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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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