all of them. As I told you above I have lost your main point of discussion. What you do expect from this...
view entire post
Dear viraj
For the same of order, I would be appreaciate if you keep in only one conversation, please do not open a new post every time you reply. Thanks.
I am in favor of doing good and critical science. After your overwhelming arguments, I think it is not simple to reply to all of them. As I told you above I have lost your main point of discussion. What you do expect from this discussion? what is your main point? Do you have a theory or a well developed conceptual framework? Relativity reproduces all or most experimental observations. So, in this respect the theory has shown its mettle and one cannot argue that the theory is wrong. Given its domain of validity, the theory is correct. Out of this domain the theory fails to explain certain physical phenomena. In my essay I only contend that the PSR should be considered in a theory (not in relativity, but in a new one) in order to avoid the inherent paradoxes found in relativity. I do not pretend to modify relativity but invent a new and better theory.
You: I would like to ask you where does your Preferred Frame of Reference come in, if only two frames of reference are involved in the motion of a particle?
The problem only involves two systems of reference. The first system is arbitrarily chosen, it could be the earth, the sun, the PSR etc. The problem with the PSR is that we haven't unambiguously identified it. And even if we could identify it, it would not matter because according to the principle of relativity the laws of physics would be the same in any system of reference. Therefore, it does not matter what system of reference we chose. All are equivalent. The other system is the system attached to the particle. If one can attach a system of reference to the sun or the earth, why not to the particle? You have to understand that you cannot do it in practice but you can imagine that theoretically is possible. You argue in favor of placing a system of reference in the sun, have you ever seen a system of reference placed in the sun? Of course no, this is only a theoretical assumption, and we can do the same with the particle. So, there is no point of discussion. You are discussing something pointless. Your statement below is naive:
You: SRT illegitimately attributes a reference frame to the moving particle. This means the particle itself is an observer. When you move (walk), does it have any meaning to say that you are at rest wrt the frame attached to you? Do you measure the ‘spatial intervals’ with respect to your own frame?
It is legitimate to attach a frame of reference to the particle or to the sun or whatever you like. The answer to both questions is yes. I do not why you make a discussion out of this triviality.
I now understand why you introduce the sun frame. Lorentz considered it because at that time physicist assumed that the sun could be at rest relative to the aether (PSR). But today this argument no longer applies because the sun it is not at rest relative to the PSR.
You have written too much that it has become impossible to follow a well ordered discussion.
I am sorry
best regards
Israel
view post as summary
hide replies
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT
(To the reader: This post is in reply to the post by Dr. Perez above. To see it please click on “show all replies” option inside the frame above)
Dear Dr Perez,
1. You wrote: “Now you argue that the Lorentz' theory assumes the speed of the earth u relative to the sun. Then the problem is that you did not express yourself appropriately because you are having in mind Lorentz'...
view entire post
(To the reader: This post is in reply to the post by Dr. Perez above. To see it please click on “show all replies” option inside the frame above)
Dear Dr Perez,
1. You wrote: “Now you argue that the Lorentz' theory assumes the speed of the earth u relative to the sun. Then the problem is that you did not express yourself appropriately because you are having in mind Lorentz' approach which I am not familiar with”.
Where did I talk about Lorentz’ theory? I did not. I spoke about the empirical equation Lorentz developed by analysis of NEUTRAL DATA of Kaufman’s experiments on fast moving electrons. I suppose do not have to tell that DATA of experiments are independent of any theories.
If I pointed to any theory, it was about Galileo’s principle of relativity, which states that when a body moves relative to earth, it also has a motion in common with the earth.
2. You wrote: “And you want me solve the problem a la Lorentz instead of a la Einstein”.
No. I did not ask you to do that. What I told was as a FACT (not theory) Lorentz found out that there is a term involving earth’s motion is all the electromagnetic phenomena (observed on earth). And that SRT has made this FACT obscure and incomprehensible for the purpose of development of the theory. All I expected of you was that you would use your critical mind to understand that there is a problem here.
Your BIO says about you: “During his spare time he also does research in the PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS and mathematics. Recently, ZENO'S PARADOXES have become his prey”.
So I thought you would understand the difference between IRREFUTABLE Empirical equations developed on the basis of Factual Data of experiments, and the SPECULATIVE theories developed by interpretations of equations.
3. You wrote: “I don't know why you say ‘There is no frame attached to the particle’.”
Since when did Physics historically start considering that there is frame attached to a particle in motion whose displacement is to be measured? I indicated in my previous post that Newton used the term “place” to refer to the frame of location of a body. Note below: ‘A body moves relative to its first place’.
Here is a quote for you which also concerns your Preferred ref frame. “… if a place is moved, whatever is placed therein moves along with it; and therefore a body, which is moved from a place in motion, partakes also of the motion of its place…”… “Upon which account, all motions, from places in motion, are no other than parts of entire and absolute motions; and every entire motion is composed of the motion of the body out of its first place, and the motion of this place out of its place; and so on, until we come to some immovable place, as in the before-mentioned example of the sailor” (Prnicipia, p.9).
You as a RESEARCHER IN PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS I thought you knew that whether a body is at rest or in motion is always determined with respect to another reference body. And in particular in dynamics, the reference body is the body (place) where the body in question is located. When you imaginarily attach co-ordinate axes to a reference body we call it a reference frame. In this sense it would be obvious that you cannot attach co-ordinate axes to a particle and say that that same particle is at rest with respect to that frame of reference. This is only tautology.
Further the reference body is real, and the co-ordinate axes we assign are imaginary. As you know ‘imaginary’ means it is not physically real. What SRT does is that it assigns imaginary co-ordinate axes to the moving particle, and claims that physically real change occurs in the imaginarily assigned co-ordinate axes.
Take a p-V curve in Boyle’s law. Here pressure and volume read directly from the data taken the form of the ordinate and the abscissa in a co-ordinate system. Nature’s processes consist of conjugate variation of such PHYSICAL VARIABLES. Einstein saw these in the abstract as “PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF CO-ORDINATES IN GENERAL” (Autobigraphical Notes p. 59). What Einstein was attempting was to imitate an analogous system with readings from meter rods and clocks. In ‘Geometry and Experience’ and in the above passage, Einstein admits to the inconsistency of this procedure. “This, in a certain sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking measuring rods and clocks would have to be represented as solutions to the basic equations……. it was clear from the very beginning that the postulates of the theory are not strong enough to deduce from them sufficiently complete equations for physical events sufficiently free from arbitrariness, in order to base upon such a foundation a theory of measuring rods and clocks. If one did not wish to forego a PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF CO-ORDINATES IN GENERAL (something, which in itself, was possible), it was better to permit such inconsistency – with the obligation, however, of eliminating it at a later stage of the theory. But one must not legalize the mentioned sin so far as to imagine that intervals are physical entities of a special type, intrinsically different from other physical variables”.
You are a RESEARCHER IN PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS. I thought you already knew that the attachment of a frame to the particle was introduced by Einstein as a ploy for two things.
To account for why when momentum p = gamma.Mv is applied to a particle it moves with velocity v (instead of gamma.v) and why internal processes slow down when the particle is in motion. These get accounted for by ‘the principle of relativity’ applied to the imaginary frame of reference attached to the particle.
But to account for the term involving earth’s motion in the data of all experiments, he had to introduce a third postulate. And that is why he stated:
“The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are POSTULATED for the conversion of co-ordinates and the TIME.”(1, p. 55).
4. You wrote: “I do not understand the reason of introducing the frame of the sun”.
(I will deal with this in the next post).
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez.
(Here is Part II)
Firstly, I thought the acronyms TD and ECIF were standard and everybody knew them. TD = thermodynamic, ECIF = earth centred inertial frame. (Sorry about it using these without showing what they stood for)
You wrote: “I made the calculations following the paradigm of SR, I thought you were talking about the problem within the context of SR....
view entire post
Dear Dr. Perez.
(Here is Part II)
Firstly, I thought the acronyms TD and ECIF were standard and everybody knew them. TD = thermodynamic, ECIF = earth centred inertial frame. (Sorry about it using these without showing what they stood for)
You wrote: “I made the calculations following the paradigm of SR, I thought you were talking about the problem within the context of SR. Therefore according to this theory what I did is correct and I showed you that What you did is incorrect”.
I thought in your essay you were challenging the SR paradigm. But that is besides the point.
The point is an EMPIRICALLY DEVELOPED equation by analysis of data of an experiment conducted in a particular location, can be written as a general expression of a supposed general law. But its validity is found only when the experiment is repeated many times and when it matches empirical data under specific conditions. (In regard to LT, whether experiments are repeated in Tokyo, London, or Moscow, the ‘specific condition’ involved is earth’s motion relative to the sun. And that is why frame of the sun is involved).
I will explain this. When you do an experiment on earth you get your data. Say the displacement of a particle in an accelerator experiment. This displacement measured relative to the lab frame is found NOT to be x = vt. It is found to be something else x’.
Then you try to figure out why it is not x = vt, and by trial and error you try to develop an empirical formula that will match with the observed displacement x’. By iterating the data, you try to see whether the discrepancy is due to a term involving rotational motion of the lab frame. This does not work. Then you try whether there is a term relative to the Moon’s frame, Jupiter’s frame, frame of Galactic centre, and many other frames. None of these give a term that will account for the discrepancy. Then you find out that the discrepancy can be accounted for by introducing a term involving earth’s motion relative to the sun in the empirical equation.
(This is exactly what Lorentz did with the data of Kaufman’s experiments. This has nothing to do with any theory whatsoever. This is pure number crunching).
You repeat the experiment many many times, and find out that; out of all the possible reference frames (infinite number) the discrepancy gets accounted for only by considering the term involving velocity of the earth relative to the frame of the sun (for experiments conducted on earth).
So when the equation x’ = (x-ut)/(1 –u2/c2)1/2 is written as a general law, it will state. “where u = the velocity of the observers reference frame”. But when you apply it to analyze the data of an experiment conducted on earth, whether it is done in Tokyo, London, Moscow or Timbuktu, the experimenter will not get the correct match for the data by inserting the velocity of earth’s rotation relative to ECIF, or velocity of the earth relative to the Moon. Irrespective of whether it is conducted in Tokyo or Timbuktu, the results will match if and only if u = 30 k/s is inserted to the equation.
If you happen to go to Jupiter and perform the same experiment, then you will have to put u = 12 k/s (orbital velocity of Jupiter relative to the sun) to get the correct match for x’ with the observed result.
It must also be noted that if we look at the hierarchy of reference frames for an experiment conducted on earth, they are in the following order. A) the frame attached to a point on earth’s surface, B) Earth centred inertial frame (ECIF) C) the frame attached to the sun, D) the galactic frame.
Although SRT gives the idea that for an experiment conducted on earth any one of these frames can be chosen, as the ‘stationary frame’ relative to which the moving reference frame moves, there is no such choice. Frame of the sun is the only answer.
In this regard, Einstein has written: “The liberty of choice, however, is of a special kind; it is not in anyway similar to the liberty of a writer of fiction. Rather, it is similar to that of a man engaged in solving a well-designed word puzzle. He may it is true, propose any word as the solution; but, there is only ONE word which really solves the puzzle in all its parts. …”. (Ideas and Opinions, p. 294-5).
You wrote: “I do not understand the reason of introducing the frame of the sun”.
Do you understand it now? You have no choice to decide on your whim. You DISCERN and IDENTIFY the correct frame.
Viraj wrote: “what makes you think that the displacement of a muon in CERN experiment (conducted on earth) does not have a term involving earth's motion?”
Dr. Perez: “Again, this depends what system of reference you consider for the motion of the muon. You may judge the motion relative to the earth, the sun, any star, the preferred system of reference, etc... Why the sun is so special?”
According to Einstein, liberty is not that of a fiction writer, you don’t have a choice between earth, the sun or any star, you have to IDENTIFY THE CORRECT FRAME that would fit the data. And that frame is the frame of the sun for all experiments conducted on earth.
This whole idea of HAVING CHOICE of the reference frame, is because SRT has been developed on kinematic basis (on the equivalence of all IFR), by renouncing Galileo’s principle of relativity, where there is a DYNAMIC CONNECTION between a particle in motion and its local frame of reference, (by the particle having a motion on common with the local frame). But when faced with the reality of this DYNAMIC CONNECTION, in practice they smuggle in the local frame of reference, by saying that the CORRECT FRAME has to be identified, WITHOUT ADMITTING HONESTLY THAT ALL IFR ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.
Dr. Perez wrote: “I performed the calculations based on SR step by step and I showed you that the time dilation equation (B) follows from the time transformation (A) and you still argue that I did the tricks found in textbooks. What is the trick? I am wrong (based on ST) tell me please were I am wrong. Otherwise, again, it seems then that your are talking about other theory and therefore I cannot help you”.
I will address this issue in Part III to follow.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Israel,
The following wisdom of yours needs elaboration (now that you are among the finalists):
You wrote (above on this page): "The speed of light is always c in any direction and way, it is isotropic in inertial systems of reference. Hence, if the frequency were f'=f(1+v/c) the wavelength would be L'=L/(1+v/c) so that f'L'=c."
Initially the observer is stationary and the wavelength of the incident light is L. Then the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v and the wavelength of the incident light becomes, according to your wisdom, L'=L/(1+v/c). Can you say something about the physical mechanism responsible for this metamorphosis of the wavelength?
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Pentcho,
We need to adopt Maxwell’s paradigm: “All phenomena without exception arise due to states of changes of energy” (Matter and Motion p. 91). Under the same paradigm: THERE IS NO INTERACTION IN THE UNIVERSE WHICH OCCURS WITHOUT EXCHANGE OF ENERGY WITH THE FIELD. All systems without exception are open.
With this paradigm, all kinematic theorizations will be doomed to...
view entire post
Dear Pentcho,
We need to adopt Maxwell’s paradigm: “All phenomena without exception arise due to states of changes of energy” (Matter and Motion p. 91). Under the same paradigm: THERE IS NO INTERACTION IN THE UNIVERSE WHICH OCCURS WITHOUT EXCHANGE OF ENERGY WITH THE FIELD. All systems without exception are open.
With this paradigm, all kinematic theorizations will be doomed to fade away into oblivion. This includes empty rhetoric about velocity changes such as c+v and c –v, on purely kinematic considerations, without considering a dynamic basis that underlies the interactions
Considered from this paradigm, of accounting for all phenomena in terms of states of changes of energy, the dichotomy of waves and particles has to be disregarded. And fermions and photons have to be considered generically as quanta of energy but in two different modes of behaviour.
In the Fermion mode the energy manifests the property of inertia, and in the photon mode the property of inertia is absent. For the reason that a fermion has inertia, it cannot a) move by its own intrinsic energy and b) to any constraint it responds by a change of velocity. During the whole period of human development, we have experienced this behaviour in our day to day activities, so that this is rooted in our consciousness that a constraint must bring about a change of velocity, and with this background we have come to demand that even light must behave the same way.
Photons are without inertia (but have mass contrary to SRT). They move by their own intrinsic energy. In a given medium or in a given gravitational potential, they respond to constraints by changes of frequency instead of velocity. So in a given medium a photon always maintains the same velocity c’. (In air c’ is almost equal to c, and this is why in our discussions we tend to talk about observations of light on earth in terms of c).
Not only that, when a photon confronts a constraint within a given medium, not only the frequency but the wavelength changes by conjugate variation (as volume and pressure change in a quantity of energy under Boyle’s law) while keeping their product constant at c’ so that c’ = f x L = f’ x L’.
This is not all. Tthe energy of the photon is mc’2 =hf, and h = (mc’L.). Hence hf = (mc’L)f. Thus the energy of the photon is configured by two intertwined constants, h and fL. First (h) is a universal constant the latter (c’) is a local constant determined by the medium. The two constants are intertwined in such a way that a part (L) of the local constant c’ is a component of h.
When the photon impinges on the moving observer it at once adapts to this constraint. Instead of a velocity change, it changes its frequency from f to f’ = f (c +v)/c. Then the wavelength changes to L’ = Lc/(c+v) by conjugate variation while keeping c’ constant. But in doing this the constancy of h is violated. This violation is instantaneously nullified by influx of energy (m’-m)c’2 = h(f’ –f). This influx of field energy restores the constancy of h. And the energy of the photon now becomes m’c’2 = hf’. And in this situation the internal composition of h = m’c’L’ (= mc’L). The photon has more energy and therefore manifests a blue shift.
In the case of the observer moving in the opposite direction f’ = f(c-v)/c. Then a fraction of energy h(f-f’) is released to the field. The photon now has less energy, and therefore manifest a red shift.
The conjugate variation of f and L, and also the constancy of the products on the internal components of h, are ideas inspired by Leibniz Internal Principle. (See Monadology arts. 8 -12).
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 20:51 GMT
Viraj,
You wrote: "When the photon impinges on the moving observer it at once adapts to this constraint. Instead of a velocity change, it changes its frequency from f to f' = f (c +v)/c. Then the wavelength changes to L' = Lc/(c+v) by conjugate variation while keeping c' constant."
In textbooks, the frequency shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L is DERIVED from the explicit or implicit assumption that the speed of the waves relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v. If you want to keep the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) constant, you will have to derive the formula f'=(c+v)/L in a different way. The derivation is obligatory - you cannot just declare that the frequency shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L and leave it at that.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 03:16 GMT
Pentcho,
You are a well read guy and I don’t have to tell you that science moves forward through paradigm shifts. It is unfortunate that Maxwell died so young and so early. In his 'Matter and Motion' he set an outline of his programme under the title “Scientific Work to be Done”. He laid out the new paradigm that “All phenomena arise due to states of changes of energy” etc. If Maxwell lived another 25 years, then the world would have been a different place. Definitely there would not have been a theory of relativity, which is in a sense a retrogression from dynamic based physics to kinematics. Recognition of Maxwell’s paradigm and re-construction of physics on that basis is long overdue.
I showed the conjugate variation of frequency and wavelength while maintaining the constancy of velocity of light and the quantum exchanges of energy with the field, all on the basis of Maxwell’s paradigm.
The textbooks you refer to, deal with frequency changes on a kinematic basis. I have done it on a dynamic basis, under Planck’s law E = hf. Do you side with empty kinematics or meaningful dynamics?
Anyway the argument between what your ‘textbooks’ say and what I say cannot be settled merely by the exchange of ideas between us. It has to be settled by explaining experiments.
Can you explain the null result of MMX in terms of what your text books say?
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,
1. You wrote: “I performed the calculations based on SR step by step and I showed you that the time dilation equation (B) follows from the time transformation (A) and you still argue that I did the tricks found in textbooks. What is the trick? I am wrong (based on ST) tell me please were I am wrong”.
I WILL SHOW YOU THE TRICK: When x = ct in SRT as a basic...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Perez,
1. You wrote: “I performed the calculations based on SR step by step and I showed you that the time dilation equation (B) follows from the time transformation (A) and you still argue that I did the tricks found in textbooks. What is the trick? I am wrong (based on ST) tell me please were I am wrong”.
I WILL SHOW YOU THE TRICK: When x = ct in SRT as a basic principle, x is substituted by x = vt
---------
2. I have copied below your step by step calculation and I have numbered each step as the alphabetical order for easy reference.
Let us take the step D. “Thus, the space interval as determined in the lab is
Dx=x_1-x_0=x_1. “
From the millions of experiments conducted in the last century, it has been confirmed that the displacement x_1 is not equal to v.t_1. (Where v is velocity that the particle of mass M is supposed to move relative to the EARTH, when the applied momentum is gamma.Mv).
It is equal to x’_1 = gamma (x_1 – ut) where u = 30 k/s and gamma = 1.000000005 for all experiments conducted on earth. You may verify this with any EXPERIMENTAL particle physicist.
When the displacement x’ is measured relative to the lab-frame using the lab’s ‘metr rod’, the time interval must be measured by the lab’s clock. This time interval corresponds to t in the above equation. There is no t’.
3. In regard to the trick, I refer you to Rindler’s derivation of the Lorentz transformations in ‘Introduction to Special Relativity’.
The above equation is written as x’ = gamma (x –vt) -------------(1)
but note here v is not directly referred to as the velocity of the particle as such but as the velocity of the reference frame relative to the observer’s frame. c is the signal velocity in the moving frame (as well as the observer’s frame).
Because in SRT co-ordinate and time are related by the signal velocity c, it is implicit that x’/c = t’ and x/c = t and this finds confirmation when we divide (1) by c. We get,
t’ = gamma(t – vt/c) --------------------(2a)
Now substitute in (2a) t = x/c and we get
t’ = gamma( t – vx/c2) ----------------(2)
For the relationship of signal velocity and time c2t2 - x2 = 0, but Rindler takes a circuitous route to obtain the equations (1) and (2) because he takes c2t2 – x2 to be greater than 0 instead of the c2t2 – x2 = 0;
and then introduces the hypothesis (x – vt) = 0 which means not only that x’ = 0 in (1) BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY v = c, since x = ct. Also v=c means that the particle is moving at velocity c relative to the lab frame which is a violation of SRT.
On the other hand if x = vt and v is considered to be less than c, then the basic principle of the relationship between the co-ordinate, signal velocity c and time is violated. The only condition when this principle is not violated is when v = c.
(Rindler gets out of this problem by a further hypothesis on the mathematical form of x’ and t’).
However, we must bear in mind that the condition that underlies the connection between the equations (1) and (2) is x = ct. Then when YOU in your correspondence with me use the same equation (2) the same condition must remain. And x cannot be substituted by vt in (2) unless v = c.
Then we can have two cases:
a) when v is less than c the vx/c2 term becomes vt/c (when ct substituted for x)
Then the equation (2) becomes t’ = gamma t( 1 – v/c) ----------(2a)
b) When v = c , the vx/c2 terms becomes c2t/c2
Then the equation (2) becomes t’ = 0 ----------------(2b)
Equations (1) and (2) as we saw are related by x = ct. Without violating the condition x = ct by illegitimately substituting x = vt, you cannot transform the Lorentz time equation to appear as the time dilation equation as you have done.
So you will see that your following statement does not hold:
L. “There is no conflict and relativity is in agreement with experience. By measuring time dilation we are testing the transformation expression t'=gamma(t-vx/c2)”.
Best regards,
Viraj
Extract from your post of Oct 6 copied below:
A. Now assume that the muon is moving at speed v relative to the lab and we on the lab want to measure again the decay time Dt.
B. Suppose that we synchronize the clocks of both systems such when we start to measure, our clocks read t_0=t'_0=0 and our rulers read x'_0=x_0=0.
C. Then at a later time t_1 the muon decays. So the decay time Dt in the lab is Dt= t_1-t_0=t_1 and his position at the moment of decay is x_1.
D. Thus, the space interval as determined in the lab is Dx=x_1-x_0=x_1.
E. Remember that dt and Dt are the decay times of the muon at rest and in motion, respectively, as determined in the lab system.
F. So, when the muon is in motion we would expect (due to time dilation) that Dt would be greater than dt. Let us understand this.
G. The next step is to calculate the decay time in the system of reference of the muon, that is, the system of reference where now the muon is at rest.
H. For this we use the transformations equations: t'_0=gamma(t_0-vx_0/c2) and t'_1=gamma(t_1-vx_1/c2), where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v2/c2).
I. Hence the time interval in the system of the muon is: Dt'=t'_1-t'_0=t'_1=gamma(t_1-vx_1/c2), and since x_1=vt_1 we have that Dt'=gamma(t_1-v2t_1/c2).
J. Factoring out t_1=Dt we have Dt'=gammaDt(1-v2/c2); and considering that (1-v2/c2)=gamma^(-2) we finally arrive at the famous expression for time dilation: Dt'=gamma^(-1)Dt. Since gamma^(-1) is less than 1, Dt' is less than Dt as we expected.
K. This means that the decay time in the system where the particle is at rest is smaller than in the lab system in which the particle is in motion.
L. There is no conflict and relativity is in agreement with experience. By measuring time dilation we are testing the transformation expression t'=gamma(t-vx/c2).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Viraj, Israel.
May I make an observation. I have shown logically that only the 'next immediate background frame' has any relevance for the purposes of defining 'speed', which is a purely relative concept. All matter has it's own and mutually exclusive 'nested' local frame.
If the experiment were being conducted in space near the sun the suns (or solar wind!) frame would be the background. If on Venus it would be the rest frame of Venus, Earth and the sun would have no influence.
If the lab were on a ship on a gas sea on Jupiter, the frame of the ship would be the background frame. This is precisely the structure of compound 'propositions' in truth Propositional Logic, carried over to dynamic logic.
In fact, to confuse thing, but just to be aware, Earth has TWO frame, the orbiting FCI and rotating ECRF. There is a physical transition between these! So a lab on Earth is the background ECRF, NOT ECI and NOT Barycentric (Solar) frame (I'll deal with other 2nd order exceptions another time).
Observer frame is also indeed of utmost importance as the observed results vary between frames. In each case an observer frame must be defined and adhered to, so proper time and other, so arbitrary, observations can be identified.
I just hope that thinking about the above may avoid the confusions allowable by just dealing with the maths and algebra in a purely abstract way.
I hope it helps bring agreement. Do please let me know if not fully understood or agreed.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 02:40 GMT
Peter and Israel,
I hope Israel will excuse me for having discussions under his thread. But at the same time, I believe the blog etiquette allows discussions involving third parties.
Peter wrote: “only the 'next immediate background frame' has any relevance for the purposes of defining 'speed', which is a purely relative concept. All matter has it's own and mutually exclusive...
view entire post
Peter and Israel,
I hope Israel will excuse me for having discussions under his thread. But at the same time, I believe the blog etiquette allows discussions involving third parties.
Peter wrote: “only the 'next immediate background frame' has any relevance for the purposes of defining 'speed', which is a purely relative concept. All matter has it's own and mutually exclusive 'nested' local frame”.
Facts are contrary to the above statement, because velocity measured relative to the immediate background turn out to be less than what it has to be if laws of physics are the same in all IFR. The main problem in physics is not defining relative speed. The main problem is the explanation of multifarious phenomena that manifest in the motion of the same particle involving various backgrounds, in a coherent manner.
Peter wrote: “If the experiment were being conducted in space near the sun the suns (or solar wind!) frame would be the background. If on Venus it would be the rest frame of Venus, Earth and the sun would have no influence”.
I refer you to the opening paragraph of Lorentz 1904 paper, in regard to experiments conducted on earth. “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)
.
This is not a theoretical proposition by Lorentz. This is not Lorentz’ speculation. This is a hard and an indisputable fact. This is what Lorentz observed or rather found out by iterating the data of experiments.
Do you dispute the fact that there is a term involving earth’s motion, in electrical and optical phenomena and in fast moving particles (on earth)?
So what Lorentz refers are a group of phenomena connecting a motion of the earth’s centre relative to the sun, with the motion of a particle relative to the rotating surface of the earth. That is the particle is set in motion relative to the lab frame of earth, and the displacement manifests a term involving motion of the earth’s centre. We need to find a dynamic explanation for this.
At the same time, we cannot jump to a conclusion that the particle moves EXCLUSIVELY relative to the frame of the sun by referring to this phenomenon alone.
As you would know satellites are launched eastwards and not westwards. This is because in the motion of the rocket (which will be true for the above particle too), the centrifugal force (V +Rw)2/R when moving eastwards is greater than that (V –Rw)2/R westwards;(where w = angular velocity of the earth’s rotation and R the altitude from the earth’s centre0. So when the rocket moves relative to the surface of the earth, there appears a term involving earth’s rotation relative to the earth’s centre. (See Berkley Physics Course, Kittel p. 129 for this same principle in regard to enhancement of the lift force (by the centrifugal force) in the motion of an aeroplane). By this phenomenon alone, we cannot jump to the conclusion that objects on earth’s surface move EXLUSIVELY relative to ECIF.
What this goes to prove is that our idea that motion occurs relative to this or that background FRAME is not correct. We have confused between two things. Motion can be and comes to be measured relative this or that reference frame. That is true. But we have confused this measurement requirement, with the motion itself that manifests in consequence of an ACTION in its nascent state, independent of any reference frame. An action, (that is a state of change of energy) occurs locally in disregard to any frames of reference.
‘Background frames’ are actually background energy shells. After the above Action which takes place locally, multiple interactions occur with the background energy shells.
So, an action in the nascent state is the same anywhere in the Universe. But the instantaneous interactions with the background energy shells that follow the nascent action, causes its manifestations to be different in different backgrounds.
Thus the initial velocity v a particle would acquire by application of the same force F on earth and in Jupiter will the same, but the instantaneous interaction that ensues with the respective background energy shell of orbital motion will make the displacements measured on earth and on Jupiter to be different.
If an experiment is carried out on a moving ship (as Peter has pointed out), there is an interaction with the velocity field of the ship (i.e. energy shell or the motion of the ship). But the interactions do not stop there (this is where Peter is mistaken). There is an interaction with the energy shell of earth’s rotational motion, and another interaction with the energy shell of the earth’s orbital motion.
So far the phenomena show only interactions up to the level of the energy shell of the earth’s orbital motion. So until phenomena show otherwise, we can provisionally conclude that the hierarchy of energy shells for earth bound actions has a boundary limit at energy shell of earth’s orbital motion.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Israel,
(I am putting this up as a new post, because for the reasons explained below, I am considering this as a fresh start in our conversation).
1. You asked: “Do you have a theory or a well developed conceptual framework?”.
Yes I have. If you read my essay you would have got the gist of it. It addresses the primordial problems in the foundations of physics, and...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
(I am putting this up as a new post, because for the reasons explained below, I am considering this as a fresh start in our conversation).
1. You asked: “Do you have a theory or a well developed conceptual framework?”.
Yes I have. If you read my essay you would have got the gist of it. It addresses the primordial problems in the foundations of physics, and by rectifying these problems it has developed a methodology to derive equations and to explain all the so-called “relativistic phenomena” by means of simple Euclidean algorithms.
In the final analysis, the whole crisis in physics has the following four factors combining together as the root cause – the primordial foundational errors of physics. 1) Not considering that all phenomena arise out of state changes of energy in an open system, with exchange of energy between the system and the field. 2) Not considering that Nature’s processes are non-linear and NOT DEVELOPING PHYSICS RIGHT FROM THE START on the basis of a corresponding NON-LINEAR MATHEMATICAL SCHEME. 3) Not considering that motion of a particle occurs by the interaction of TWO quantities of energy; particle energy Mc2 and the energy of motion pc. The POINT MASS CONCEPT which is common to SRT and QM as well prevents the discernment of non-linear mathematical configuration underlying the interaction of the above two quantities of energy. 4) A particle moving relative to a given location (in motion) not only has a motion in common with the location but with the whole hierarchy of motions of the location. (E.g. A particle set in motion on a moving ship has motions in common with the ship, earth’s surface, earth’s orbiting centre)
2. If our correspondence started off with the above primordial problems, all taken together as the point of departure, then our dialogue would have been more coherent. Unfortunately, it did not start that way. I started off by referring to your position that effectively SRT has only one postulate, and with my showing that there are in fact three postulates. In effect we have started off our conversation as if from the middle of nowhere. We are as if at the middle of nowhere because, we have no common understanding of why the physics of Newton which was so perfect, immaculate and irrefutable, suddenly became impotent to explain the so-called “relativistic phenomena”, and we have no clear understanding between us about the different roles played by Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein in trying to find an artificial solution to the above problem, and how these ill-conceived attempts have condemned the future generations into a state of conceptual obscurantism.
So let us start out discussion afresh:
As I see it, physics had developed from the time of Newton till early 1900’s on a linear basis for slow moving bodies (without the above four factors mentioned in paragraph 1 being taken into account). The development of physics up to that point was possible and successful because, for slow motions, the effects of non-linearity are negligibly small (imperceptible) over short intervals of time (they would manifest only if cumulative data are considered over a long period as in the case of perihelion motion of Mercury). In sharp contrast, effects of non-linearity develop exponentially at very high velocities, (and the very same phenomena that are imperceptible at slow motions become very much perceptible at fast motion). Thus when physics came at the stage of conducting experiments with fast moving particles, the combined effect of the above four factors hit the fan, and physics was thrown into a crisis.
The most difficult factor (out of the above four) to make people understand is about the effect of common motion of a particle with the hierarchy of backgrounds. This was a basic premise of Galileo and Newton “A body that is moved from a place also partakes in the motion of the place” (Principia p. 9). Because the non-linear effects are imperceptible at low velocities, the premise of “common motion of a particle with its places”, became superfluous to be taken into consideration in practice. So there had been a de facto application of the Occam’s razor to this principle. Therefore, physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all ‘reference frames’ are equivalent.
When physics arrived at the stage of experimenting with fast motion, the non-linear effects took exponential proportions, the phenomena associated with non-linearity were no more imperceptible.
The phenomenon associated with Galileo’s premise of the motion of a particle (relative to earth) also having a motion in common with earth’s orbiting centre, had even much deeper implications. It took the centre stage. The fact that earth’s orbiting centre is also the centre of earth’s gravitational field loomed large, and manifested in the results of these experiments of fast moving particles. But since Galileo’s premise of common motion with the earth has slipped the minds of the physicists, it never occurred to them to look for an answer on its basis.
And at the same time over two centuries of physics, minds of physicists had got trained to ignore the effect of earth’s gravitational field, and to consider that space as empty and inert. With this mindset, they could never think of even a more complicated structure than the space being the earth’s orbiting gravitational field. That is, that the space (of the lab frame) consists of a gravitational field whose centre is orbiting about the centre of the sun’s gravitational field. (That space needs to be considered as consisting of two interpenetrating gravitational fields in the least).
The particle (of energy Mc2) while at rest on earth already is orbiting with the earth in the sun’s gravitational field. This is common knowledge, so common that it was never considered to have any further implications.
The implication is that, the energy of motion pc now added to the particle (Mc2) to set it in motion too has to gravitate about both these fields. In order to counter-act the gravitation of the sun, the energy pc has to develop a separate subsidiary component of energy (by fission) which will enable it to move at the orbital velocity determined by the gravitational potential of the sun’s field. By this means it also develops a centrifugal force, which counteracts sun’s attraction (and thereby tidal effects get eliminated). Therefore the velocity that the subsidiary component of energy pc has to develop, to move in sun’s gravitational field, (while also moving the particle in earth’s gravitational field), is equal to earth’s orbital velocity u = 30 k/s.
This is why in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS a term involving earth’s orbital motion became manifest. And this is why in the 1904 paper in which Lorentz was working towards developing the EMPIRICAL EQUATION, (which we now call as the ‘Lorentz transformation’) by iteration of data of experiments of fast moving particles, he wrote in the opening paragraph itself: “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)
In my theory there are no reference frames (like the theory you claim that you tried to develop similar to TD). So your following statement does not apply to my position:
“I now understand why you introduce the sun frame. Lorentz considered it because at that time physicist assumed that the sun could be at rest relative to the aether (PSR). But today this argument no longer applies because the sun it is not at rest relative to the PSR”.
I am by no means a follower of Lorentz theory. You seem to mistake my constant references to Lorentz’s EMPIRICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS FROM EXPERIMENTAL FACTS, with Lorentz’ subsequent INTERPRETATIONS to explain the terms in those equations. Lorentz’ yeoman work in developing empirical equations is quite a different thing to various kinematic interpretations he proposed in his attempts to interpret them. I have no truck with those interpretations.
I would urge you to read my essay (attached below) at least now. I have demonstrated therein how to represent physical processes by simple non-linear algorithms. I have accounted with extreme accuracy for the slow down of a GPS clock due to orbital motion, muon decay. I have eliminated the schism between physics of slow and fast motion. In just half a page I have derived Lorentz transformation by means of dynamic principles.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
16_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Israel,
I described in my earlier post how relativistic phenomena emerge, in perspective, with the relativistic phenomena being latent at slow velocities and developing exponentially and manifesting, due to non-linearities at fast velocities.
Do you agree that the same laws of physics have to be at work even at slowest of motions of particles, as they are when the same particles move at near light velocities?
It is not that one set off laws (i.e. classical laws are at work) when a particle moves at low velocities and another set of laws (i.e relativistic laws) suddenly come into operation when that particle is in fast motion. If this be the case at velocity range does this transformation of laws occur?
It is that when Newton stated his second law, as a corollary he stated a linear relationship between the applied force and the velocity attained. “If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion…..”. etc.
No. Double force generates less than double the motion. This is because the relationship is non-linear. But the effect of non-linearity is so minute at low velocities, it appears almost as a linear relationship. That is why classical mechanics has inadvertently been developed on linear relationships.
What we need is to find the required algorithms which will enable us to develop mechanics which can be uniformly applied to slow and fast motion equally.
Do you agree? I hope to hear your views.
Best regards,
Viraj
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez wrote on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Viraj
Sorry for not replying before but I have been very busy days. For these same reason I haven't read your essay and I am afraid it would take some time. I just have read your last posts and I would like to make some brief comments.
You: In effect we have started off... ...we have no clear understanding between us about the different roles played by Lorentz, Poincare and...
view entire post
Dear Viraj
Sorry for not replying before but I have been very busy days. For these same reason I haven't read your essay and I am afraid it would take some time. I just have read your last posts and I would like to make some brief comments.
You: In effect we have started off... ...we have no clear understanding between us about the different roles played by Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein in trying to find an artificial solution to the above problem, and how these ill-conceived attempts have condemned the future generations into a state of conceptual obscurantism.
Well, I differ from your opinion. I do not see Lorentz, Einstien and Poincaré as trying to find "artificial solutions" and I do not think these solutions are "ill-conceived attempts" or that they "have condemned the future of physics". You should be aware that the task of discovering the secrets of nature and modeling it is not an easy task. They did, what they could in their respective times, with the intellectual tools they had at hand. So if what they did has led us to the present state of physics (which you call "conceptual obscurantism") we have to solve it but not blame them. As you put it is as if they had done it maliciously.
You: physics of slow moving particles developed for two centuries by IMPLICITLY considering that all ‘reference frames’ are equivalent.
It is not that one set off laws (i.e. classical laws are at work) when a particle moves at low velocities and another set of laws (i.e relativistic laws) suddenly come into operation when that particle is in fast motion. If this be the case at velocity range does this transformation of laws occur?
Do you agree that the same laws of physics have to be at work even at slowest of motions of particles, as they are when the same particles move at near light velocities?
What we need is to find the required algorithms which will enable us to develop mechanics which can be uniformly applied to slow and fast motion equally.
Do you agree? I hope to hear your views.
The Galilean principle of relativity was valid only for mechanical laws, but it fails with electrodynamics. This has nothing to do with slow or fast motions. Newtonian mechanics can be applied to slow or fast motion of particles, but it will not reproduce the observations of fast motions. Finding transformations that leave Maxwell laws invariant paid the way for SRT. However, Lorentz transformations were incompatible with the Newtonian dynamics and so a new dynamics (relativistic) had to be built. SRT states that the same laws of physics (Mechanical and electromagnetic) must be found in any inertial system of reference. SRT (and Lorentz theory, and Christov theory) is a theory that mathematically reproduces all observations (of course, disregarding temperature and gravitational effects). If this theory reproduces the observations given its range of validity, I do understand in what part of SRT you disagree. And I do not understand why you argue that SRT applies for fast motion and Newtonian mechanics for low motion. Both can be applied to any kind of motion, but Newtonian mechanics fails to reproduce the observations at fast motions, this is why it is said that SRT governs fast motions but this is only a semantic matter. So, again, I do not see why you make a point out of a pointless issue. SRT or Christov theory are theories that can be applied to fast or slow or any kind of motion. There is no point of discussion here.
Now, you also talk about introducing the effects of gravitation and the motion of the earth around the sun to compute the dynamics of an experiment conducted on earth. These effects are out of the scope of SRT since we are dealing with gravitation and non-inertial systems of references (the earth itself is basically a non-inertial system of reference). Therefore, we should apply a more complex theory such as general relativity or any other you may wish. In such a case and strictly speaking, SRT does not apply.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the response.
Part 1
The basic issue I need to clarify with you is that whether you agree with my following position in regard to the so-called “Relativistic Phenomena”.
Irrespective of whether a particle moves at 1 km/s (0.000000000009c) or 0.99999c the physical processes that are involved in that motion has to be the same. The same...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
Thank you for the response.
Part 1
The basic issue I need to clarify with you is that whether you agree with my following position in regard to the so-called “Relativistic Phenomena”.
Irrespective of whether a particle moves at 1 km/s (0.000000000009c) or 0.99999c the physical processes that are involved in that motion has to be the same. The same phenomena that happen in one must also happen in the other. This means that same equations (laws) that give expression to phenomena in one must be valid for the other.
Do you agree?
Given the above condition, why we do not observe the so-called relativistic phenomena when a particle moves at lower velocities is because, the physical processes involved are non-linear. Although the same processes that give rise to relativistic phenomena occur even at lower velocities as well, because of the non-linearity, they occur at such low intensities, that the phenomena though they occur, REMAIN IMPERCEPTIBLE at the PRESENT DEGREE OF ACCURACY OF OUR MEASUREMENTS. However, at very high velocities, the non-linear processes INTENSIFY EXPONENTIALLY, and then at this stage the phenomena become perceptible and manifest themselves, at the degree of accuracy of available measurements.
Do you agree?
The three main ‘relativistic phenomena’ are the following:
(1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2 where v is the VELOCITY OF THE PARTICLE
(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
(3) When the particle has been set in motion at the supposed velocity v [as in (1)], the measured displacement is not given by x = vt, but given by x’ = GAMMA(x -ut). (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this).
Where GAMMA = 1/(1 – u2/c2)1/2 where u is the VELOCITY OF THE ‘REFERENCE FRAME’ where the experiment is conducted.
Note: For all experiments human beings have ever conducted u = velocity of orbit of the earth, although if we go by contentions of SRT the “velocity of the reference frame” has to be that of the lab frame; which is the velocity of earth’s rotation. Why the analysis of data of earth bound experiments show this discrepancy for the value of u = 30 k/s and not u = 0.463 k/s, has not been explained by SRT. Secondly although SRT uses gamma and GAMMA in “Relativistic Dynamics”, it has not given a dynamic explanation of how and why gamma and GAMMA come into being by dynamic relationships in the first place. They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky.
Do you agree?
-----------------------
Part 2
There are a lot of matters where you have not understood my positions correctly such as (1) (my statement) “Newtonian mechanics does not apply”, which you have construed as (2) (your interpretation) “Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied”.
(1) Means that Newtonian mechanics is not equipped to address relativistic phenomena because it has been developed on the basis that physical processes are linear. Here I am describing an OBJECTIVE SITUATION.
whereas
(2) Means some one can attempt to solve a problem concerning a fast moving particle if he wishes, (though it is known that it does not work). Here you are construing that I maintain even such a futile SUBJECTIVE ATTEMPT cannot be made
I will address other misconstrued positions and misunderstandings on your part in a later post.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear Viraj
Yes, I agree that the effects are present at all velocities from 0 to c.
You: (1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not...
view entire post
Dear Viraj
Yes, I agree that the effects are present at all velocities from 0 to c.
You: (1) In order to set a particle of mass M in motion at velocity v, momentum p = gamma. Mv is required. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
(2) When the particle has been set in motion, its internal processes slow down by the same factor gamma as above. (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
And also: Secondly although SRT uses gamma and GAMMA in "Relativistic Dynamics", it has not given a dynamic explanation of how and why gamma and GAMMA come into being by dynamic relationships in the first place. They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky.
I do not understand why you affirm that "SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this" and that "They are introduced in SRT as if they have fallen from the sky." I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to justify why the factor gamma has to appear. You should check in the literature how relativistic dynamics was developed. It was a process that took several years starting in 1900 with the works of Larmor, Thomson, and Lorentz and ending in 1912 with the works of Planck, Poincaré, Lewis, Einstein, Tolman, Abraham, etc. For instance, it is false belief that Einstein discovered the famous equation E=mc2. This equation was discovered by Planck, Tolman and Lewis in 1908 applying the principle of action and reaction (Newtonian principle) and the principles of energy and momentum conservation. In short, it does not matter the path one takes to derive an expression, what matters is that the expression reproduces observations. There are several approaches to arrive at the same expression and they are all legitimate. You may have another approach based on your assumptions and those assumptions may be as artificial as those you see in SRT. You may wish to read my essay from the previous contest where I stated some of the virtues a theory should have to be considered by the scientific community. Another example of an expression "falling from the sky" is Newton's law of gravitation. This law does not follow from any higher principle. The law was more like a GUESS such as in a given limit it has to be reduced to Keppler' laws. So, despite that the expression is a "guess" is quite useful and there is no point of discussion of how Newton derived it. What matters is that the expression reproduces observations with certain accuracy given its range of validity.
You: When the particle has been set in motion at the supposed velocity v [as in (1)], the measured displacement is not given by x = vt, but given by x’ = GAMMA(x -ut). (SRT does not provide a dynamic explanation for this)
Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth. As well, I told you that strictly speaking, if you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, then you should use a more complex theory because the earth is a non-inertial system of reference. SRT does not apply in these situations. Thus, if we would like to describe the phenomena in a simplistic way, we have to consider only the system of the earth as an inertial system and the system of the particle. And apply SRT (or Lorentz theory or Christov theory or any other). Given this I disagree with your view of introducing the system of reference of the sun. But if you insist in introducing the system of the sun, then we should not use SRT but the general relativity or any other theory and consider the earth as a non-inertial system of reference and gravitational effects. If we would like to complicate even more the situation, we could introduce temperature effects. As you can see, including all these effects the problem becomes extremely complex to deal with.
Now, if you have a better theory than relativity, I would appreciate very much if you could send me the corresponding information of the RECOGNIZED journal where you have published your results.
Best regards
Israel
view post as summary
Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear Israel,
You wrote: “Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth”.
I am not introducing any frames of my choosing whatsoever. I am only referring to Lorentz’ finding. I have...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
You wrote: “Here again you insist in introducing the frame of the sun. If you insist in introducing the motion of the earth relative to the sun, I wonder why not introducing the motion of the earth relative to the center of the galaxy and so on and so forth”.
I am not introducing any frames of my choosing whatsoever. I am only referring to Lorentz’ finding. I have mentioned this to you many many times, and I will try to drive the point home once again:
Please read Lorentz, 1904 paper.
When Lorentz examined the DATA OF KAUFMAN’S EXPERIMENTS on fast moving electrons, the displacements did not match up to the expected x = vt. He then set upon the task of developing an EMPIRICAL EQUATION for the displacement x’, that would consistently fit the data. This was done by iterating the data through a trial and error process.
On doing so he found out that the equation x’ = GAMMA.(x-ut) works for the observed results (of these experiments done on earth), IF AND ONLY IF u IS EQUAL TO THE VALUE 30 K/S. (He had no choice in this, 30 was the number PROMPTED BY THE EQUATION that worked). Since the only conceivable factor that consistently involves 30 k/s for experiments conducted on earth is earth’s motion, it was then SUBSEQUENTLY deduced that this term involves earth’s annual motion. (Note: I have played no part in this finding, I was not even born then!! So please don’t accuse me of trying to introduce the motion of the earth relative to the sun).
Lorentz did not force this idea because of his pet theory of the preferred frame. He had no choice in the matter. When he fitted the data into the equation, the only number that consistently satisfied the equation so that it matched the observed results was 30 k/s. If he made a personal input on his own at all, it was the matter of INTERPRETING that the quantity 30 k/s that consistently satisfies the equation as arising from earth’s annual motion. It was just a matter of “putting two and two together”.
And this was done before Einstein generalized Lorentz’ result, and referred to the u term vaguely as the ‘velocity of the reference frame’. And just because Einstein has stated it this way, by believing him literally, if you go back to Kuafman’s results, and try to insert u = 0.462 k/s (velocity of the lab frame – earth’s rotation) or the velocity of the lab relative to the centre of the galaxy, in the equation you will not get theoretical results that match the observed results of Kaufman (or any other results of thousands of experiments conducted on earth).
This is why having developed SRT as if one can obtain the correct results by choosing any reference frame whatsoever by your whim and thereby creating a state of conceptual confusion, Einstein then backtracked and wrote: “The liberty of choice, however, is of a special kind; it is not in anyway similar to the liberty of a writer of fiction. Rather, it is similar to that of a man engaged in solving a well-designed word puzzle. He may it is true, propose any word as the solution; but, there is only ONE word which really solves the puzzle in all its parts. …”. (Ideas and Opinions, p. 294-5).
What does this ‘Liberty of choice of a SPECIAL KIND’ mean? There is NO CHOICE of a reference frame at all. You have to discern beforehand which is the one and only correct reference frame is, and apply the velocity of that one relative to yet another unique frame, just like you have to discern the correct word in solving a word puzzle.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
CONTINUING:
Dear Israel,
You wrote:: “I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to...
view entire post
CONTINUING:
Dear Israel,
You wrote:: “I told you that the Newtonian dynamics is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore, Lorentz invariance demands a new dynamics (relativistic). Lorentz invariance is the principle from which the relativistic dynamics is derived. This shows that relativistic dynamics is not falling from the sky (as you say) and this is the explanation that SRT gives to justify why the factor gamma has to appear”.
The term Lorentz invariance is a glorified term, for the trick that has been adapted to upgrade Newtonian dynamics to include the gamma-factors.
1. The force in Newtonian mechanics (as you know) is defined as the time derivative of momentum. d(mv)/dt = F.
In relativistic dynamics, it pretends the same relationship exists. It claims that
d(gamma.Mv)/dt = gamma.F.
In order to obtain this result an illegitimate operation has to be done. gamma has to be considered a constant, and pulled outside the bracket and the expression written as
gamma.d(Mv)/dt,
completely ignoring the fact that gamma is a function of the variable v, the same variable that is being differentiated with respect to t. This operation is untenable.
This will show that, effectively what is done on the pretext of “Lorentz invariance” is finding an excuse to stick gamma in front of F without in any way explaining how the gamma-factor comes about.
2. Also you do not seem to recognize that there are two gamma-factors involved. In a particle accelerator experiment conducted on earth, the momentum p that is applied to set the particle at the expected velocity is p = gamma.Mv where gamma is a function of the (supposed) velocity v. In this the particle acquires the momentum Mv. This means that the applied momentum p gets SCALED DOWN by the factor gamma. (Note: gamma is a function of the velocity of the particle).
Now when the displacement is measured in time t, with respect to the lab-frame (where the experimentor is conducting the experiment), it is found that this displacement is not given by x = vt. It turns out that the displacement is less and matches the equation x’ = GAMMA(x –ut), where u is the velocity of orbit of the earth and GAMMA is a function of u. Furthermore in this case GAMMA factor SCALES UP, the other term (x-ut).. (Note GAMMA is a function of the velocity of the lab-frame)
Now if we assume invoking the principle of “Lorentz invariance” is admissible for introducing the SCALING DOWN factor gamma of momentum, how can the same principle be invoked to justify the SCALING UP factor -GAMMA of displacement?
3. What you do not seem to understand is upon doing various experiments, and analyzing their results, various EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS have been developed very accurately, independent of any theories (Lorentz, Einstein’s or Christov’s). And when new experiments are performed these equations are confirmed over and over again. Theories have come up later to explain these equations, and they now pretend that these equations have been developed by these theories and people naively give credit and worship these theories for the independently developed equations.
What McEahern wrote in relation to the equations of QM and the theory is equally true for equations of “relativistic phenomena” and the contentions of SRT. “It is important to remember that nothing we have said alters any of the equations or predictions
of the physical theories. We merely point out that the slapped-on misinterpretations of the “meaning” and “significance” of the equations is the source of all the ‘weirdness’”.
Relativistic dynamics is nothing more than applying the EMPERICALLY DEVELOPED EQUATIONS (independent of any theories) for the solutions of problems.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Viraj
It is fair to recognize that we are not understanding each other. You have your ideas and based on them you keep attacking and saying that relativity makes tricks, etc. I disagree with this since the theory, within its scope of validity, makes the correct quantitative predictions (although not the most plausible physical interpretations). So this talk has become pointless for me. I do not understand your central point of discussion. I am sorry.
I thank you for your interest.
Best regards
Israel
Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Dear Israel,
1. You have stated to the effect that SRT does not provide “the most plausible (of) physical interpretations”. But when I point out and CRITCISE the not plausible interpretations you allege that I ‘attack’.
2. I read your essay, rated it and commented on it. I have corresponded with you for well over a month. Still you have not had the courtesy to read and...
view entire post
Dear Israel,
1. You have stated to the effect that SRT does not provide “the most plausible (of) physical interpretations”. But when I point out and CRITCISE the not plausible interpretations you allege that I ‘attack’.
2. I read your essay, rated it and commented on it. I have corresponded with you for well over a month. Still you have not had the courtesy to read and comment on my essay.
3. If you read my essay you would have understood my standpoint on the theory of relativity. It comes directly from the leads of what Einstein has left behind, particularly in his Autobiography. If he was satisfied and thought SRT to be correct and an invincible theory he would not have written: that there is a ‘Right Way and we are capable of finding it’. The ‘Right Way’ he pointed at was to take the analogy between the impossibility of the Perpetuum Mobile and Lorentz Transformation to its logical conclusion, by finding a Universal Principle that is common to all physical processes. My essay concerns the fulfillment of this dream of Einstein.
The greatest tribute one can pay to Einstein is to take his ideas forward so that we transcend SRT, (and not to keep a blind eye to conceptual errors in SRT, bury our heads in the sand and live with SRT).
4. Here is an extract from my essay:
In regard to the fictitious axioms in the foundations of physics Einstein wrote: “If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented (fictitiously), can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more has the right way any existence outside our illusions? ……”. We need to note that in answering the above question , Einstein firmly asserted that the right way will be based on simplest of mathematical ideas: “ ..without a hesitation that there is, in my opinion a right way, and that we are capable of finding it (in the future) …Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is a realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. (thus quite in contrast to the abstruse mathematical formalisms of SRT and GRT), I am convinced that we can (i.e. WILL be able to) discover by means of purely mathematical constructions, the concepts and laws connecting them with phenomena” (1, p. 398). We must note that Einstein indicates here candidly that RT is directing not quite towards the ‘right way’ and implies that RT will be surpassed and replaced when the ‘right way’ is found.
Einstein’s view seems to be that Newtonian space-time methodology needs to be replaced, i.e. metaphorically to write its obituary, and new physics needs to be patterned in the same mould as thermodynamics. Einstein wrote: “Newton, forgive me; you found the only way, in your own age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power. The concepts that you created, are even today still guiding our thinking in physics (including RT and QM), although now we know that they will have to be replaced by others (in the future), ….. Consequently, the obituary (of concepts of space-time physics created by Newton) can limit itself in the main to communicating of thoughts which played a considerable role in my endeavours - A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, the more different kinds of things it relates, and more extended its area of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which the classical thermodynamics made upon me. …. I am convinced that, … it will never be overthrown” (1, p. 33).
We need to take note of Einstein’s statement: “the obituary can limit itself … to … thoughts which played a considerable role in my endeavours” - Einstein’s theories could surpass Newtonian mechanics to the extent they have, because he consciously treated phenomena in general, through the lens of thermodynamics. But unfortunately, his approach has been only a transitional endeavour in between Newtonian foundation and the expanded thermodynamic foundation, since his approach was to draw an analogy between a certain known thermodynamic phenomenon and a mechanical phenomenon (without explaining their physical bases), and inferring from it that both phenomena occurred under the same general principle. Then he claimed this belief warranted justification for him to raise the phenomenon into a kinematic axiom. We can see this logic in the following statement: “The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations, ….. This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlie thermodynamics” (1, p.57).
Once this parallel between the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation is discerned, although the physics behind these have not yet been explained, he chose to raise the Lorentz transformation to a postulate:.. “The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the time.”(1, p. 55). His modus operandi was to accept the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile as an empirically verified truth and to postulate that Lorentz transformation in mechanics was analogical to it (without delving into details of its physics of either) and called it a “physical interpretation” of the latter.
While he formulated his relativity theories on a provisional basis, Einstein seems to have been deeply committed to finding a general solution based on the extension of the principles of thermodynamics. The general principle Einstein was desperately searching for (see end note 7) is that whether in thermodynamics or in mechanics, a fraction of energy in action is usurped to form an organic link with the background energy field. Carnot showed that in an ideal engine, there is a loss of a fraction of energy, which prevents all the heat energy produced to be converted to work. This fraction dQ = T2S1 is the product of temperature T2 (intensive component) of background energy, and the entropy S1 (extensive component) of energy in action. In general terms, the fraction of energy dQ usurped to form the organic link with the background is given by the product of the extensive component Ea of the energy in action and the intensive component Ib of the energy of the background. Thus the fraction of energy forming the organic link with the background dQ = Ea x Ib. This explains the physics behind the impossibility of perpetuum mobile and Lorentz transformation. Thus in the motion of a particle (relative to earth), the intensive component of the background energy field is u = earth’s orbital velocity (not the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame as SRT claims). The extensive component of the energy in action is Mvc/c2 (inertia of energy of motion). Hence dQ = (Mv/c).u is usurped to form the organic link with the background leaving Mvc(1 –u/c) for relative motion. This is the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation - see end of this paper”.
Best regards,
Viraj
view post as summary
attachments:
19_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Israel,
The number of postings in your thread reached 255 and fell back to 252. Perhaps someone reported posts as inappropriate.
I did not yet reply to your last posting because I am still trying to understand some tricky questions.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Nov. 2, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Eckard
I think you are right, I'm gonna check it. Thanks for let it me know.
In relation to how space is modeled in relativity my argument is simple. In relativity space is not modeled as a material continuous fluid, instead it is a container, a flexible empty mesh represented by the metric tensor, and matter and fields fill it. If you check Einstein's field equations, on the left hand side we have the geometrical part and on the right one we have the matter part. So, matter is put on space and given the distribution of matter space warps. Recall that in relativity one still has space-time even if the right hand side is zero. In the XIX century physicists thought also that space was empty (represented by Euclidean geometry) and then fill it with particles and fields (the aether field, the gravitational field) to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and heat phenomena. As you can notice, this way of dealing with reality is basically the same as it is done in relativity, that is, space fill with matter and fields. In contrast, there is the opposite view, space is a continuous material fluid (according to the investigations of Christov this fluid, that he called the metacontinuum, could be either a liquid or a solid depending on certain values of certain constants) and particles (in fact, more properly solitons) and fields are excitations of this medium, these objects do not fill space, instead they are states of it. This is the great difference. Christov's theory is a theory of this kind governed by the laws of mechanics of continuous media. This view has profound implications for physics. So profound that it challenges well established facts (such as the the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory) but at the same time offers much simpler solutions. Of course, there is still a lot of work to do to get satisfactory results but the important point here is that principles have been identified and they are quite solid.
Best Regards
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear Israel,
Congratulation to the jury. Could the paradigm shift that Edwin expects rather be a shift backward in some sense? Wouldn't this fit well to the question "Which basic assumptions are wrong?"? While I did not quite understand what serious error for instance Spekkens, Ellis and Dribus referred to until the jury commented on their essays, your message was rather clear to me: The denial of an absolute frame of reference is untenable.
Having perhaps successfully dealt with the reason for the denial, I hope you will agree with me on that the expectation by Michelson was not just half but completely wrong from the very beginning. Please find my file "mistake" attached at 1364. I am curious.
Best Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Eckard
Perhaps you should reread my essay, in particular the first sections. There I argue that sometimes in order to make progress in physics one has to go backwards and reconsider past assumptions. If those assumptions solve the problems we have NOW, they are very welcomed in a science. The PSR, as I argue in my essay, is not at variance with the principle of relativity. So, time will tell whether it is useful or not. The theory is yet under construction.
As to whether I agree or not with the expectation of Michelson, this is a matter of perspective. If we judged the MMX in retrospective I would agree with you, but we should not forget that at that time Maxwell's theory was not generally accepted. It was not even complete by the 1880s and it only started to gain recognition only after the work of Hertz in 1887-8. There were other competing theories and therefore there was a lot of confusion on the interpretation of the experiment. If we study the problem in great detail the calculations become much more complicated than those found in your paper. You may wish to check the
article I wrote on the MMX, there you may find some information and references with more comprehensive calculations that may answer your inquiries.
From my view, the MMX is an excellent academic example to understand the physics at a deeper level. I had studied this problem for some time and my article summarizes the most important findings. So, from my part I have nothing more to say about it, instead it is time to move on. As I said, the result of the experiment (whether negative or positive) does not rule out the assumption of the PSR. Keep in mind that since we do not know the reality, we have to make some times metaphysical assumptions. Therefore they are far beyond direct experimental verification.
Best regards
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 05:35 GMT
Dear Israel,
Do we really need metaphysical assumptions if there is simply an overlooked logical mistake is to be found? Thank you for your hint to "The physics surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and a new aether theory". You did not yet find out the crucial mistake I tried to explain in "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley". Please read my arguments again, get aware of the decisive steps and reconsider your immature rejection of them. Then I am ready to discuss with you questions that are of secondary importance.
Incidentally, while you quoted 106 references, I am looking in vain for any hint to Paul Marmet who like you preferred the consideration of elementary waves instead of rays in order to calculate the tilt. I guess, you did not even carefully deal with Michelson and Morley 1887 including a supplement that might render the approach by Marmet and by you pointless.
Don't you in Mexico have access to Lorentz 1886 in Dutch original or in French translation? Did you read Michelson and Morley, Am. Journ. Sci. 32(1886)377-386?
Best regards,
Eckard
You were certainly not aware of the three papers by Feist.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Israel,
The decisive step is missing after calculating the angle of rotation described already by M&M in their supplement. When I skimmed your lengthy paper for the first time, I had overlooked that you referred to that supplement. This does not matter. You made then the same mistake as did M&M and perhaps everybody else since then.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Israel,
Perhaps you need some time to check "The mistake by Michelson and Morley". Did you find an error in my hopefully compelling reasoning? Originally the MMX was merely of secondary interest to me. None of the recent papers including yours, Christov's, Shtyrkov's (in Russian), Marmet's, Munera's, Feist's, Gift's, Cahill and Kitto's, Janssen and Stachel's, ... got aware of what I am claiming to have found out simply by consequent reasoning. Should I question my sanity for that reason?
If I understood Peter Jackson and Paul correctly then they consider me correct.
If I am correct, and Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning, at least with vacuum, then I agree with Marmet concerning the due consequences. I tend to agree with you and also with Cahill on that the absolute space was not refuted by any MMX.
In principle, I am open minded for new ideas like your soliton space of four spatial dimensions. Perhaps my notion of a soliton is outdated. If I recall correctly, a soliton is a self-reinforcing solitary wave (a wave packet or pulse) that maintains its shape while it travels at constant speed. In that sense a photon seems to be as fictitious as a phonon, correct?
While I was already aware of Olaf Dreyer, I just found speculations in his essay, nothing tangible. Of course, Cahill's foam is even more vague to me.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 7, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT
Dear Eckard
I'm sorry for not replying soon. These days I've overwhelmed with my duties here at the university. Your inquiries require some time to be properly addressed. I'lll get back to you asap.
Regards
Israel
Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Eckard
You: The desperate search for any explanation to the unexpected result led to the hypothesis by FitzGerald, by Lorentz, and by others of a length contraction to the arm ACA with far reaching implications...
Length contraction followed naturally from the idea that the spherical field of an electron at rest, turns out to be an ellipse when the charge moves. This was...
view entire post
Dear Eckard
You: The desperate search for any explanation to the unexpected result led to the hypothesis by FitzGerald, by Lorentz, and by others of a length contraction to the arm ACA with far reaching implications...
Length contraction followed naturally from the idea that the spherical field of an electron at rest, turns out to be an ellipse when the charge moves. This was calculated in 1887-8 by Oliver Heaviside who was collaborating with FitzGerald. FitzGerald realized that if matter is composed of charges and their fields contracts in the direction of motion then an ensemble of charges (a body) should contract. Larmor was also in contact with FitzGerald and arrived at the same conclusion in his work published in 1900. Lorentz, for the same reasons as FitzGerald, arrived at the same conclusion independently some years later 1902. Marmet, instead, argued that bodies should expand. This conclusion I found it totally flawed.
You: The decisive step... ...You made then the same mistake as did M&M and perhaps everybody else since then.
I didn't make a mistake. The calculations are correct but they are restricted to the illustration of the most relevant aspects of the experiment. The article clearly states that I'll be dealing with the physics surrounding the MMX, not detailed calculations. The complete calculations should include gravitational and temperature effects, two angles (theta and phi) defining the orientation of the planes of the interferometer relative to the motion of the earth (see H. Munera et al., Mazur et al.), the refraction of the light when they pass through the mirrors, the calculations of the times from the half-silvered mirror to the detector, etc. If one consider all of this, we would have at least three kinematical variables, namely: v, theta and phi and one equation. Therefore the equation becomes unsolvable (theta and phi basically represent the motions of the earth), thus ruling out the main aim of the experiment. Capria et al. carried out more comprehensive calculations considering the propagation of light even from the half-silvered mirror to the detector (1992MMCapria_FoundPhys_24_885).
You: Did you find an error in my hopefully compelling reasoning? I think so. See below.
Should I question my sanity for that reason? Perhaps.
You: If I am correct, and Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning, at least with vacuum, then I agree with Marmet concerning the due consequences. I tend to agree with you and also with Cahill on that the absolute space was not refuted by any MMX.
I: As I argue in my essay, whether the result of the experiment were positive or negative, the outcome wouldn't be evidence of the existence or non existence of absolute space. According to the scientific beliefs of that time Michelson and Morley naively (as judged in retrospective) thought that the absolute space could have been detected.
I don't have much time to reproduce your calculations, so, I'm assuming that they are correct. For me, it suffices to follow your rationale which is the most important part. Now, I'll give you my comments on your "Mistake".
If I understood well, you found an additional correction to the transversal rays which disagrees with that one calculated by Michelson and Morley in 1886-7. According to you, the time require for the ray in the transversal direction to complete a journey from the half-silvered mirror A to the mirror B and back to A is given as: t_ABA = (2d/c)/(1+r^2). Whereas in the longitudinal direction the round trip time is: t_ACA = 2d/c(1-r^2). According to your words: "=is too small as to be measured. This explains the null result." Actually, I don't understand why you make such affirmation.
If we carry out the time difference between the two rays in those journeys, neglecting terms of 4 order, we'll find that: t_ABA-t_ACA =(2d/c)/(1+r^2)-2d/c(1-r^2)=(2d/c)2r^2 (twice the accepted value). If we considered a 90 deg rotation the maximum time difference would be the double of the previous result, that is: (8d/c)r^2. This is 4 times larger than the value find in most textbooks. So, I don't understand why you affirm that the result is too small.
Now, in the case of the MMX the arms of the interferometer are of the same length, however, for the Kennedy-Thorndike the length of the arms is different, and in this case your calculation would not account for the null result. Moreover, one has to consider the angular dependence. Recall that the apparatus of 1887 was able to rotate. This rotation will induce a phase shift (see mazur and capria et al.), whose contribution to the phase shift is of more relevance than the fringe shift caused by the variations of the speed of the earth.
You: In that sense a photon seems to be as fictitious as a phonon, correct?
No
You: You were certainly not aware of the three papers by Feist.
No, I was not aware of Feist's papers and not of many other authors, it's impossible to be aware of everybody. So, why do you make emphasis on that?
Israel
view post as summary
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 06:32 GMT
Dear Israel,
You made a first decisive mistake when you wrote "t_ABA-t_ACA =(2d/c)/(1+r^2)-2d/c(1-r^2)=(2d/c)2r^2". Let's focus on the essence by setting ct_ABA/2d=B and ct_ACA/2d=C. Then I actually calculated B-C = (1+r^2) - 1/(1-r^2) while you wrote B-C = 1/(1+r^2) - 1/(1-r^2).
Do you see your mistake? I wrote 1+r^2, not 1/(1+r^2). My rationale is correct. Maybe I am not insane.
You made a second decisive while unfortunately rather common mistake when you wrote: "whether the result of the experiment were positive or negative, the outcome wouldn't be evidence of the existence or non existence of absolute space".
Actually, the unexpected negative (null) outcome of the MMX was considered compelling evidence against the existence of an absolute space alias common frame of reference alias aether at rest. If the MMX was ill-designed from the very beginning - as I am showing - then it does not preclude an absolute space. Of course, this is no evidence for the existence.
It is well known even to me that the idea of length contraction was inspired by calculations of Oliver Heaviside. Have you references that show he supported the length contraction hypothesis?
While I found more weak points in your welcome reply, I would like to suggest focusing on the essentials.
I consider Feist's measurement essential as long as it is neither refuted nor explained in terms of SR.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 07:22 GMT
Dear Eckard
In your document you wrote:
t_ABA = (2d/c) sqrt(1+r^2) sqrt(1+r^2) = (2d/c)/(1+r^2)... So you made the mistake not me.
Second, you still need to consider the angles which evidently refute the main aim of the experiment. In this sense, it's clear that the expectations in the outcome of the MMX are completely wrong. So I agree with you.
Third, again, I repeat that according to the beliefs of that time they thought that the experiment would have proved the existence of absolute space. So, in this sense I also agree with you, but you are judging the facts in retrospective with the knowledge we have of the experiment and of relativity, at that time things looked different.
You: It is well known even to me that the idea of length contraction was inspired by calculations of Oliver Heaviside. Have you references that show he supported the length contraction hypothesis?
Checked a book called the Maxwellians written by Bruce J. Hunt. There you'll find all the information. I don't remember whether he supported length contraction or not. Oliver Heaviside, Fitzgerald and Oliver Lodge were working very close... Heaviside talked to FitzGerald about his calculations, later when they tried to explain the outcome of the MMX, it was clear that objects should contract.
By the way, it was Heaviside first and Fitzgerald who realized that the speed of light must be a limiting speed.
Regards
Israel
Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
Dear Israel,
You: "the expectations in the outcome of the MMX are completely wrong. So I agree with you." Thank you for confirming my sanity and also for making me aware of my typo that unfortunately mislead you.
Perhaps I am the first one who understandably revealed a if not the most serious mistake in science. While Marmet made me aware of the issue, his attempt was not yet convincing. In "the general science journal" a Valeri Petrov wrote "The Main Mistake of Michelson". He was obviously wrong. When Christov wrote "Much ado about nil", he could also not even persuade me.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Congratulations Israel,
I'm happy to see that you and Daryl were recognized. I hope your ideas gain increasing recognition. This is a great start!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Edwin
If you are happy, imagine how I feel!! Indeed, Daryl also made it to the first places, I'm very glad that our ideas have been recognized. I also hope this is the beginning of a paradigm shift. Thanks for our our discussion, I know that your work has also an important role to play in this change. Congratulations too!!
Best Regards
Israel
MV Vasilyeva wrote on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Israel,
congratulations on getting your ideas recognized. Well-deserved and well-done! I remember you had doubts that your essay may not receive the recognition it deserves for being too controversial. I am very glad that your fears were not realized.
I very much enjoyed our discussions, during which I learned a lot. Thank you and all the best to you!
report post as inappropriate
Author Israel Perez replied on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear MV Vasilyeva
Thank you for your comments, they are very encouraging. Indeed, my fears were not realized. I am quite happy for this. I also enjoyed reading your essay and our discussion, unquestionably we all learned a lot during this contest.
So far, I'm attempting to build a new and stronger theory. The central idea is to have space as a material continuum (of 4D + time they are in total 5D). This represents a privileged system of reference. As you pointed out in your essay many problems are very easy to understand and solve. The catch here also is to consider that the real physical entities are not particles and waves but solitons. It has been mathematically shown that solitons reproduce all properties of waves and particles such as spin, charge, interference, etc. So there is no need to deal with two conceptions and talk about the wave-particle duality. Solitons and fields can be seen as excitations and states of space (3D), respectively. This is a radically different view of modelling the universe. In the current view, space-time is assumed as of different nature to particles and fields. Perhaps you may be interested in reading the work of another winner which has a deep connection with your work and mine. His essay it is very illustrative on how nature is modelled in current theories. He proposes also modelling particles, waves and fields as states and excitations of the vacuum or a background, however, although he considers the vacuum as having internal structure he does not assume it as a material substance.
Not on but of.
Olaf Dreyer
all the best
Israel
P.S.: By the way, many people wondered about your name. I'll be glad if you could tell me your name. Thanks
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.