Search FQXi

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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 11/28/11 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, I am not sure. How does a sound wave behave within a field that...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/28/11 at 12:07pm UTC, wrote Eckard, If our discussion were restricted to "pictures", I might be...

Eckard Blumschein: on 11/28/11 at 11:20am UTC, wrote Pentcho, An acoustic wave is imagined to be carried by a huge number of...

Eckard Blumschein: on 11/25/11 at 21:34pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, While Frank Atkinson's arguments against speculative cosmology...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/25/11 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote If light is not Doppler-shifted, then it is stretched so as to look...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/25/11 at 8:09am UTC, wrote An extremely silly explanation of the cosmological redshift: ...

Paul Reed: on 11/23/11 at 11:04am UTC, wrote Tommy Another way to address the "hubbub" would be to ask, why assume...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/22/11 at 19:44pm UTC, wrote Red herrings, Eckard? As the photon travels through seemingly empty space...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, You need to be able to explain why mass and energy are represented..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, Then we must agree to disagree about what physically constitutes..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Lorraine Ford: "Malcolm, I don’t agree for one minute with Rob’s or Georgina’s views..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Malcolm. Robert is not a troll but like everyone who comments on this..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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

FQXi BLOGS
January 27, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Faster Than Light Neutrinos? [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
I’ve been asked for my thoughts on news from the Gran Sasso Laboratory that subatomic particles have broken the speed of light. From Nature: Researchers at the Opera Collaboration "claim to have measured the 730-kilometre trip between CERN and its detector to within 20 centimetres. They can measure the time of the trip to within 10 nanoseconds, and they have seen the effect in more than 16,000 events measured over the past two years. Given all this, they believe the result has a significance of six-sigma — the physicists' way of saying it is certainly correct." (Paper here.)

FQXi’s John Donoghue, who has been questioning the constancy of light speed, in the search for a theory of quantum gravity, may like the sound of that.

For those worried about possible violations of causality, I can recommend a new bag that I bought from a market stall a few days ago. What I thought was a typo on its label turns out to be quite profound and prescient: “We are specialized in producing high class _causal_ bags.”

In case you’re wondering how a bag can violate causality, FQXi blogger Daniel Ferrante notes: “It means the airline loses them even before you buy your ticket!”

I think their sales may go up.

More (serious) thoughts to come later (/earlier). Maybe. (And here they are (added 26 September).)

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
Travelling faster as c means that you are going to catch up photons that are in fact emitted in the past, so you are not entering the past, you can only observe it.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 2, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
Clever Einsteinians know that the OPERA experiment is a small trouble. The great trouble has always been the MICHELSON-MORLEY experiment:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.do
c

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
Einsteinians know no limits when it comes to destruction of human rationality:

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrin
o.php

"Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all. (...) To understand how relativity altered the neutrino experiment, it helps to pretend that we're hanging out on one of those GPS satellites, watching the Earth go by underneath you. Remember, from the reference frame of someone on the satellite, we're not moving, but the Earth is. As the neutrino experiment goes by, we start timing one of the neutrinos as it exits the source in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the detector in Italy is moving just as fast as the rest of the Earth, and from our perspective it's moving towards the source. This means that the neutrino will have a slightly shorter distance to travel than it would if the experiment were stationary. We stop timing the neutrino when it arrives in Italy, and calculate that it moves at a speed that's comfortably below the speed of light. (...) Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again."

The original author, Ronald A.J. van Elburg, is by no means the cleverest Einsteinian:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.26
85v1.pdf

Ronald A.J. van Elburg: "The Michelson and Morley experiment demonstrated the speed of light is the same in all inertial frame of reference and on this axiom Einstein built special relativity."

Einsteinians,

The OPERA experiment may be flawed but the flaw has surely nothing to do with your "perspective" according to which the detector is moving towards the source. This "perspective" is not very sane, to say it mildly. It has been teaching you (and, unfortunately, the rest of the world) for over a century that the Michelson-Morley experiment "demonstrated the speed of light is the same in all inertial frame of reference" while in fact this experiment demonstrated just the opposite: the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=(c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 19:06 GMT
If the speed of light is variable as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, why did experiments fail to refute Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? Imre Lakatos has given the answer:

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

In the absence of any protective belt, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) and confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=(c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the source relative to the observer. The first element of the protective belt, the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, made the Michelson-Morley experiment support the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world this independence is an absolute truth, as absolute as the truth "Two and two make five" in Big Brother's world.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Friends,

I kept quiet about this rumor for the past week because I feared that it may be an experimental error or another “sighting” released before its time (like the recent Higgs rumors). But having read the results, I am convinced that the Universe is a larger place today.

I think that superluminal neutrinos may be evidence of extra dimensions, and I can explain this result with at least 7 dimensions. I am formulating some of my ideas and will soon bounce ideas off of some of my recent collaborators.

It seems only logical that neutrinos with small, but non-zero, rest masses would be the first to demonstrate a hyperspace anomaly. We are finally starting to uncover some of the science behind “Stargate”!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Ray,

Quantum correlations are evidence enough for me that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:57 GMT
Hi Joy,

I never disagreed about the possible use of octonion-like parallelizable 7-spheres in physics. But if the OPERA experiment implies the existence of super-luminal tachyons, then this may challenge our very definitions of "locality" and "causality".

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 17:02 GMT
It may.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Witchy wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:52 GMT
How about causal shoes? More my kind of thing. Think ruby slippers....

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
You'll like the photo with this SciAm article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-love-you-
shoes

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 16:53 GMT
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/ww
w/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Will this remain unchanged? If not, just give the true antithesis. My proposition:

The speed of light varies with v, the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c' = (c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
If Banesh Hoffmann were alive today, would he give some support to the equation c' = (c plus v) as an alternative to Einstein's 1905 (false) light postulate?

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
I suspect that even Einstein miraculously coming from 1909 and trying to solve the present speed-of-light crisis might give some support to the equation c' = (c plus v) given by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_V
iews_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation

The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909

"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
Sometimes Einsteinians glorify Newton's emission theory of light for unknown reasons:

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagu
ngen/OWR_2006_10.pdf

Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
Pilot waves, anyone?

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
If neutrionos are going faster then the speed of light then neutrinnobursts of supernovas should have arrived much earlier than the accompanied lightbursts, but these are detected simultanious.

But if neutrinos really were going faster then the speed of light, they still arrived at point later in time. But I think that that relativistically the particles themselves must turn into their own anti-particle. Tell me if I am wrong.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT
Peter van Gaalen wrote:"If neutrinos are going faster then the speed of light then neutrinobursts of supernovas should have arrived much earlier than the accompanied lightbursts, but these are detected simultaneous." Non sequitur. HEP accelerators might produce neutrinos with more kinetic energy than bursts in supernovas.

Isn't already the simultaneous arrival of light and neutrinos remarkable?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 05:06 GMT
Hi Eckard,

Yes it is. Esspecially when there is the propability that neutrinos have mass. How is this in accordance with special relativity? wasn't it the problem that accelerating a body with mass near lightspeed, the mass of the body became infinite? Until now this was also what was measured.

But if it is truth that neutrinos can go faster then ligth, our equations are not correct? It is possible. but there was also CPT symmetry. even if a neutrino is going faster then ligth, it will arive at a point later in time, not a point before it departed. but time measered by the particle itself is going backwards. According to Feynmann T symmetry is the same as CP symmetry. So the particle must turn into its antiparticle.

Nature has absolute authoritiy. That is what I like about the sciences. Science is a light in the dark.

Regards,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 23:45 GMT
Hi Peter,

Meanwhile I guess, neutrinos propagate as fast as does light in "empty" space.

They might nonetheless be faster than c, when c was calculated for a measured distance and a measured timespan while the limitation is valid for the distance belonging to propagation with respect to the medium (ether). See my estimation in the thread Neutrino Black Magic.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear All,

Why are we just fascinated with the speed of light and not about our self and to know who we really are. Universal I or singularity with in all of us is the cosmological constant and it is omni present, omni scient and omni potent. Universal I do not have to travel to get anywhere as I is every where, I just got to know the absolute truth about my self.

For relative cosmic travel all we got to do is die here and be born else where, its that simple. We are the cosmic travellers, we have worm holes in built -- dreams and a black hole -- death.

S=BM^2 is the equation for human beings to describe the universe we live in.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 6_UniversalLifeCycle.doc

report post as inappropriate

Unconsious Being replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 20:01 GMT
Hi Sridattadev,

How can you say that we are not interested in our selves. Do you know yourself?

In evolution you can wonder how consiousnes has evolved. It would be more logical if we were unconsious beings that just act according to our neuronal wiring. And that is exactly what happened.

You say that you are everywhere. I say that I am nowhere. Who am I? I am not the same as a few seconds ago. Therefore I can´t be born anywhere else. My body exists but I think that ´I´ don´t exist. The ´I´ is an illusion. This is nihilism to its extreme. We are unconsious machines that just communicate to each other.

And really ´love´ is also an illusion. Because of natural selection nature equiped us with something we experience as feelings. Only with the purpose to propagate. We think our feelings are real, but that is something that nature wants us to believe. Nature wanted that we propagated so equiped us with loving and horny feelings. But can´t you see that it is just a trick of nature?

Awake from the matrix Sridattadev!! At this moment you are plugged into the matrix. Free yourself!

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear fellow awakened being,

Universal I or Singularity is the source that animates us all in this illusionary matrix. I "am" not everywhere, I "am" just a thought and body, universal I or singularity is everywhere. Scientific community calls Universal I or singularity space-time or matrix as you have put it and religious communtiy calls it God. You are right universal I or singularity is that absolutely nothing which gives meaning to everything. Love, peace and passion are just some of the parameters incorporated by the universal I or architect of the matrix to bind our thoughts and bodies together in this simulation of life. They are the better parameters in place to keep this simulation or illusion going on for a while. We also know the opposite kind of parameters hate, greed and several others which result in disturbance in the matrix. If you will, sridattadev happened to wake up or unplug from the matrix and got to know the architect. I got a message from the architect for us all....Be in Love to Rest in Peace, I hope that this simple message is not that tough to follow.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear friend,

If you have understood what I wrote, you will realize that I totally agree with you. We are unconsciously concious of our self..this is the state we are in when we are fast asleep.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
If the neutrinos crossing the Earth, then they cross some elementary particles along the straight trajectory; then if the elementary particles are curvatures, then there are a time slowing down for each proton, and neutron, crossing.

The cumulative slowing down of the time lead to a neutrino velocity greater of the light velocity: it is like a multiple gravitational effect, and I think that is possible to evaluate the particles-curvature (or elementary particle potential) linked to the particles-dimension (each particles dimension give a particles curvature value).

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Luigi Foschini wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 19:53 GMT
Here are some (sparse) comments and doubts about this work:

* while reading the preprint (arXiv:1109.4897), I noted that the systematic uncertainties were added in quadrature, but are we sure that they are really independent? If we simply sum all of them, thus by assuming some reciprocal dependence, we have a systematic uncertainty of 21 ns and, added to the statistical 7 ns, will result in a 2 sigma significance of the measurement. So the view from a 6 sigma measurement is quite different...

* one major comment is reported in the Nature news and is due to John Ellis: "If it's true, then it's truly extraordinary [... but] It's difficult to reconcile with what OPERA is seeing". Indeed, OPERA has observed in the past neutrinos from the SN 1987A and in that case no discrepancies were found. One could replies that the technology improved since 1987 or that there are neutrinos with different properties, many more than we know.

* one comment to the Nature news by Seppo Sahrakorpi suggested that there could be some quantum effect (tunneling?). I wonder - if the measurement was correct - if there could be an analog for neutrinos of the Cerenkov effect.

* I just remind that the speed of light in vacuum is not measured, but it is defined as 299792458 m/s following the reorganization of the SI in early eighties (see Petley, 1983, Nature, 303, 373). The definition of metre depends on the type of atom (through the Rydberg and fine structure constants; do you remind the works aimed to measure the constancy in time of the fine structure constant?). So, perhaps, could it be just a matter of updating some definition?

* is there any systematic uncertainty forgotten?

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 20:11 GMT
To these, I add comments made by Colin Bruce:

----------

This reminds me vividly of claims a decade or two ago that quantum tunneling could send information "faster than light." None stood up to scrutiny, usual cause was confusing the notional "group velocity" of a wave packet with the speed at which a signal can be transmitted.

Analogy for the present case: the wave train describing the neutrinos is a long surfboard, with a guy in a red suit at the front and one in a blue suit at the back. As the board travels over the waves, not exceeding lightspeed, the red and blue guy are alternately visible (never both together). So at times the guy appears to change colour and leap forward impossibly fast. But you cannot send an instant signal "from the back to the front" of the surfboard or wavetrain, any more than you can use EPR correlations to signal.

This particular claim will likely come down to inadequate definition of the time at which the "original neutrinos" were deemed to be emitted.

Colin Bruce

----------

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
Joy

But does this event really matter? Light is just that, light. It is an existent entity. This thing which might have travelled faster than what the entity known as light does, is something else. Of course, light also enables observation, but that is a different story.....

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 16:24 GMT
It can be proved, although the proof is too complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to one observer and does not occur according to the other:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

p
p. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/b
ugrivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/ww
w/

"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light postulate are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be ten times greater than the light speed but this would not prevent light from being "always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence. Relevant scenarios threatening special relativity are those in which the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source or the observer is noticeable in some way, e.g. takes the form of a Doppler shift measured by a moving observer.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT
http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/time-to-revisit-
einstein-physics__2011-09-24.html

"Challenging Einstein usually a losing venture, history shows. Betting against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke. For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party - which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" -...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Pentcho

You are correct in your point re the compatibiliy with what was stipulated (1905) as the essential movement qualities of light and the possibility that something could travel faster than light. In simple language, Lorentz got muddled between observation and reality, hence his conclusion (1904) "The only restriction as regards the velocity will be that it be smaller than that of light" is a function of his theorm, not something that necessarily obtains in reality.

One does hope that this event is verified, in the sense that that will force a re-appraisal, as you are quite rightly raising. However, the "relevant scenarios threatening special relativity" are a function of what SR was actually about. Please see my other posts.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 23:59 GMT
This will burn off like the morning fog. The invariant mass is mc^2 = sqrt(E^2 - p^2), where this is negative for the tachyon. The neutrino mass would be imaginary valued. Now I do not know what it means to measure an imaginary valued quantity. The Regge poles m^2 = J^2 - n, n = 1 or 4 for open/closed strings, predicts an imaginary mass for a Tachyon with J = 0. These states are not physical and a constraint which removes them gives the elementary SO(24) SUGRA. The vacuum state for the tachyon is removed by standard QFT techniques. We might also think of them as being on a spacelike interval that recedes off to infinity instantly in the frame or gauge condition chosen.

The speed of light is an invariant, where nothing can go faster than light because nothing can go slower than light. A distance in spacetime is

d = (ct)^2 – x^2 – y^2 – z^2.

Ignoring y and z and if something is moving along the x direction as x = vt then

d = (c^2 – v^2)t^2.

This leads to the curious observation that the faster something moves the shorter its spacetime distance is. There are two situations at either extreme. The first is that the object is at rest with us, and so d = ct. We and it are moving along a fourth dimension at the speed of light, even though we are at rest. The other is that c = v, which means that d = 0, or there is not spacetime distance. However, now this object is moving along the x direction at x = ct. It is not then hard to see that in effect everything is moving at the speed of light in their frame --- not faster or slower, but c = universal speed of everything.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
Lawrence,

The thing about light is that it's moving in lots of different directions, from the same source, as well as very many others. Doesn't this effectively cancel out the idea of an overall direction? Change happens at the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 08:00 GMT
LC,

You wrote: "I do not know what it means to measure an imaginary valued quantity." Electrical engineers used to measure reactive power. Nonetheless I agree with you: Imaginary mass is most likely nonsense.

What about the experiment, I guess it tries to confirm the idea uttered by Tom Van Flandern: While the velocity of light relative to the space is constant in empty space, we may not infer from that property a limitation to the speed of a body.

Admittedly, I wonder how they accurately measured the distance.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 13:44 GMT
The OPERA paper gives a (v-c)/c = 2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10^{-5}. They cite this as within the bounds of the MINOS experiment (v-c)/c = 5.1 ± 2.9×10-5, and that these experiments with neutrino beams are far less accurate than the |v-c|/c < 2×10-9 set by neutrino observations emitted by the SN1987A supernova. If the data from OPERA were taken as real the neutrinos would lead the gamma flux by on the order of 1 E10 seconds for SN1987a ( 168,000 LY) . The two data sets are inconsistent. This indicates an experimental calibration error.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 01:17 GMT
Since I am not a physicist, I'm probably wrong here, but here are my thoughts:

1) Perhaps the speed of light needs to be reassessed. Perhaps the neutrinos were given an extra kick that gave them the head start they needed to overcome gravity. The photon speed of light would need that same start if we are to compare the two speeds (light & neutrino). The rest masses may be different. Is the neutrino lighter? I would run the two particles side by side and in a vacuum. Propagation is in the form of spatial propagation at all points between the detectors (i.e. the particle takes on spatial forms - see www.CIGTheory.com). In any event, the maximum speed of propagation to obtain equilibrium (speed of electromagnetic spectrum) is the same for photons (light) as it is for neutrinos. I would recheck the theory and experiment. And don't believe a word of CIG Theory unless you believe it!

THX

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 01:33 GMT
Doug: "I would run the two particles side by side and in a vacuum."

That's what I would do. Let light travel the same path as the neutrinos. My money is on a distance error. I think they overestimated the distance. If they said they used gps to confirm it, then there is problably a bug in the GPS satellite code.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear Lawrence and Jason,

Please recall that my older models had tachyonic fermions. I'm not saying that the neutrinos themselves are tachyonic, but rather, that 'light-weight' tardyonic neutrinos may interact with 'light-weight' tachyonic fermions because the mass-squared gap is small (it is a kinematically accessible transition), and these particles are all ultra-relativistic such that they all travel close to the speed of light (slightly below for neutrinos, slightly above for ultra-relativistic tachyons). Its the same idea as Neutrino Flavor Oscillations, but with tachyons added to the problem.

Ooops! I probably said too much already - I'm writing a paper to explain my ideas in detail.

If anyone is worried about a GPS error messing up the distance calculations, you might ask Lawrence - I understand that is a specialty of his.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
At the risk of being involved in another thread...but I will repeat what some of you know I have said elsewhere. Leaving aside the possible actuality of one event.Isn't the real point here to recognise that in the process of seeing we are presented with a representation of what actually exists (reality)via light. The two, reality and the representation, are different. Light has its own properties which impinge upon its function as a medium. For example,it might not have a frequency capable of differentiating something that has a faster frequency, or it might not have the capability to detect something, etc. In simple words. if the mistake is made by assumeing that what is represented to us by light, constitutes reality, then, and only then, will you be surprised if stuff is detected which travels faster than light or is found to exist, but has not been seen before.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 10:33 GMT
My guess as to the neutrino results is that the LHC needs recalibrating w.r.t earth tides. The rise of Jupiter in the sky signals a slight decrease in the overall tidal effects acting upon the Earth, compounded by equatorial 'supermaterial comet debris' of the inner core. Newton's isotropic gravity assumption was *his* biggest mistake, and Einstein copied it without question apparently. An Archimedes screw as a graviton is the only solution which makes sense imo, hence anisotropic gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
I've reconsidered and now think that a local dark comet buried in the Mt Blanc range is responsible a.k.a a gravity hill effect.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
or anywhere near the flight path, most likely Italy looking at the map.

report post as inappropriate

Nkwenti wrote on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
The observed speed of the neutrinos was 1.000025 times the measured speed of photons.

What if?

- Photons do not travel in a strictly straight line but rather follow a helical path such that the actual distance of the trajectory is 1.000025 times the measured distance -- which would be the length of the helical axis. In this case, the actual speed of photons will be 1.000025 times more than the measured speed. and the measured speed will actually be (1/1.000025)*c

- If Neutrinos travel in a straight line unlike photons so their measured speed is actually closer to their actual speed which is close to the actual speed of light "c" but not higher.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Ray & Eckard,

Tachyons in supergravity tend to be elements of the theory which are removed. Tachyons by virtue of having infinite velocity in an appropriate frame can be sent off to infinity and removed from the theory. The in the 26-dim bosonic string provides a manifold of solution.

I doubt that these can exist in a measurable sense. The analogue could be made with electrical engineering of transmission lines. The Faraday-Maxwell equation ∇xH = 4πj + ∂D/∂t allows us to compute the magnetic intensity, and the ∇xE = -∂B/∂t gives us the electric field. For an electric field E = E_0 e^{ikx-iωt} and a current j = j_0 e^{ikx-iωt - iπ/2} we have the current and voltage π/2 out of phase. Now compute the wave impedance

E/H ~ E_0 e^{ikx-iωt}/(j_0/k) e^{ikx-iωt - iπ/2} – O(1/c) = ikE_0/j_0 = iR

So the impedance is largely imaginary valued. Wow! This means we can send an EM field down a transmission line in such as way that the impedance is not real. This is why we have AC current sent at this phase difference. Something which would otherwise be measurable is made imaginary valued (for the most part) and transmission losses are small.

This was at the heart of the argument between Edison and Tesla, DC vs AC with correct phase, where Tesla won the day.

The point is that from this engineering perspective this imaginary valued quantity has no directly measurable physical influence. The tachyon is similar with the Regge pole m^2 = J^2 + c, and for J = 0 m^2 < 0. These correspond to faster than light particles with the invariant mass

m^2 = E^2 – p^2 < 0

which are imaginary. In just the same case with the EE case of a transmission line these calculated quantities most likely can’t be physically real.

John,

The 1987A neutrinos had oscillated a lot. The actual ones measured were e-neutrinos at Kamiokande and other sites. These probably accounted for 1/3 the neutrinos by the time they reached us.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 02:45 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I agree that I would normally expect tachyons to either 1) induce a broken symmetry, and be absorbed as degrees-of-freedom of that broken symmetry, or 2) to fly off to infinity.

Hi Lawrence,

I agree that I would normally expect tachyons to either 1) induce a broken symmetry, and be absorbed as degrees-of-freedom of that broken symmetry, or 2) to fly off to infinity.

Regarding SN1987A, was Super Kamiokande up to peak operation at the time? Was that 1987 data as accurate as a modern 'controlled experiment'?

But what if the Italians are correct? I've written about 4 or 5 pages of what I expect to become a serious paper about this. It is a work in progress.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 03:43 GMT
I think this is likely to blow over. I would at least wait until a firmer verdict is in the works before making theoretical models of this. The interesting thing to think about is the lack of the Higgs particle. This seems to be a more reasonable measurement, and one which might need some rethinking.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 09:13 GMT
Lawrence, You wrote: "Ray & Eckard, Tachyons ...". I never referred to tachyons. I rather suspect that allegedly superluminal speed can be mainly explained as due to mistakes. My favorite explanation is a Nimtz type one. Contaldi offered imperfect synchronization.

Apparently, the arrival of the neutrinos is only in Gran Sasso too early by very significant 60 nanoseconds while reported as less significant at other detector locations. Therefore I guess, there are both a systematic mistake perhaps of Nimtz type and an effect of earth rotation. Only Gran Sasso is located in the east of the neutrino source. The effect of earth rotation reminds me of Foucault's pendulum.

I guess, the ether wind was not found by MM and others because the earth is dragging the ether while it does not rotate it. The effect of relative motion between earth and ether is of the same as the speed of sound (330 m/s). It is much weaker than the originally assumed ether wind due to the 29 km/s of orbital speed.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Ray,

I look forward to your paper. At first it seemed it was very likely a mistake, but the team seems competent and 6.1 sigma is significant (unless of course systemic errors account for 6 sigma).

Like you, I am working on a paper based on my model of neutrinos. After only a day of thinking about it, my model seems to work, but of course a day of thinking is not very long. Several points require explanation:

1. The super-nova discrepancy. (Neutrinos would have been very much earlier than photons.)

2. The 'nearness' to the speed of light. One competent commenter said "I'd be more likely to accept 100 times c rather than 1.000025 times c."

At this point my model seems to explain both of these aspects.

Of course Lawrence Crowell is probably correct: "This will burn off like the morning fog." But it's fun to consider a problem that's so far outside the catechism. This is an area I would never have considered for my model and yet it seems to be compatible. I am also reviewing Peter Jackson's essay as his DFM may be relevant.

What a year!

1. weak measurement experiments support de Broglie 'pilot wave model'

2. INTEGRAL polarization experiment shows 'graininess' 13 orders smaller than Planck length.

3. not even a hint of SUSY seen at LHC yet

4. only a hint of Higgs seen at LHC

5. proton radius experiment shows quantum electrodynamics 4% discrepancy

6. no sign of "collisions" between multi-worlds -- argues against 'eternal inflation'

7. Gravity Probe B confirms existence of C-field

8. 'fly-by' anomalies all consistent with postulated C-field density

9. indication that neutrinos travel faster than light.

10. I'm sure I've missed or forgotten a few recent results.

Every one of these results (except proton radius?) has been in the last 12 months. And every one of them appears to be compatible with my theory. I think 2011 will go down as a 'miracle year' in physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 10:44 GMT
Edwin

I can understand the 'pyschology' of the nearness point, but as they say 'a miss is as good as a mile', or 'it was the last straw that broke the camel's back. A difference is a difference is a difference.

I would presume, like most people, that light is one of the fastest examples of speed there is, so anything faster is only likely to be marginally so. There is no inherent reason why light is the fastest, it just happens to be what we see reality with. So it is the fastest we can see, literally. It is the confusion whereby the representation of reality that light presents to us is deemed to constitute reality, that is the problem. This results, apart from other mistakes, in the mantra that 'nothing can travel faster than light'. That really being a function of the flawed theorm, not a necessary fact in reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear All,

Where does the light or photons come from? why is there light at all? I know the answer and its simple. Light is created in the darkness of singularity of space-time. In philosophical or spiritual terms there is light because Universal I or singularity wanted it to be.

A simple example in a relative human life is, all I got to do is turn on a switch and there is light in the house. Who put that mechanism in place for generating light? we humans did, as we have learnt how to generate it.

Light is everywhere in the absolute nothingness, all that nothingness or universal I has to do is just choose to shine.

We are not only in space-time, it is in us too.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Luigi Foschini wrote on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 15:43 GMT
By the way, I noted that the OPERA measurements are strongly based on GPS measurements, which in turn are dependent on the special relativity. So, if OPERA claim of a bug in the special relativity is correct, this means that their measurements - based on GPS and, hence, on special relativity - are wrong! They contradict themselves... :)

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 19:54 GMT
Hi Luigi,

You told us that GPS measurements are dependent on the special relativity. While I am not an expert I recall that Tom Van Flandern was a good expert, and he claimed the opposite. Perhaps you may clarify. I am also interested in refutations of results by Gift, by Shtyrkov and several others who are to be found via Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Luigi Foschini replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 07:04 GMT
Well, some basic information on how GPS works can be found in the web. Just for example visit this page. Other doubts, more related to atmospheric effects, can be read in this post and related ones.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
While Richard Pogge as a professor of astronomy is not a GPS expert, Shtyrkov described Experiments with Geostationary Satelites (Proc. of the NPA Vol. 2, No. 1).

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
Why CERN's claim for faster-than-light neutrinos is not wrong

John P. Costella, Ph.D.

Melbourne, Australia

(25 September 2011)

Abstract

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
That makes muon-neutrinos the first discovered tachyons.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

No - Muon neutrinos are not tachyons - a simple Feynman diagram of a W decaying into a muon and neutrino would show that is clearly a bad assumption. I have a different interpretation. The bizarre thing here is that Lorentz Invariance and CPT Symmetry may both be weakly broken. The funny thing is - I remember Jason Wolfe and I had some bizarre discussions last year that any violation of the 'light barrier' had to be a rare 'Quantum Gravity' event - since quantum gravity is the only thing that we might expect to 'trump' Relativistic Gravity.

Hmmm...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
Let’s say neutrinos have “Planck” values higher or lower than the Planck in our universe.

They would exist and travel in a close by dimension and interact very little with our Plank value universe.

The actual (shorter) distance travelled by the neutrinos would be in this close by dimension.

The distance travelled would be between the point of creation and the point of interaction with our Planck universe, i.e. the point of detection.

Could be a first in showing parallel dimensions ...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 10:53 GMT
Marcel

Why all this attribution of different Plank values to entities, or different dimensions? Light is light. It travels. We see with it. A neutrino (or whatever)is a neutrino (or whatever). It too travels. We do not see with it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Luigi Foschini wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 07:07 GMT
Yesterday, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that about 30 over 160 potential authors of the OPERA Collaboration did not sign the preprint because of some internal disagreement...

report post as inappropriate

ROGER BARNES wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 09:29 GMT
I totally agree with your article. It seems you have done a great research on this topic.I am impressed by your knowledge.

pet transport

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT
Has anyone noticed the connection with the Earth's fly-by anomaly? Satellites get a mysterious acceleration around the planet's equatorial regions which is currently unexplainable and neutrinos get a mystery acceleration as they approach the Earth's equator. Coincidence??

report post as inappropriate

Olivier wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 11:51 GMT
The speed of light is the result of a measure.

Relativity theory postulates there is a speed limit in our universe which is called "c".

It was agreed that c is the speed of light and the meter was redefined as a fraction of c.

Now we found that a certain type of neutrino is a little bit faster than photons. This means that the speed limit, c, is not the speed of light but the speed of this kind of neutrino at that energy level.

There is no need to "shake a pillar of physics". Just redescribe "c" and re-redefined the arbitrary length of the meter according to this new measurement.

When we will discover yet another kind of particule a little bit faster, just rename and redefine, again.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
Yes, that is all there is to it!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 09:43 GMT
Olivier/Joy

It is not really relativity which 'postulates', per se, c as the speed limit. Relativity was essentially the function of an hypothesised link between movement and alteration in the dimension of matter. By 1904 Lorentz had a different explanation as to why this alteration occurred (albeit still very sketchy), and admitted that his explanation involved the following: "The only restriction as regards the velocity will be that it be smaller than that of light".

Now, put simply, what happened here is that in trying to explain the 'alteration of dimension effect'in terms of consequences (eg time, space, observation) what light presents to us as reality was deemed to be the actual reality, which it is not. All the equations, are in terms of observation, ie c is involved. Or put the other way around, in explaining this hypothesised phenomenon of an association of movement and alteration in dimension, there should have been two sets of equations: a) the valuation of this effect on any given entity, b)the impact of this effect in the context of observation (which is enabled by light)in terms of timing differences, etc, which is then further complicated by relative distance/movement of observers, and how light actually works.

It is also worth reminding ourselves, when considering all this, that they assumed a)that light is emitted (not subsequently travels) at a constant speed (c), ie the velocity of the source is irrelevant, b)that light travels at c in perfect conditions (ie otherwise it does not).

In practice, any given individual observation is a function of local circumstance. We need to understand how light works in order to regress from observation to reality, light being the medium which enables observation. We also need to determine if there is any relationship between movement and alteration in dimension, and if so, what is it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 13:21 GMT
And here is a more serious post, by Stephon Alexander:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/989

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 26, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi Paul, (Reed)

Nobody understands the concept of space and not even what time is beyond a specific definition. The speed of light is essentially the ratio of two measurements of concepts we do not understand.

So, let’s hold back the Inquisition for a moment. A “definition” comes from “defining” or making finite, i.e. with boundaries by shrinking a larger concept down to its measurable aspect. This does make the rest of the concept disappear. It is just a practical convention by which we choose to ignore other aspects of the concept. I choose to address these other aspects.

The Planck is a constant found in all the fundamental equations that describe the inner workings of our universe, from the steady state of structures to the dynamics of movement and exchanges. If we could make or find or even hypothesise a structure based on a different Planck value, chances are that it would not interact very much with our Planck based universe. This is where I place neutrinos, mu and electrons, at the upper and lower edge of the Planck value. We may understand that these off Planck entities to exist in a different “dimensions” working by the same rules as those found in our dimension with the difference that the Planck constant is simply of a different value. Just to have a different Planck value and a very limited interaction within our universe appears sufficient for calling it a “separate dimension”, “other or parallel universe”.

With this explanation in mind, we may speculate that the trajectory or travel of this “off world” particle effectively happens to be ....”off world” and that detection is just a crossover point.

I think that this is a fairly reasonable speculation. One assumption (different Planck value) and one inference of very low interactivity adding up to a conceptual “off world” or other dimension.

This is only offered as a possible explanation for saving c, since the results are coming from an experiment not entirely done in our universe or dimension. On the other hand, this explanation does not seem to be supported by the coincidence arrival of neutrinos and photons coming from light years distant events...

Just getting you to think differently,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT
Marcel

Your post 26/9 23.15

Science does not operate in the metaphysical. Therefore, assuming one gets the boundaries correct in terms of what we can know, and how we know it, everything is definable. Whether that is the ‘true’ position is irrelevant, because we cannot transcend ourselves. So, it then becomes a practical problem, not an existential one. There is no choice, if science is to avoid becoming a belief system.

What can this “off world/other dimensions/crossover” actually be? Any sight observation is enabled by a specific event, ie at a point in time certain photons reacted with an existent state of a certain entity. By the time you are aware of it, that existent state has ceased to exist, some aspect of it will have changed. (Obviously thee is a chain of these discrete events). Observers are neither able to influence the representations of reality as presented to us via various media, or the reality which instigated those.

Is Planck a constant in reality or the limitation of light to differentiate it, etc? Remember, light has innate properties which impinge upon its ability to represent reality.

There is no need to “save c”. There is a need to understand what was actually said about c, and a need to understand how c actually works (see Peter Jackson).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear All,

All problems will be solved if we accept zero or absolutely nothing as the only constant.

Hakuna matata! Don't worry be happy!

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Ray,

In a reply to Georgina you stated: "When I build these models, I am constantly considering what they need to accomplish. Years ago, I tried to do everything in 4-D, but the first weird phenomenon that caught my attention was the intrinsic 'spin' of a fundamental 'point' particle - it simply doesn't make any physical sense."

Ray, why would one consider that a 'point' particle implies 7 or more dimensions? The best measurements seem to indicate approximately 10^-18 meter radius for an electron. The 'point' particle is merely intended to simplify the mathematics. It should not (in my opinion) be taken seriously, and certainly not seriously enough to be cited as the basis of belief in multiple never seen dimensions. No one has ever seen a 'point' particle either.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Olivier Fabian replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:32 GMT
Edwin,

On the contrary, point-particules are the most logical explanation for reality.

A chunk of matter can be crushed toward a zero volume dot without producing any debris (ordinary matter --> white dwarf --> neutron star --> black hole). At that stage, we cannot see more crushing but there could be a few more crushings until the last resistance is overcome and the density is maximal.

I'd say a particule is a 0-dimension dot with a multi-dimensional area of effect.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 13:17 GMT
Edwin,

I loved every word you wrote. Too true

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 14:15 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I get your 'point', and I agree that 'massless' 'point' particles only exist in theory. If a very small Hyperspace exists, then the size of 'point' particles is related to the size of Hyperspace. But did you ever ask why the intrinsic spin of a 'point' particle electron carries the SAME (within factors of less than 10) angular momentum as complete atoms with much larger sizes (~10^(-10) m vs. ~10^(-18) m), or were you having too much fun drinking the Kool-Aid?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 23:46 GMT
Paul,

Metaphysics well understood can leave no choice as well.

As described in my essay on the limits of physics, a truth system proper requires an initial impossibility, a well defined subject matter and rules of operations that do not contravene logic. Better, rules that are the very rules of logic on which our maths is based on. From this system you may understand that, for logical operational reasons, the whole universe can only be made of a single substance/ process and its variations of the same nature. Then, since it all and the same stuff, the rest is just an unreasonably effective bunch of mathematical relationships. This is why, to a certain extent, we don’t need to know what the universe is made of. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care! Since the whole universe is made from it and its variations, we know what it is made of, in one form or another. This blissful blindness has to stop.

The substance of the vacuum of this universe is a continual explosive process which we identify as the passage of time. The rate of every spontaneous process is governed by the rate of time or this explosive process.

Light is a travelling wave of variation of this substance/process. Gravity is a pseudo static structure in differential of the rate of this substance/process. In other words, light literally travels at the speed of time and nothing can go faster than time, which is the governing causality.

Why save c? Save it for the above simple reason.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Marcel

Your post 27/9 23.46

The point about truth revolves around reference points and closed systems. Our awareness invokes a closed system. Potentially there is information outwith that, but we can never know. This sets the ‘rules of the game’, ie how reality is constituted and our relationship therewith.

Time is a logical conceptalisation of change, every entity in reality is changing, indeed, in many different ways.

Light does not travel at the speed of time, it travels at the speed of light. As with any speed, we cannot know its’actual’ speed, but we know differences, because we can only compare this attribute in all entities. However, these differences are real (ie absolute within the closed system of our existence). The ultimate unit upon which we could base a measuring system of time would be the fastest known rate of change. Just as in a spatial measuring system the ultimate unit would be the smallest entity.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT
Should I add that the speed of light is just about a speed limit, not about its actual absolute value. Since the speed of time governs the speed of light, the measured/measured value of the speed of light can only return a constant. But the speed of light or time varies in many places and circumstances.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
Marcel

The speed of light, as an actual value, is, as with any other speed, a statement in terms of difference. It is a comparison to....The point is that it always emits at this speed, that is the nature of its constancy. Like anything else, if not impeded it will continue to travel at that speed, which since it applies to anything is a somewhat useless piece of information. So the speed of light, in perfect conditions, is the speed limit for light, nothing else. What it actually acieves in practice is a function of circumstance.

Now, how does "the speed of time govern the speed of light?". Time has no speed. It does not even have a physical existence. Another way of addressing this is that that presumed relationship between speed and time only 'works' if one confuses what is presented to us via light, as being reality. Which it is not. What light creates for us is a light based representation of reality. The two are different, existent entities, though importantly, they are both independent of the observer.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Douglas W Lipp wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT
"God is Neutrino" - just doesn't sound right......

Douglas W Lipp

www.CIGTheory.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
If we had a good idea of how the laws of physics were being implemented, then we could answer questions like: how many dimensions is a point particle/what exactly is a particle.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Paul- The speed of light, as an actual value, is, as with any other speed, a statement in terms of difference. It is a comparison to....The point is that it always emits at this speed, that is the nature of its constancy. Like anything else, if not impeded it will continue to travel at that speed, which since it applies to anything is a somewhat useless piece of information.

Marcel- Yes, but for an already existing particle this is momentum and inertia; this is like a pea shooter. But the photon is created at the moment of emission; it is like shaking the blanket and the blanket allows only a Planck value quantum of momentum, no matter how quickly you shake it. How quickly you shake the blanket gives you only the period (wavelength). The Planck is a set differential in time rate (causality) that gives c, i.e. it moves not because of angels or laws but because of the causality lump it is made of. (Used to be called “quantum of action”).

Paul- “Now, how does "the speed of time govern the speed of light?". Time has no speed.” Marcel- Time has a speed that varies from place to place like in a gravitational field..... you know , GPS clocks and stuff ...It governs the local rate of evolution of spontaneous processes, which the motion of light waves is an example of.

Paul- “It does not even have a physical existence.” Marcel- As stated above, the substance/process that makes the whole universe is what we identify in its simplest form as the passage of time... The measurement of time has no physical existence, just a number, but the underlying cause for spontaneous events to evolve at a specific rate is the local rate of the substance/process, the local rate of passage of time.

Paul- Another way of addressing this is that that presumed relationship between speed and time only 'works' if one confuses what is presented to us via light, as being reality. Which it is not. What light creates for us is a light based representation of reality. The two are different, existent entities, though importantly, they are both independent of the observer. Marcel- “Everything we can sense and measure does not really exist, and everything that really exist is not measurable”. Someone else wrote that and I totally agree. Reality is produced by the temporary relationship we have with the substance of this universe. This relationship only exist if we are at one end of it. Conclusion: We create this “reality”. This is why we need metaphysics, to understand beyond appearances, and look where no one dares to. All of this does not invalidate any part of factual science; facts are facts. All I am squeezing for is for drawing from these facts the proper interpretations as to what the universe is made of and to why it works the way it does.... Not an immediate concern for science...But a pressing goal for metaphysics.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
When the observer starts moving towards the light source, wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, that is, the frequency he measures increases. Does this mean that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer has increased as well?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 09:36 GMT
Marcel

Your post 28/9 18.01

1 I am not sure what point you are making in your second paragraph. The point about constancy revolves around how light works. The momentum and inertia (whatever that is) of the existing particle is irrelevant.

2 “Time has a speed that varies from place to place like in a gravitational field”. Time does not vary, either as a function of gravitation, or any other influence. The actual rate of change in a given sequence in a given existent entity can change under different circumstances. So, if you kick a ball harder it will go further/faster. But these are all different existent states. We do not have more than one reality at a time. Apart from observational differences, what is supposedly happening ( I have been trying to get the current view on this) is that there is a relationship between movement and the dimension of matter.

3 ““Everything we can sense and measure does not really exist, and everything that really exist is not measurable”. This is a metaphysical statement. Even as such it is incorrect. The sentence should read: Everything we can potentially sense and measure may not exist in the form that it appears to us when experienced from a perspective which is unattainable to us, because there may be an alternative form of existence. This is a typical example where the metaphysical possibility of an alternative is reified. The outcomes look like deep thoughts, but are actually just incorrect.

4 “Reality is produced by the temporary relationship we have with the substance of this universe.” This is incorrect. For us, reality exists. It is independent of us. Indeed the representations that we receive of it, which are different from reality, are independent of us. We do not create reality. Put any existent entity in a room, bring in all organisms on this planet. What happens? Answer: they all act in a way that demonstrates they recognise the existence of this thing. We create perceptions of reality, by processing media based sensory representations of it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 09:48 GMT
Pentcho

Your post 28/9 18.24

The actual frequency does not change. From the observer perspective, it can be explained as follows (leaving aside any possible alteration in dimension effect which might occur with extremely high speeds):

Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. Whilst the perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 20:24 GMT
Pentcho,

Good question! We will agree that the observer’s motion doesn’t change anything about the source or the light itself; the change is with the observer. The question is twofold, of course; the physical measurable and the metaphysical answer. In the physical measurable sense, the observer’s clock now runs slower and this means that in his measure of light speed all goes well according to relativity. In a metaphysical sense, ....the question is “non receivable” since it would assume both the light and observer to be at the same moment in time for the measurement. Not only are they not at the same moment (time distance) but they also run on different clocks. The distinction is in our language. We have come to say “is” when what we mean is “appears as” or “measured as”. What something “is” is for metaphysics to say and in this case, it says nothing since it is a “physical relationship”.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 21:48 GMT
Let us oversimplify the scenario. Before the movement of the observer (towards the light source), 5 wavelengths (or wavecrests) passed him in a unit time. Now that he is moving, 7 wavelengths pass him in a unit time (the frequency he measures is greater). So unless the observer is capable of miraculously contracting the wavelength into conformity with both special relativity and his own speed, the speed of the light relative to him has increased as well.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT
Pentcho- Let us oversimplify the scenario. Before the movement of the observer (towards the light source), 5 wavelengths (or wavecrests) passed him in a unit time. Now that he is moving, 7 wavelengths pass him in a unit time (the frequency he measures is greater). So unless the observer is capable of miraculously contracting the wavelength into conformity with both special relativity and his own speed, the speed of the light relative to him has increased as well.

Marcel- No miracle here! The rate of time is known in our language as per/second or 1/t. A slower rate means a bigger denominator or bigger “t” i.e. longer units of time... His time rate is slower in movement so his time units are longer which can accommodate more wave crests...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 06:34 GMT
The final conclusion, Marcel: The moving observer (towards the light source) measures more wavelengths passing him in a unit time than the non-moving observer. This means that the moving observer measures the speed of the wave relative to him to have increased. Right?

The answer is an obvious "yes" for all other waves, only in the case of light waves crimestop prevents scientists from giving a straightforward answer:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
Yes Pentcho, Please read and comment on Shtyrkov.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 09:57 GMT
Marcel

Could you please post as 'reply to this thread', since you are currently creating a new thread with every response, thanks

Pentcho (Eckard) I have given an explanation for this above, in the original post. But you are correct in what you are saying. It is an optical illusion, a Doppler effect.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 01:24 GMT
1 I am not sure what point you are making in your second paragraph. The point about constancy revolves around how light works. The momentum and inertia (whatever that is) of the existing particle is irrelevant.*** Marcel- I admit the point was muddled. Still, “irrelevant” is hardly the hallmark of the inquiring mind.

2 “Time has a speed that varies from place to place like in a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear All,

There are two kinds of realities that we can experience

Duality - Relative virtual reality - Experienced in our head or brain or mind.

Singularity - Absolute truth or equality - Experienced in our heart or soul.

All relativistic theories are good to explain duality, where the observed and observer are 2 different entities or systems.

Singularity is to know that the observed and the observer are one and the same.

An infant is the best example for the one experiencing singularity, as the infant does not consider space-time reality, but just enjoys its absolute existence.

An adult human being is the best examle for the one experiencing duality and hence caught up in space-time.

Self realization or spirituality is to know about these states of being and enjoying them.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
Marcel

Your post 30/9 01.24

1 The function of ‘irrelevant’ has nothing to do with an inquiring mind. Momentum/inertia of the source is irrelevant, ie has no impact upon, the speed at which light emits.

2 Your statement re ball is incorrect. In terms of observer perception, the ball does not run slower/quicker. This is an optical illusion, I posted an explanation of this when it first arose, Neither, obviously, does the reality change. What could be happening which needs to be accounted for, is if the dimension of matter alters with (at least some form) of movement. This is what Lorentz et al proposed. I am not making a comment on it, just conveying the fact that this is what lays underneath relativity. The references are: Lorentz 1892, paras 3 6 7 8. Lorentz 1895, section 6. Lorentz 1904, paras 1 8 10 11. Poincaré (July)1905, introduction. Einstein 1925, para 4 5.

3 Space does not exist in so far as there is something in it. Space-time was not invented to bridge some form of gap. Space-time arises because of the reification of local time (ie timing) which can create a 4D spatial model (or worse). Space-time can be properly interpreted if one remembers that reality is 3 spatial dimensions at any given point in time. Once time is given a value of more than 1, or effectively regarded as another spatial dimension that can have various values at the same time, then problems arise. This has nothing to do with observers, they just result in a pile of perceptions which can be unravelled if we understand the specific circumstances of their observation. Perception cannot influence reality in anyway whatsoever, it has ceased before the observer is aware of it.

4 Every living organism has some form of different perception. This is not about observer perception, and their ‘take’ on reality. Though the problem is of course, that individual perception is all we have to begin with. You are completely confusing observational perception (and its own internal rationale) with reality, let alone not differentiating between reality as such, and the representation of it that which we receive via media such as light.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 16:55 GMT
Pentcho,

Right from the start I figured you were another “Relativity down shooter” and I have been dodging the bullets ever since. At the end of our last exchange I gave you more crests per (his) unit of time. If you know the original frequency, you conclude this is a Doppler Effect which is normally used to determine a relative speed with the source ... not with light. A theory of physics is to be challenged by physics not by metaphysics. Find a way for your flying observer to measure the speed of light.

Paul,

(If it is called a thread...why isn’t the “reply to” not at the end of the last post entered??)

1- irrelevant.. light is a self contained fixed causal package while inertia is a causal package made of the skewed probability of existence of the particle... same stuff ,, relevant.

2- clock of flying ball ... The point is that relativistic effect observed at high speed also happen at low speed even if beyond or capacity to observe or measure it.. (“dimension of matter alters”..again! Someday you will have to get rid of this fairy dust and explain it.

3- ...space... Take the meter stick as the representation of space. You see it all at once in a moment of perception. But even light must take a finite amount of time to travel from one end of the stick to the other. So for you, space exists as this collection of points on the meter all at the same moment. For the operational universe, no two points on the meter are at the same moment. Conclusion: Only for you, the observer, does this meter appears all at once as whole in a moment of time i.e. you integrate and round up the information from all the points of the meter under one snapshot in time. You make space. No two points in the whole universe are at the same moment ... that’s the whole point!

4- Reality .... Reality is a window afforded by our own inherent limitations and therefore completely observer specific. In that sense, we make it...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT
Paul,

Euh!! Sorry about that! Where is this "reply" button? I only see an "edit" tab above my own posts... I run Windows 7 and browse with Google chrome..??

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 03:02 GMT
O.k. Now I see it under some posts like the one I just did...Others don't have it.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 06:02 GMT
Do you see edit? I have never seen that.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT
Georgina, !

How are you? Yes, the EDIT tab is to the right of your name on your posts ..

Marcel, 2011-08-01 I just edited my old post! There!

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 05:19 GMT
Tom,

I want to emphasize to you a glaring problem with physics. Can you please explain these two contradictory statements?

1. Photons don't need a medium,

2. The space-time continuum is physically real.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
Marcel, when George Gibson says that, as you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, they will overtake you "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE", is he speaking as a physicist or a metaphysician? Does he mean that THE SPEED OF THE WAVES VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER? Does that refute special relativity?

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_
3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote: "Pentcho, Right from the start I figured you were another “Relativity down shooter” and I have been dodging the bullets ever since. At the end of our last exchange I gave you more crests per (his) unit of time. If you know the original frequency, you conclude this is a Doppler Effect which is normally used to determine a relative speed with the source ... not with light. A theory of physics is to be challenged by physics not by metaphysics. Find a way for your flying observer to measure the speed of light."

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 19:56 GMT
Marcel, the speed of light (relative to the observer) does indeed vary with the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c plus vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c plus v)/(lambda)."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativ
ity.pdf

The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics, Stephan J.G. Gift: "For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c plus v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c plus v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Marcel replied on Oct. 2, 2011 @ 19:31 GMT
Pentcho,

O.k., unless you believe they fudged the numbers... STR has been proven by experiments. This cannot be changed. What you are questioning then is the interpretation of these facts. If you are right, what is changed with physics?

What would be the new and exciting developments from this?

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 3, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT
Marcel, if the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, the rallying cry should be "Back to Newton!". Of course, such a giant leap backwards, even à la recherche de la vérité perdue, is impossible. False science is an integral part of our civilization - the two will die together.

Ragards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT
No physical theory ever hits rock bottom in physics unless it shows space as equally and both visible and invisible.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
Tom,

I'm just a straw man with a straw question. You don't need to avoid little ol' me.

Why do these two statements contradict each other?

1. Photons don't need a medium,

2. The space-time continuum is physically real.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 23:42 GMT
The idea that photons don't need a medium is rubbish. Once you identify the cause of relativity, once you identify the medium that creates the space-time continuum, the quantum vacuum and the Higgs field, THEN you can make amazing progress in physics. THEN you can build a mathematical framework for engineers to use, to construct superluminal drives, cloaking and force fields.

Michelson-Morley proved that medium is not a particulate gas, but that is all. They did not disprove the existence of a medium.

How long will you let Michelson&Morley hold you back?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 2, 2011 @ 11:44 GMT
There is a glaring flaw in the physics. You say that photons don't need a medium. Simultaneously, you measure time dilation between two observers in motion. Exactly how is this time dilation to occur between any two observers if they don't share a medium?

How can a time dilation occur between two observers if there is no medium between them? Why don't any of you realize that you've mis-interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment?

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
Hello Jason:

I like your attitude, but I like the sense contained therein much more. Please don't take this comment wrong, as I really would like to know this answer too.

What I learned about this, it that what time dilation is, is a slowing down of photons frequency due to relativity (red-shifting them).

But that is how you would measure time dilation between two observeers, with photon information. So even if you postulate that there is no medium to propagate the photons, you could still measure time dilation between two observers. A medium is not necesarrily required to explain this process.

But the geometry of spacetime is. Gravity is accelleration. Spacetime curvature is gravity. A medium is not required in this framework. Only the shape of the medium, and how it responds to motion and the presence of mass. It sounds a little preposterous, doesn't it? We are describing here motion within 'something' and the curving geometry of that same 'something', and making no comment on whether or not that 'something' actually exists in reality. OOps, I wanted to argue the opposite point to yours, but seem to have argued myself in a circle!

Unless the experiment is designed appropriately, your results will have no bearing on either the existence or not of a medium. You would only prove time-dilation. Hope we can get some feedback from the pros here, because it's a little over my head, but it matters whether the observers are in constant-v motion (SR) or accelerated motion (GR).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear Tommy,

Physicists don't like the word "medium" or "ether"; but the word "field" is acceptable. I've thought a lot about this; unifying QM and GR. In a quote from a recent Star Trek movie: "I never thought of space as being the thing that was moving". If ever there was a part of physics that was strange and magical, a part that defied logic and common sense, it would be two parts of the physics:

a. the wave nature of quantum mechanics;

b. the invariance of the speed of light for all observers.

If I may offer a few suggestions about getting to the bottom of all this, I would say:

First, treat a patch of space (or space-time) as having available bandwidth of the form,

$\Psi = \sum e^{i(kx - \omega t)}$

The equation is oversimplified, but it's a start. When photons (light) travel through that patch of bandwidth, one or more of the available frequencies is "energized". I want to emphasize the idea of available frequencies being energized. There are lots of stoves with coils on top; most of the time the coils are not energized. The calculation of the cosmological constant was off by 120 orders of magnitude because the derivers assumed that all of the frequencies were energized.

Second, as a strategy, don't try to unify QM with GR directly. If you do, you get something like super-strings which are 10 dimensional and don't have a direct connection to reality. Instead, try to unify: QM with special relativity, first. That should give you something similar to a fiber or a thread that transmits light at velocity c between any two emitter/observer pair. Then, to get GR, you take these fibers/threads that have,

1. waves,

2. speed of light,

and you "weave" a large number of them into a space-time continuum. These fibers/threads are your solutions are very general solutions to the Schrodinger equation. But they are also like wires or transmission lines that introduce length (perhaps only a Planck length) and time, into the space-time continuum. The transmit across that Planck length:

1. a photon traveling at c,

2. causality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Tommy,

You said "Gravity is accelleration. Spacetime curvature is gravity. A medium is not required in this framework. Only the shape of the medium, and how it responds to motion and the presence of mass. It sounds a little preposterous, doesn't it? We are describing here motion within 'something' and the curving geometry of that same 'something', and making no comment on whether or not that 'something' actually exists in reality."

Yes Tommy! The space-time geometry does not have to be the cause of the observed effect it can be a description of the effect that is observed. A mathematical description of the processed output. The actual cause, the distortion of the path of the light, due to the motion of the mass disturbing the medium and altering the transmission delay time- is not the abstract space-time curvature description, but something existing.If EM is waves in a medium, disturbance or perturbation of the medium will affect the EM, affecting the observation made from processing of the received EM data. You said it more succinctly, I am agreeing with you.

The gravitational field is the observed Output reality formed from processing and interpretation of the data received. The medium and its waves are part of the unobserved foundational/Source/(object) reality. EM waves are permitted to exist by mainstream theory but for some strange reason there seems to be reluctance to admit that the waves must exists within something to be waves. Probably because that medium provides no information by which it can be known other than the effects that are observed and then -attributed- (incorrectly IMHO )to their abstract mathematical descriptions.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 2, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
Fundamental force/energy is necessarily middle strength -- with equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity -- both at half strength/force -- with middle distance in/of space. This makes space both, and equally, invisible and visible. This fundamentally incorporates instantaneity. This fundamentally unifies physics.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Is anyone here interested in gravity field generators? I had another idea. Months ago, I had talked about transmitting redshift by emitting 8 different frequencies, in sequence, at a high repetition rate. But now, I have a new idea. Instead of varying the frequency, you vary the k-vector of the emitted light.

Anyone interested in gravity field generators?

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:15 GMT
Yes. But can I suggest an alternative? How about nuclear-suppressor fields, in the spirit of Isaac Asimov?

If possible, we could in principle create portable devices that when energised, would prevent nuclear chain reactions in the vicinity of this Field. So basically, a nuclear missle landing in the active area of the N-S field would either malfuntion, or detonate chemically only.

Let's just skip right over objections as to how this can be accomplished. And jump right to the new-world-order this would create. A complete shift of focus from nuclear capability and disarmament (and worrying about loose suitcase nukes), to a focus of who has, who needs, and who doesn't deserve a "nuclear supressor field". Been my dream since I was a teenager reading his fiction. etc...

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 23:34 GMT
It would be cool to be able to prevent a nuclear explosion with a "nuclear suppressor field". Personally, I think it would be easier cause a malfunction of the electronics firing mechanism on board a nuclear missile. Hypothetically, if a nuclear missile was launched and was incoming, there might be a way to target the missile with a stream of neutrons. The goal is to produce an electronics malfunction.

I am an electronics technician. I know from experience then there are a million ways to make an electronics circuit board "not work". The list goes on and on: missing components, damaged components, unsoldered pins, ...

A neutron beam may or may not be the best way to damage an electronic circuit. Perhaps a very low power electromagnetic pulse could fry the electronics of an incoming nuke.

I also remember hearing a story about a nuclear missile facility that was disabled by an alien space-craft. This was one of the reports of the Disclosure project. From my perspective, it is very easy to believe that an electronics sabotage technology is possible.

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 18:44 GMT
Well, this is odd: my comment Threads keep disappearing or relocating to unknown locations. Let's just be optimistic and assume that less is more, and that this is not an indication of the Quality of my comments! Since these topics are so Universally fascinating, if I must, I'll create my own site and comment to myself, if only to ensure a location to find my Comments, and continue to develop the Ideas.

Anyway, I remember doing the Michalson-Morley experiment in Optics at University. Basically, you use laser interferometry to measure the speed of light, then you turn the entire apparatus and measure the speed again. The speead measure should be different, if there is an "Aether" permeatiing the Universe. To within the resolution of our experiment, which was great, the speed of light measured was the same regardless of the horizonal orientation of the experiment.

However, I always wondered what would happen if you rotated the experiment UP 90 deg., so that you measure light in that orthogonal direction as well. So in the version normally done, c is done in one direction, parrallel to earth's surface, and then rotated 90 deg. to measure c in another direction. What I am asking is why doesn't the experiment also get rotated UP to measure the speed of light perpendicular to the earth's surface?

Has this been done? Does it bear on the FTL Neutrinos? Fascinating. This comment will be trans-located to an undisclosed location by tomorrow, I'm sure. But it is a good question. One as usual, I'll have to answer myself. Break the cycle!

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 18:51 GMT
Since my life brushes so often on these 12 Classic Optics Experiments we did in that lab, I'll mention one more that I have seen appear miniaturized for glucose-blood-sugar monitoring.

In the lab, we shined a laser beam through a fish tank filled with water and an unknown amount of sugar dissolved. By measuring the deflection of the beam thru the tank, the exact concentration of sugar can be determined.

Without getting too specific as to details, in one of my last positions, we were actually making glucose monitors,a nd the critical component was this exact experiment, miniaturized to box about an in. square. It measures your blood glucose by way of that experiment. T

There are other examples. But Optics 404 seems to be the Class that keeps on being pertinent in so many seemingly unrelated areas, I have found. Physics is everywhere!

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Last thought: in the classic M_M experiment, there is no gravitational field involved (perpendicular to direction of gravity), but if we did indeed rotate the experiment UP so it measures c in the direction of the gravitational field, then the physical discription must include Gravity.

M-M exp (classical): Special Relativity Theory describes this situation for the testing of the presence of the Aether.

M-M exp (rotated UP also): General Relativity must now be brought into the physical description in addition (presence of gravity field).

If the past is any indication, this (rotating M-M exp "UP") has already been done, and as a semi-professional I will have to get myself up to speed on the current data.

If this is a novel idea, let's get experimenters doing it now, and let's get theoreticians working on the physical description. Because if this is indeed a novel idea, the conclusions may very well shed some light on the data of these FTL neutrinos...

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 22, 2011 @ 19:15 GMT
Tommy Gilbertson wrote: "What I am asking is why doesn't the experiment also get rotated UP to measure the speed of light perpendicular to the earth's surface?"

The Pound-Rebka experiment. The result: In a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does. Einsteinians would tell you that "gravitational time dilation" has been measured in the experiment.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 09:12 GMT
The Michelson-Morley experiment is part of a very clever ruse to block all attempts at discovering gravity drives and faster than light warp drives. The ruse works like this. Back in the late 19th century, there were those who thought that light and electromagnetic energy required a medium in which to propagate; after all, water waves require water, etc. They called this medium the luminiferous aether. So somebody said, "hey, if that's true, then we should be able to measure the earth's movement through the aether, right?" Here lies the heart of the deception and the place where the physics community messed up. The word aether, which means: "light-bearing medium", looks almost identical to the word ether, which is an organic molecular solvent, is a gas at room temperature, and is an anesthetic which makes people sleepy. When the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that (1) the earth doesn't move through an anesthetic ether gas and (2) that light is not a wave in the anesthetic ether gas, then the physics community immediately immediately, and rashly, assumed that light doesn't need a medium. Anybody who said otherwise was called a kook, fired from their job, tarred and feathered, and run out of town. To this day, the quickest way a physicist can get fired is to say that light needs a medium.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 09:54 GMT
Let me disagree. Both Einsteinians and etherists defend Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate so they often combine efforts in tarring, feathering etc. the true enemy:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/

Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009

"The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Hi Pencho,

I believe that special and general relativity are correct; I also believe that an ether medium exists. But it's not a point particle gas. Space-time itself is a medium. But there is only one kind of medium that can cause relativity. Space and time have to be made out of waves of the form,

$\psi = e^{i \pi}$

Wave functions are the mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation. Wave functions are the meat and drink of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an extremely reliable description of physics. It is bizarre that nobody has made the connection. Nobody has put two and two together and said: "Hey! Maybe wave functions are physically real!"

If you assume that wave functions are physically real, then you can do the following.

1. Wave functions can transmit signals as light (photons) at the speed of light.

2. You can take huge quantities of these wave amplitudes and construct the space-time continuum.

By the way, wave functions transmit light at the speed of light, but are themselves, not obligated to move at the speed of light. Wave functions can be tachyons.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
Jason Wolfe wrote: "I believe that special and general relativity are correct; I also believe that an ether medium exists."

If you are an etherist, you should also believe that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer (both the ether theory and Newton's emission theory of light say so). But then you mistakenly believe that special and general relativity are correct.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Please correct me if my guesses are wrong. The distance from Fermilab (40 miles west of Chicago) to MINOS Far Detector is also about 730 km. MINOS is located north of the Lake Superior, I guess 723.118 km north and 100 km west of Fermilab.

While I calculated an influence of rotation of earth relative to the ether for OPERA as little as - 24 nanoseconds, the likewise estimated influence for MINOS is even smaller and positive: + 3.24 nanoseconds. Therefore the relative motion between earth and dragged but not rotating ether cannot completely account for the 60 nanoseconds in case of OPERA.

I maintain my suspicion that there might be a mistake of Nimtz type. Nonetheless, the 27.24 nanoseconds estimated difference between OPERA and MINOS could possibly be confirmed by a comparison of the OPERA data with those belonging to old or improved recent ones from MINOS if the suspected Nimtz type mistake is of the same order (60 ns -24 ns = 36 ns) in both cases. Who knows MINOS data? I only found that they were less significant.

Can someone tell me the content of "Absolute_motion.pdf" by G.S. Sandhu (Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 08:09 GMT
Eckard

Just come across a ref I mentioned, but could not find. See Neutrino Black Magic: thread Joy 27/9 09.05

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 11:25 GMT
Paul, Thank you for the hint. Having already read it, I would like to maintain my comments:

At first, I do not see it a confirmation of SR.

Secondly, to me a Nimtz type mistake is a more likely explanation of putative superluminality.

I found out that there are several similar experiments with through-the-rock detected artificial neutrinos: Not just LNGS from Swiss 2 Italy: 730 km but also from Fermilab 2 to MINOS Soudan mine, from Tokai 2 Kamioka mine Gifu: 295 km, and others. They all measured a speed in excess of the speed of light. Instead of making this stunning result public, many experts decided to look for speculative explanations.

Each time more than one hundred authors took part.

Because presumably all used the same methods while their orientation differs with respect to the rotation of earth from west to east, I see the excellent chance to compare the values and confirm the ether.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I think we all want to find superluminal physics. But you don't need neutrinos to do it. There is a better way. Wave amplitudes are at the heart of quantum mechanics; wave functions are a mathematical solution that describes what? They describe nature, right? Is it possible that wave functions are physically real?

If so, then wave functions can transmit light (as a photon), at the speed of light, which of course obeys:

$c = \lambda f$

Space itself can be made out of wave-functions. But here is the kicker: the wave function itself can be a tachyon. If a physically real wave-function can travel faster than light, then two wave functions can also travel faster than light. So can 3. So can 10^100.

Wave functions can become excited; it's call a photon. Wave functions (plus some energy) can add together to create particles, molecules and spaceships. So why can't spaceships travel faster than light? Because the wave-functions that contain the particle/molecule/spaceship are quantumly entangled to the rest of space-time.

To travel faster than light in your spaceship, you need quantum wire cutters. You have to cut your spaceship loose from space-time. Snip. Snip.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
The fabric of space-time is just a bunch of entangled wave functions. The wave functions are immediately adjacent to each other. These wave functions behave like transmission lines; they have permittivity and permeability built into them. They have length and time built into them. Any particle that exists in space-time is entangled to its immediate surroundings, which are interwoven wave-functions.

I would love to hear an argument of why this can't be true.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 18:07 GMT
The "fabric of space-time" is based on the assumption that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer. A clever etherist would never accept this assumption:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 19:41 GMT
A "clever" etherist would be misleading others if he denied the invariance of the speed of light.

A quantum system is basically a bunch of complex exponentials scaled and added together. Every quantum system has some space around it, some space-time. There is a quantum mechanics description of space-time, although I don't know if anyone has really thought about it in this way.

Whatever else space does, it transmits frequencies of light. That means, it has to have available bandwidth to use. How can a photon cross space if the photon's frequency is not available. But empty space has all of the frequencies available, in the form of wave functions. In this way, empty space is a quantum system that includes all available frequencies as wave-functions.

So let's say that two protons fly by each other at relativistic speeds. Each of these protons is a quantum system. Each of these protons has some space around them which are also quantum systems. So two sets of wave functions are overlapping in some very complicated way. Convolution comes to mind. If a photon is emitted by one of the protons, it's frequency and wavelength are required to equal c because the wave function fixes the speed of light because permittivity and permeability are characteristics of the wave-function; the physics community hasn't quite figured this out. The photon's frequency and wavelength are,

$c = \lambda_1 f_1$

By some strange luck, the emitted photon doesn't miss, but is absorbed by the other proton. Somehow, that photon navigated the convolution of two bandwidths of space and arrived at the second proton with frequency and wavelength,

$c = \lambda_2 f_2$

The reason that time dilation, redshift and the relativistic Doppler effect are observed is because photons have to cross from one chunk of space to another; they have to transition from the wave function of one patch of space to the wave-function of another patch of space (space-time).

If the frequency changes from f_1 to f_2, then conservation of energy is threatened. The wave functions protect conservation of energy by things like time dilation and redshift (caused by velocity).

Does this make sense? I'm pretty sure this is an original idea.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 13:28 GMT
Maxwell was a clever etherist - he knew the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/c
sphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

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

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

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 14:43 GMT
Einsteinians misinterpret Maxwell:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/18/einste
in-relativity-science-book-review

"Why Does E=mc^2? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw - review (...) By the end of the 19th century, Maxwell had tied together decades of work on electricity and magnetism by, among others, Humphrey Davy and Michael Faraday, to produce his masterful equations on electromagnetism. These showed that light was a wave in the electromagnetic field, much as ripples on a pond are waves in water or sound is a wave in the air. He also showed that these waves of light moved at a constant speed, "c", through empty space and that speed remained the same no matter who was watching. Whether you are sitting still or moving at hundreds of miles an hour towards the source of the light, Maxwell's equations say that the light you see will only ever move at "c" relative to you."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 07:33 GMT
I wonder why the Guardian did not realize that the last sentence is obviously wrong.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the lie:

"Whether you are sitting still or moving at hundreds of miles an hour towards the source of the light, Maxwell's equations say that the light you see will only ever move at "c" relative to you."

is an absolute truth, just like the lie "Two and two make five" in Big Brother's world. Only the "subtlest pactitioners of doublethink" are entitled to refer to the old truth and even rebuke silly Einsteinians for lying too clumsily:

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

John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:

Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."

Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 09:47 GMT
It is a historic fact: Maxwell's theory describes electromagnetic waves within its ether called medium. When I recently tried to recommend the paper "Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites" to a physicist, he refused even having a look at it. He was firmly convinced: There is no ether.

If I recall correctly, Einstein himself evaded the question by stating that he does not need an ether.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
The gravity drive, I figured it out. Redshift is what gravity does to light, to each photon as it traverses the radii of a black hole. But gravity is an effect of curvature of space-time. Space-time is the effect wavefunctions quantumly entangled to each other. If a series of photons of increasing frequency is emitted as a quantum entangled chain, it will call space-time to curve. It will produce a gravity field.

A sequence of photons of increasing or decreasing frequency, if quantumly entangled, will act directly on the space-time continuum and cause it to curve.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 13:49 GMT
Jason

Who am I to say, but I would have thought that gravity was not an "effect" of...gravitation is a force which causes...it bends light away from what would otherwise be a straight line....and it causes length contraction in matter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 23:23 GMT
Hi Paul,

Physics has a blind spot, let me explain. How do you describe a patch of space? ...or a patch of space-time? A patch of space-time should be able to transmit the whole range of electromagnetic frequency, right? I want to treat space-time as something with bandwidth. The bandwidth is made available by wave-functions. Something like...

$\Psi_{space-time} = \psi_{1Hz}+ \psi_{2Hz}+...+\psi_{10^{30}Hz}$

When a 2Hz photon passes through that region of space, it's wave-function is energized (like a stove top coil), and it looks like a photon of frequency E=hf where f=1Hz; but all the rest of the wave-functions are "un-energized". The other wave functions might be unenergized, but the still exist. In fact, they are quantumly entangled to each other. This is how the space-time continuum is created. Wave functions are quantumly entangled with the wave functions around them.

When a photon falls along the radii of a black hole, it of course blue shifts; or it redshifts while escaping a blackhole along the radii. As it does this, it passes through the curved space-time caused by the black hole. But space-time can be treated as a bunch of wave-functions quantumly entangled, end to end, with one another.

If I quantumly entangle 8 photons together, in a chain, traveling in the same direction: red photon entangled with orange photon; orange photon entangled with yellow photon, yellow photon entangled with green photon, etc..., what's the difference between that, and the redshift/blueshift caused by the curvature of space-time?

Why go through all this trouble? Because we're trying to get to gravity field generators. Once we have gravity field generators, we can build an Alcubierre drive. Yes?

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 07:50 GMT
Jason

It is a 'patch of space' at any given point in time. We only have space, when just defines what particular existent state thereof you want to consider. It is a matter of timing.

Having made that proviso, I do not have the capability to comment on what you have said, but others no doubt do, and hopefully will do so.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 17:25 GMT
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1:

"Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u."

Needless to say, Feynman rejects the equation c'=c-u (it is incompatible with Einstein's special relativity) but:

1. According to Maxwell's theory, the equation c'=c-u is correct (u is the speed of the car relative to the ether).

2. According to Newton's emission theory of light, the equation c'=c-u is correct (u is the speed of the car relative to the emitter).

3. In the absence of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses (Lorentz-FitzGerald's length contraction), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the equation c'=c-u and refutes the alternative equation c'=c compatible with Einstein's special relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:

"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can confuse any mind, even Richard Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that L1=L2.

The problem has an easy solution. The observer (sitting at the tail) measures the frequency of light to have increased. Then, by taking into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

he concludes that either the speed of light (relative to the observer) has increased (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false) or the wavelength has decreased. Einsteinians believe that the wavelength somehow varies with the speed of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big
_bang/index.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Pencho

No doubt you're still carefully considering my post on Neutrino black Magic, and your response. In the meantime, I'd like to point out that, although I agree with your points 1 and 2 above, the last part of point 3 is logically false. This is because any number of alternatives ways of obtaining c = c' may also remain.

For instance, if we use the analogy of sound in a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 06:20 GMT
Einsteiniana: Speed of light in a gravitational field:

Divine Albert 1911: If clocks OF IDENTICAL CONSTITUTION are used, the speed of light will not be measured to vary with the gravitational potential:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_g
ravity.html

Albert Einstein 1911: "For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 14:15 GMT
Einsteinians compelled to stick to Newton's emission theory of light:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equations (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika
/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket scenario. By combining these equations with:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one obtains the fundamental equations of Newton's emission theory of light:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

In the absence of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses the Pound-Rebka experiment, just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, unequivocally confirms the fundamental equations of Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika
/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 19:51 GMT
Pentcho,

Let's exchange light by sound. I do not see any reason to speak of time-dilution in this case. Is there any relevant difference in that respect?

Moreover, I feel you should admit that emitter and receiver as well as to some extent the transferring medium do not move relative to each other.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 13:35 GMT
Eckard

No. It's about apparent change on the rate in frequency with relative movement of source, recipient, medium.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Since UFO's and flying saucers do not exist (according to the physics community) then we have a problem. Any time you fly on an airplane, there is a chance that your pilot will see things that aren't there. They might see meteors and hot air balloons flying around their airplane. Even in the absence of such things, they might see strange lights flying around the plane. Sometimes, radar traffic control will confirm these mass hallucinations.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584

T
here is another problem. If military personnel were having mass hallucinations of UFO's, so what. But what if they were having hallucinations while performing their duties in a nuclear missile silo, would that bother you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYuIeJD_AcE

http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=xBti60CqcBQ...FADCF8426FB5458

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
On instantaneity and ultimately understanding physics:

Ideally, quantum gravity requires that space be both (and equally) invisible and visible in a balanced and equivalent fashion in conjunction with equivalent/balanced (half strength/force) inertia and gravity and instantaneity. Opposites must be combined and included. Larger and smaller space must be combined, balanced, and included.

Ideally/theoretically, all of the above is required in any final, fundamental, and true/ultimate theory (or description) of physics.

I have proven that all of this (and alot more as well) occurs in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT
OPERA update on FTL neutrinos from Nature:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/neutrino_experim
ent_affirms_fa.html

and from Tommaso Dorigo:

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/ope
ra_confirms_neutrinos_travel_faster_light-84763

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
So far Einsteinians have been waiting to see what happens:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/28/141800408/analysis-que
stions-flu-shot-effectiveness

BRIAN GREENE: "...you need independent confirmation of such a wild possibility of going faster than the speed of light. We're going to wait and see what happens."

From now on, although there is still no "independent confirmation", another possibility will be getting more and more attractive:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI
/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Neutrinos do travel faster than light.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 15:45 GMT
Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2).

Premise 2: The equivalence principle is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: The bug-rivet paradox is in fact an absurdity.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bug
rivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Faster-than-light neutrinos confirmed

[quote]Researchers say new tests have confirmed earlier indications that neutrinos can travel faster than light, but not everyone is convinced.

The claim runs so counter to a century's worth of physics that most observers won't be content until the findings from the OPERA experiment are repeated under a variety of conditions, by different teams of researchers. If the results hold up, that would require a reinterpretation of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which effectively sets the velocity of light in a vacuum as a cosmic speed limit.

The latest round of tests was conducted to address some of the criticisms that cropped up in the wake of the OPERA team's initial announcement about faster-than-light neutrinos in September.

"A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication [for] physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny," Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, or INFN, said in a news release. "The experiment OPERA, thanks to a specially adapted CERN beam, has made an important test of consistency of its result. The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although the final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world." [end quote]

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Friends,

Last week, Jonathan Dickau and I published our paper on "Hidden Dimensions Can Explain 'Superluminal' Neutrinos, and the Origin of Fermionic Mass" in Prespacetime Journal.

In our paper, the superluminal particle is a 'scalar lepton' that mixes eigenstates with neutrinos by way of a generalized quaternion-like PMNS neutrino matrix. This scalar lepton requires a minimum of 7 dimensions for a proper definition (I think this is related to the octonion 7-sphere 'twist' that Joy Christian is using), and this generalized PMNS matrix with scalar leptons requires a minimum of 10 dimensions for a proper definition.

In my opinion, Jonathan is excellent at describing some of these complex concepts. And most of the math really isn't any more complicated than geometric simplices. I welcome discussion on my paper.

Have Fun!

attachments: Hidden_Dimensions.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 17:36 GMT
Ray

Oooh, non-complicated maths!!

Anyway, I was going to make my usual point to Alan above, that while this might not be the answer, one has to remember that reality is one thing, what we see, is quite another. That is, the latter is a representation of reality based on the capability of light to fulfil this function. Once one recognises this differentiation, then there is 'no...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
Perhaps a neutrino can flout the speed of light because a neutrino is not a photon. A photon has to travel at velocity,

$c = \lambda f$

But what about a neutrino? Does a neutrino have rest mast? Can neutrinos even be slowed down or stopped? Can neutrinos be contained? Can I give you a jar of neutrinos?

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT
Jason

Yep. Except that it is not really "flouting the speed of light". Why the assumption that the way photons travel is some form of 'gold standard' or 'reality speed limit'? Photons travel at a speed. Other things travel at another speed, which may, or may not, be faster. The limitation is that we see reality via light. Except that we do not, what we actually see is a representation of reality courtesy of what light is capable of doing in fulfilling this evolutionary determined functional role. There may be some argument as to why, in reality (ie as opposed to observation thereof), light is the speed limit for any entity in reality, but I have not heard it yet.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 13:22 GMT
What's all this hubBubb, bubs? Since space can expand faster than light speed (and does way out there, as compared to here), and light travels through space, why is it so unlikely that a neutrino could travel faster than light speed also (while travelling through expanding space)?

Since neutrinos are so likely to simply pass through most normal substances, like Earth, large atoms, fields, with very little interaction, why wouldn't neutrinos (as compared to photons, say, which do react relatively strongly with electric forces), not get from here to there faster (through normal space--with matter)? And since both photons and neutrinos travel in expanding space, then on average if the two individual kinds of particles travel the same long distances, the neutrino should finish the race first, due to less interacting with the enviroment en route.

It's only another small step in this chain of reasoning to see that if the neutrino is "faster" than a photon in non-expanding space, it will be much more so in expanding space as the rate of expansion increases. So if both a photon and a neutrino travel at the speed of light (becoming purely energetic and experiencing no Time), and space between the beggining and ending of their journey has been expanding at an exponential rate, the neutrino would be observed to travel faster than light (compared to a photon, and by this specific experimental setup).

So one can only assume (if one is not a professional scientist, but an educated intelligent person) that this whole hubbub is about the result of us accelerating observers (in a gravity field) measureing the 'speed' of these neutrinos. Now after taking into account our accelleeration, the ftl travel speed for the neutrino has been indicated. Thus either our 'accounting for the gravitational field is incorrect" or c is not constant for exponentially expanding space...

I'm a little tired, so there may be other possiblities and an two stated in that last sentence, and fuzzy logic is tunneling in... But those two are the main issues?

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Tommy Gilbertson wrote: "And since both photons and neutrinos travel in expanding space, then on average if the two individual kinds of particles travel the same long distances, the neutrino should finish the race first, due to less interacting with the enviroment en route."

The idea that the speed of photons depends on "interacting with the enviroment en route" is dangerous - it leads to an alternative interpretation of the Hubble redshift and a conclusion that the universe is static, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
Superluminal neutrinos and tired light:

If photons interact with some ingredients of "empty" space so that their energy or speed gradually decreases (the "tired light" hypothesis), then the higher speed of neutrinos, particles immeasurably more penetrating than photons, looks quite natural. Cosmologists hate the tired light hypothesis but it has clever supporters:...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 17:24 GMT
Let us assume that, as the photon travels through "empty" space (in a STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2885v2.pdf

David Schuster, An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift: "Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter, averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in areas of particularly high density."

On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference in contribution, that is, for such light, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR. This explains why distant supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on the LINEAR increase of the redshift with distance.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 08:09 GMT
An extremely silly explanation of the cosmological redshift:

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-R
eality/dp/0375412883

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Brian Greene, p. 515: "Common atoms such as hydrogen and oxygen emit light at wavelengths that have been well documented through laboratory experiments. When such substances are constituents of galaxies that are rushing away, the light they emit is elongated, much as the siren of a police car that's racing away is also elongated, making the pitch drop. Because red is the longest wavelength of light that can be seen with the unaided eye, this stretching of light is called the redshift effect."

Yet the standard explanation taught at universities is even sillier:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278

Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.)"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
If light is not Doppler-shifted, then it is stretched so as to look Doppler-shifted (idiotic but who cares):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=201
1-nobel-prize-in-physics-11-10-04

Frank Atkinson (comment 6): "I warmly applaud the accurate observatonal work of the prize winners - on supernovae. However, the Prize was awarded on the grounds of the work showing that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate but this is merely conjectue based on the prior guess that the Universe is actually expanding. It seems reasonable to expect the elimination of prior guesswork before handing out prestigious Prizes. All the facts relied on for an expanding Universe have alternatie explanations. For example we know the redshift is not due to the Doppler effect. or we would have to be at the centre of the Universe. Problematically, the Doppler effect is the only proved redshift effect caused by motion, others are guesswork. However, a model called the cosmological redshift, has been fabricated, to make the redshift be a measure of a notional expansion. This relies on the expansion being produced by space itself stretching and pushing galaxies apart. The redshift is then said to be caused by the expanding space, stretching the wavelength of light as it passes through it. There is no known method for either space to stretch and expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model is pure metaphysical speculation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT
Pentcho,

While Frank Atkinson's arguments against speculative cosmology might be appealing, apparently nobody took issue. His own tempofield ideas are also too speculative, perhaps not only to me.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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