Where is hidden Vacuum?
socratus
Vacuum is hidden in every theory.
1.
Thermodynamics needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
2.
Maxwell electrodynamics needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
3.
SRT needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
4
GRT needs with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
5.
Atom heeds the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
6.
Outer space needs with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
7.
Religion doesn’t exist without the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
====.
The Vacuum is Source of the Universe
The Vacuum is Source of Consciousness.
The Vacuum is Fundamental Theory 0f Existence.
1. The infinite/ energy vacuum: T=0K,
2. The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2=
-1
3. The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi ,
4. The photon, the inertia,
5. The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6. The gravitation, the star/ planet, the time,
7. The proton,
8. The atom(s),
9. The cell(s),
10. The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11. The test.
=========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
garshagu
vacuum:
Hypothesis 1: Vacuum means zero.
Proof: The universe began with 0 until the big bang errupted.
Lemma 1: creation started from vacuum; hence, everything can be
created from a vacuum.
Hypothesis 2: As soon as the big bang happened, the universe expanded
to infinity thus plunging most of space into a vacuum.
Lemma 2: Hence, more creations are on their way since, from Lemma 1,
creation starts from vacuum.
-Atovigba.
Georges Metanomski
glance at conceit and ignorance and mock the meat it feeds on.
Georges.
--- On Wed, 12/23/09, garshagu <mikeat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
>
socratus
and ‘ virtual energetic particles’.
( Dirac’s sea and +E=Mc^2 and –E=Mc^2 )
Now we need to concrete and to understand some details.
For example:
1.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ with potential
energy –E=Mc^2 change into real particles with
active energy +E=Mc^2?
2.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ produce EM waves?
3.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ without mass
produce real mass?
4.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ create Gravity?
5.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ create Atom?
6.
Can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ be source of Consciousness?
7.
Can we talking about Evolution of the ‘ virtual energetic particles’?
8.
Can the Vacuum and ‘ virtual energetic particles’ be basis of
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence?
=======.
socratus
Some more details.
THE GENESIS. (scheme.)
1
In the beginning was Vacuum some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space: T = 0K
2
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space create ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2 = kc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
3
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon
Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1
4
Working Quantum of Light / Photon is an Electron
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h* = h/2pi , c>1
E = h*f
Sommerfeld: e^2 = h*ca (Electron)
The Lorentz transformations
5
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories )
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.)
a) h*f > kT
b) h*f = kT
c) kT > h*f
6
As result of Star formation Proton was created
p ( Proton)
7
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
8
The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
9.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/
subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
==== .
#
The Future of Science is hidden in the ‘Theory of Vacuum and Light
Quanta’
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
==========.
#
There is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that insists
that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants,
we are committing an act of heresy.
== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===============
socratus
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
===================== .
Georges Metanomski
But in your head. Just have a look.
Georges.
--- On Fri, 12/25/09, socratus <isr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: socratus <isr...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 11117] Re: Where is hidden Vacuum?
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
archytas
hoovering? Explorations of the one way speed of light and Zeno of
Elia grinding us down to no motion at all might hit some of the
epistemological considerations of what a vacuum might be other than
as operationally defined. Have we really defined the electron yet?
Even in the chemistry I practiced (bring slower-witted and of duller
temperament than the physicists), one could consider proton exchange
as validly in terms of results as all that electron exchange mularky.
One knows what a vacuum is at the bench - you create it from the
vacuum taps as a handy way of getting gases out of the way.
Considering what is 'still in there' is an irrelevance until we wonder
what it might be doing other than as a space without much air for the
destructive distillation of coal (or whatever).
How, given SR, can we measure the one way speed of light in vacuum,
and what might this consideration tell us of what is rather easily
postulated in SR? This work has been done at some length. There
might be some interest here on how we form the questions on language
trapping what directions we might take.
On 25 Dec, 15:53, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where is hidden Vacuum?
> But in your head. Just have a look.
> Georges.
>
> --- On Fri, 12/25/09, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
I said and repeat:
But in your head. Just have a look.
Especially when one talks through the back of his neck about what
he ignores. That was aimed at Socratus, having unusually empty head.
But you endeavor to talk science. Kitchen almanac science, but
still sort of science, so I shall answer scientifically.
Cosmos has been reduced to the Phenomenal Equivalence of field and
SPACE. SPACE is no more an abstract "container" containing "objects"
or nothing i.e. "vacuum".
SPACE/field polarity is the fabric of cosmos. There is no "empty"
SPACE without the field counterpart et vice versa. SPACE curvature
is equivalent to field density. Nearly flat SPACE corresponds to very
weak field and for practical approximations is considered as "vacuum".
But SPACE/field polarity is always there, however flat and weak.
Cheers
Georges.
==============
--- On Thu, 12/31/09, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
archytas
never been other than a cook book scientist, and was only better than
some because I could read the page numbers and worry about the numbers
a few experiments and equations threw up. My "field" now has people
in it who double pig production in Bulgaria in 1918, failing to note
there had been a calendar change and the 'extra pigs' were merely
awaiting Xmas execution. I have no quibbles with your definition of
vacuum other than in practical situations where other approximations
serve better in making a cake rise (etc).
The point is whether other explorations are possible, as I suggest
they are through reasonable thought even where great minds have
produced theory such as SR which has had great empirical
confirmation. Thinking about measuring the one way speed of light in
vacuum is one such example.
On 31 Dec 2009, 17:44, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Where is hidden Vacuum?
> I said and repeat:
> But in your head. Just have a look.
>
> Especially when one talks through the back of his neck about what
> he ignores. That was aimed at Socratus, having unusually empty head.
>
> But you endeavor to talk science. Kitchen almanac science, but
> still sort of science, so I shall answer scientifically.
>
> Cosmos has been reduced to the Phenomenal Equivalence of field and
> SPACE. SPACE is no more an abstract "container" containing "objects"
> or nothing i.e. "vacuum".
>
> SPACE/field polarity is the fabric of cosmos. There is no "empty"
> SPACE without the field counterpart et vice versa. SPACE curvature
> is equivalent to field density. Nearly flat SPACE corresponds to very
> weak field and for practical approximations is considered as "vacuum".
> But SPACE/field polarity is always there, however flat and weak.
>
> Cheers
> Georges.
> ==============
>
> --- On Thu, 12/31/09, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
--- On Fri,measuring the one way
> speed of light 1/1/10, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
...
> The point is whether other explorations are possible, as I
> suggest
> they are through reasonable thought even where great minds
> have
> produced theory such as SR which has had great empirical
> confirmation. Thinking about measuring the one way
> speed of light in
> vacuum is one such example.
===========
G:
1.SR is an approximation of GR, like Newton was of SR.
2."measuring the one way speed of light" is misunderstanding of SR and
silly falling back on Galilean Relativity and Aether.
Or, maybe I got it wrong? You mentioned it, so please, explain what you
mean by it and what new, if anything at all, does it bring.
Cheers,
Georges.
archytas
experiments. My point is not to be right, but about argument.
Philosophers have reason to be vitally concerned with what appears at
first blush to be a purely physical question (and a rather simple one
at that): can we-and if so, how - measure the speed of light on a one-
way trip? If classical physics were correct, we could readily give an
affirmative answer to the question about the possibility of
ascertaining the one-way speed of light, and methods which would be
feasible for doing so could easily be devised. Classical physics is
not acceptable; it has been superseded by Einstein's special theory of
relativity. In his analysis of simultaneity, Einstein considers a
situation in which a light ray is sent (in vacuo) from point A to
point B where it is then reflected back to A. He remarks that by
definition we set the time required for the light to travel from A to
B equal to the time required for the light to make the return trip
from B to A. This is an astonishing move to make. He says, in effect,
that we are free to stipulate, as a definition, that the speed of
light on the trip out is equal to the speed of light on the return
trip. From the standpoint of classical physics, as well as simple
common sense, it would seem that the equality (or inequality) of the
speeds in the two opposite directions is a fact of nature. If it is a
fact of nature, it must be ascertained empirically, not laid down in
the form of a definition. This controversy over the one-way speed of
light is an excellent testing-ground for a number of philosophical
doctrines concerning conventionality. I’m not questioning the science
per se and lack the grok to do so.
There is an important tradition-associated with Mach, Poincare,
Einstein, and many others-which considers as in-dispensable to
physical understanding the careful philosophical analysis of such
concepts as mass, distance, space, time, and motion (Georges, unless
I’m very wrong, makes much of this). An investigation of the status of
the one-way speed of light (or whatever query we can come up with), as
fact or convention, can be pursued in the same spirit. How deeply can
we claim to understand the physical, even if we are using this word as
short-hand, if this concept suffers central logical unclarity? Current
scientific developments suggest a further reason for concern about the
speed of light. As science progresses, it sometimes becomes advisable
to adopt new conventions regarding fundamental physical magnitudes.
The wave-length of light in an atomic spectral line has replaced the
standard meter bar as the basic standard of length, and atomic
frequencies have replaced astronomic time standards. Further changes
have no doubt occurred – I’m out of date. An attractive alternative is
to give up length as a fundamental physical magnitude, replacing it
with the speed of light as a defined quantity. A distance, a meter for
example, would then be a derived magnitude - the distance traversed by
light in a given amount of time. Time and velocity would thus replace
the traditional basic quantities of time and distance. If such a
change is made in the foundations of physics - the physics used by
real-life physicists who make actual measurements in the laboratory
and the world - it would be good to know whether this new fundamental
constant is a one-way or a round-trip speed. The basic defined
quantity would be the average round-trip speed of light. An additional
definition would equate the two one-way speeds.
My physics is poor – just what a poor chemist gleans from chats with
colleagues, perhaps leading to revisions of his dumb experiments with
matter in his common sense on realising if they worked the radiation
energies would kill everyone in the lab. This is not my point, nor do
I expect to undermine a subject I barely grasp. I’m simply trying to
say that some of our reasoning is not about certainty and that
recognising and shaking conventions about can help us learn. My
applications of this would be in the dumb world of soaked-up idiocy
and skilled incompetence masquerading as sense.
An example like this might be used to improve someone's grok of SR,
something like it might undermine the same. There was enough in this
example for experiments to be designed and conducted. There is
learning in the thinking and too much learning is prevented by those
who discourage daring, impudence or do not have the time to explain
why a daft question can be shown to be so.
On 1 Jan, 09:24, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
...
In his analysis of simultaneity, Einstein
> considers a
> situation in which a light ray is sent (in vacuo) from
> point A to
> point B where it is then reflected back to A. He remarks
> that by
> definition we set the time required for the light to travel
> from A to
> B equal to the time required for the light to make the
> return trip
> from B to A. This is an astonishing move to make. He says,
> in effect,
> that we are free to stipulate, as a definition, that the
> speed of
> light on the trip out is equal to the speed of light on the
> return
> trip.
==============
G:
Where and what for does he say that? Please, quote. What are "points"
A,B? Are they referentials? Inertial, or not? Are they moving or
accelerating with respect to one another?
And, anyway, what could that possibly prove or imply?
Further, you keep on talking about "one way light speed", but did not
answer my comment:
***
"measuring the one way speed of light" is misunderstanding of SR and
silly falling back on Galilean Relativity and Aether.
Or, maybe I got it wrong? You mentioned it, so please, explain what you
mean by it and what new, if anything at all, does it bring.
***
I still consider it as ignorant, dilettante bullshit, but perhaps you
could tell me something which I overlooked.
Cheers,
Georges
===============
archytas
when not overseeing in another sense. You just can't see the
argument, for want of being so superior.
On 2 Jan, 17:43, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> From: archytas <arch...@live.co.uk>
> Subject: [epistemology 11152] Re: Where is hidden Vacuum?
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 7:11 PM
> The vacuum in your own head of course
> Georges, is what you overlook,
> when not overseeing in another sense. You just can't
> see the
> argument, for want of being so superior.
=================
Which argument?
Georges
archytas
Publications) page 40 in my motheaten edition - on the reference you
demand. Are we to take it you have taken up reading?
One experiment, amongst many on these 'dilettante' lines was this:
(J. G, Small and R. E. Phelps) - a 'new'
version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1970s). Instead of
comparing
round-trip speeds, as the original experiment did, the
new experiment compares one-way speeds of light emitted from
two lasers mounted in diametrically opposed positions on a
round table which can be rotated. This experiment, which was
not feasible at the time of the original Michelson-Morley
experiment, can now be conducted because of the exceedingly
stable frequencies of light emitted by modern lasers. Leaving
aside certain experimental niceties, the experiment consists of
observing the interference pattern that results when the two
laser beams are combined at the center of the table. The table is
then rotated. If the interference fringes shift as the two lasers
exchange their positions, that can be taken as evidence of
differences between the two opposed one-way velocities.
While a positive result of this experiment would have great
theoretical significance, a null result cannot be taken as
evidence which-independently of all synchrony conventions-
establishes the equality of the two one-way speeds. The
laser oscillators which produce the light of stable frequency can
be regarded as clocks which "tick off" a certain number of
oscillations per second. As the table on which they are mounted
is rotated, so as to interchange the positions of the two lasers,
these clocks are being transported. To conclude from the
absence of changes in the interference patterns as the rotation
occurs that the speed of light in the two directions is equal
depends upon the assumption that the frequencies are not altered
during the motion. The rotation occurs very slowly, so the
clock transport involved is slow clock transport. Nevertheless,slow
clock
transport synchrony is conventional in exactly the same fashion
as Einstein's standard signal synchrony.
Details of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be found in many
sources
including Jenkins, Francis A., and Harvey E. White, Fundamentals of
Optics, 3rd ed. (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957): 399-401. Incidentally, it is
incorrect to suppose, as people often do
that the Michelson-Morley experiment shows even that the round-trip
speed of light
has the same value in all inertial systems; see Philosophical Problems
of Space and Time (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1963: 394-5.
Of course, if I was a physicist, my textbooks would be more up to date
than the few acquired as a chemist.
On 'which argument' Georges, why the very one you can't see, part of
which is the basic question of conventionality in philosophy. Lord
knows what the physicists are doing now - I only keep up from what's
free. I must say the former colleagues who spent so much time
questioning light in this and other ways consider themselves rather
boring fellows until after the third or fourth pub on our treks, would
be delighted to be raised to the heights of 'dilettante'. Try getting
into the argument, maybe consider reading some of a vast literature
(my old citation is entirely on purpose), or grab your coat and I'll
buy the first round. Silencing others was the argument of a very old
school we have both fought in different places.
On 2 Jan, 19:29, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > From: archytas <archy...@live.co.uk>
Georges Metanomski
--- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Einstein, Albert, et al, The
> Principle of Relativity (New York: Dover
> Publications) page 40 in my motheaten edition - on the
> reference you
> demand. Are we to take it you have taken up reading?
============
G:
I don't have this book. Could you, pls, quote the few lines about
points A and B? I'm really interested.
==================
Neil:
> One experiment, amongst many on these 'dilettante' lines
> was this:
> (J. G, Small and R. E. Phelps) - a 'new'
> version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1970s). Instead
> of
> comparing
> round-trip speeds, as the original experiment did,
===============
G:
There were no "round-trips" in MM experiment. It was supposed to
prove the Aether wind by sending, reflecting and comparing two
beams, one parallel and one perpendicular to the earth surface,
thus to the alleged wind. The experiment failed giving the C
identical in both directions (within experimental error) thus
killing the Aether hypothesis and providing first solid support
to the SR. All improved versions of the experiment failed to
prove the Aether and confirmed the invariance of C.
Many new and fantastic things happen in science. Why bother about
obstinate trials to revive the Aether, or entangled acausality
allegedly demonstrated by Aspect, whose technologically impressing
experiment is totally meaningless.
Cheers
Georges.
archytas
up some kind of 'evacuated lead balloon' some time ago to confirm some
kind of 'curved space drag'? (gleaned from cleaning my car's windows
with New Scientist) - none of this is about 'bringing back old
physics'. I'll see what I can codge together, but will say again, for
tonight, what I've put forward is about learning and how sound a
philosophical base we can put science on - and perhaps later any role
this has in actual science. In Socratus' context, I may be on about
what we might make of the term 'hidden ether', without just dismissing
it.
On 2 Jan, 21:33, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
archytas
working on something completely different (fiction) in which Einstein
has relevance.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with
these events. If there is at point B of space another clock in all
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B
to
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood
of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a
common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all
unless we establish by definition [Einstein's italics don't show here]
that the "time"
required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A. (pp: 39-40.)
Just as a matter of interest, our old friend Descartes once wrote of
the ancient and
medieval belief in which light was generally believed to travel at
infinite speed, that "for me this was so certain that if
it could be proved false, I should be ready to confess that I
know absolutely nothing about philosophy" (Holton, Gerald,
Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science. 2nd
ed., revised and with new material by Stephen G. Brush (Reading,
Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973): 385-6. Warm up the time
machine! Nothing like proving a Frenchman wrong!
Very recent experiments have fired lasers in all directions (in
apparatus on a bed of air) and confirmed 'c' at 10 to the minus 20 for
10 of 18 or so criteria - this equipment may be improved to be able to
detect the possible influences of dark matter on light speed. On MM I
can only say I have found scores of work that assumes the
perpendicular beams and round trip speed. It seems unlikely Einstein
would have said the above if he did not think this was the case. My
guess is the one way speed of light is a dead duck now, but it wasn't
once. The problem of distant simultaneity or somesuch, as my fading
memory allows. Maybe Socratus' 'hidden ether' can turn us to ideas of
whatever spins in dark matter? Carlos will have the 'address' ...
Anyway, chin chin - I have two cans of Foster's in the fridge as a
gift for repairing an old neighbour's television. My ancient
soldering iron managed the slow clock trip of my legs to her house and
I presume the 'amber nectar', though an Australian lie, has similarly
survived the trip back. Did you know they don't use valves in tvs
these days Georges? It was some shock to me, I can tell you! Had I
been more rigorous in approach, I need not have had the back off the
set, as I ended-up replacing the fuse trip-switch after I noticed the
kettle for my tea was not working either.
archytas
American
Journal of Physics 40(19 72): 782-4.
Taylor, Edwin F. and John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics (San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1963).
Weinberger, H., and M. Mossel, "Theory of a Unidirectional
Interferometric Test
of Special Relativity," American Journal of Physics 39(1971): 606-9.
Winnie, John, "Special Relativity Without One-Way Velocity
Assumptions,"
Philosophy of Science 37(1970): 81-99, 223-38.
These were a few places I visited to make sure, if I am howling at the
Moon, I'm not doing so entirely naked. I have not found anyone
assuming MM not to be a round trip except you, though as Einstein
said, 'it would only take one'. I have since found a 1977 conference
addressing the matters - remember its "thinking principles" that
concern me, so I don't need to be up to date. One paper I only
currently have rough notes of has this:
In rebutting the claim that measurement of the ratio of electrostatic
units to electromagnetic units suffices to ascertain the one-way speed
of light, Adolf Grunbaum exhibits still
other ways in which prior synchrony conventions are involved.
According to Grunbaum, the proponent of that approach . . . begs the
question by his failure to see that the simultaneity
criterion based on the choice of e = 1/2 is used in the very
definitions of the physical quantities that enter into Maxwell's
equations and that these equations would be different for a different
choice of C, since then the various physical quantities would, in
general, have different relationships to one another. Thus, for
example, the first partial derivative of the electric field strength
with respect to one of the space coordinates represents a space
variation of simultaneous values of the quantity E .... In this way,
the simultaneity criterion e = 1/2 is presupposed in the very
equations which are used to define the electromagnetic and
electrostatic units of charge as well as in the experimental
determination of their ratios ....
All of these considerations make it evident that Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory is permeated with synchrony and one-way
velocity conventions. Einstein could hardly have been oblivious to
that fact. His 1905 paper on special relativity was entitled, "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" ("Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
Korper"), and it addressed itself to problems arising directly out of
Maxwell's equations (which we know).
My interests in this may formalise into defeasible reasoning processes
and some simple statements on creativity that include theory being
under-determined by evidence (and our own inabilities to put the
evidence in theoretical context) - much of our action surely is. All
seems to rely on approximation, itself a complex and potentially
formalisable.
archytas
Philosophy online = free source)
The debate about the conventionality of simultaneity is usually
carried on within the framework of the special theory of relativity.
Even prior to the advent of that theory, however, questions had been
raised (see, e.g., Poincaré, 1898) as to whether simultaneity was
absolute; i.e., whether there was a unique event at location A that
was simultaneous with a given event at location B. In his first paper
on relativity, Einstein (1905) asserted that it was necessary to make
an assumption in order to be able to compare the times of occurrence
of events at spatially separated locations (Einstein, 1905, pp. 38-40
of the Dover translation or pp. 125-127 of the Princeton translation;
but note Scribner, 1963, for correction of an error in the Dover
translation). His assumption, which defined what is usually called
standard synchrony, can be described in terms of the following
idealized thought experiment, where the spatial locations A and B are
fixed locations in some particular, but arbitrary, inertial (i.e.,
unaccelerated) frame of reference: Let a light ray, traveling in
vacuum, leave A at time t1 (as measured by a clock at rest there), and
arrive at B coincident with the event E at B. Let the ray be
instantaneously reflected back to A, arriving at time t2. Then
standard synchrony is defined by saying that E is simultaneous with
the event at A that occurred at time (t1+ t2)/2. This definition is
equivalent to the requirement that the one-way speeds of the ray be
the same on the two segments of its round-trip journey between A and
B.
Norton, J. 1986. "The Quest for the One Way Velocity of Light,"
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 118-120 (cited in
the above).
I have a later version of the Princeton translation mentioned.
archytas
One-way speed of light?
J. Finkelstein1
Department of Physics
San Jos´e State University
San Jos´e, CA 95192, U.S.A
In the October 2009 issue of the American Journal of Physics Greaves,
Ro-
driguez and Ruiz-Camacho[1] report a measurement of the one-way speed
of
light. This would seem to put them into conflict with the claim made
by, e.g.
Reichenbach[2] that the one-way speed of light is to some extent
conventional
because its measurement depends on a convention for the
synchronization of
distant clocks. Since the authors of this paper do not explicitly
adopt any such
convention, the reader of this paper might wonder how, if Reichenbach
is correct,
they are able to define, much less to measure, a one-way speed.
In the experiment they describe, a light beam is sent from a laser to
a
photosensor, and then the signal from the photosensor is transmitted
through
a coaxial cable back to the vicinity of the laser. The length of the
cable is 23.73
m, and it is asserted that transmission through the cable “introduces
a fixed
time delay of 79 ns”. The authors point out that all timing is
performed in a
single place (the vicinity of the laser) so no convention for the
synchronization
of distant clocks seems to be necessary. However, the assertion of a
known time
delay through the cable is only meaningful if one imagines having
synchronized
clocks at the two ends of the cable. Therefore this assertion
constitutes an
implicit adoption of a convention for distant synchronization.
What the experiment of Greaves, Rodriguez and Ruiz-Camacho actually
measures is the time for a round trip; the first leg of this round
trip is the light
propagating from the laser to the photosensor, and the second leg is
the signal
going through the coaxial cable from the photosensor back to the
vicinity of the
laser. It is the assumption that the second leg is accomplished with a
known
speed (in particular, the round-trip speed of light) that allows the
speed of the
first leg to be determined.
References
[1] E. D. Greaves, A. M. Rodriguez, and J. Ruiz-Camacho, “A one-way
speed
of light experiment” Am. J. Phys. 77, 894 (2009).
[2] H. Reichenbach, Philosophy of Space and Time (Dover, New York,
1958).
On 3 Jan, 01:56, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
archytas
Departamento de Física, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade
Técnica de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
1 Also at Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, IST, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal
E-mail: vgu...@ist.utl.pt
Abstract. The null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the
constancy of the one-way speed of light in the 'rest system' are used
to formulate a simple problem, to be solved by elementary geometry
techniques using a pair of compasses and non-graduated rulers. The
solution consists of a drawing allowing a direct visualization of all
the fundamental effects of standard relativistic kinematics, namely
time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity.
Moreover, it also provides an immediate image of other important and
more subtle aspects, often passed by in relativity courses, such as
the conventionality of simultaneity thesis, possible non-invariance of
the one-way speed of light and compatibility between the Lorentz–
Poincaré and Einstein–Minkowski philosophies. The geometric scheme so
constructed constitutes a powerful tool to clearly illustrate both
traditional and not-so-traditional aspects of special relativity
teaching.
There are many recent papers, easily found through google scholar. I
don't know these jockeys, but did work with a mate of theirs (DNA
profiling) who was brilliant in the lab at getting crap equipment to
work. I've written to ask for a copy of their paper - it's £50 online
so I rejected that faster than the speed of light. As said, the
physics ain't what I'm after. Clearly there are more of us
dilettantes than I'd bothered to finds out. A la votre, mon vieux.
On 3 Jan, 01:56, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
archytas
flogging the 'dead duck' of one way light speed. I'm off to find some
respectable lager better than the stuff the Aussies must be drinking
to be bowled out for 127, after a horseshit-spreading session with my
Bulgarian neighbour. Georges will no doubt feel I have reached my
zenith, but Dimitar and I have star-gazing in mind, no doubt from the
gutter achieved only from the vacuum of peace established by strong
lager with friends.
On 3 Jan, 04:21, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Rodrigo de Abreu and Vasco Guerra1
> Departamento de Física, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade
> Técnica de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
> 1 Also at Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, IST, 1049-001 Lisboa,
> Portugal
> E-mail: vgue...@ist.utl.pt
> ...
>
> read more »
Georges Metanomski
G:
Whatever one may say about your doubtful taste of drinks,
you are certainly not lazy. The amounts you produced on
one-ways and things make me feel like a son of toil buried
under ton of soil.
Lazy myself, I'll make a short digest, if I dare say.
Before commenting it, let me say that I'm sorry to see you
falling pray to misleading handbooks and "interpretations".
I happen to be one of the last Einstein's collaborators and
certainly the last who was particularly dealing with
ontological foundations of his Second Scientific Revolution.
I just wrote an outline thereof in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S2.html
It's certainly not absolutely right - what is - but it could
give a sincere and rigorous view of philosophical implications
of the concurrent physics.
================
Neil, quoting Einstein:
We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter
cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the
"time" it requires to travel from B to A.
G:
Did you ask yourself why Einstein puts "time" in quotes?
Answer in my above mentioned essay.
We should distinguish two cases:
1.A,B are distinct referentials. Then simultaneity gets relative.
For some referential C simultaneous; for D, A precedes B;
for E, B precedes A.
2.A,B distant points in a single referential. It's trivial and
boils down to the ontological principle of isotropy of cosmos,
which underlies whole physic. It's not quite honest of Einstein
to present it as his additional axiom.
================
Neil:
Nothing like proving a Frenchman wrong!
G:
Pleasure shared with 1 140 000 google village idiots. Of course
Descartes only created modern science and epistemology. And
infinite C was the only reasonable assumption in the context
of axiomatic absolute time and space. But he was Frenchman, one
cannot deny that.
================
Neil:
Maybe Socratus' 'hidden ether' can turn us to ideas of
whatever spins in dark matter?
G:
I don't know about Socratus, but why not have a look at
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0h_dark_matter.html
================
Neil:
I have not found anyone assuming MM not to be a round trip
except you.
G:
I understood by "round trip" your muddling pointer to silly
asses who imagined light traveling round the earth, giving
its speed as C+-V.
If you understand by this term the "go-and-return" travel of
the reflected beam, then of course both beams do merry-go-round.
I always heard and used "reflection".
================
Neil:
In rebutting the claim that measurement of the ratio of electrostatic
units to electromagnetic units suffices to ascertain the one-way speed
of light, Adolf Grunbaum exhibits still
other ways in which prior synchrony conventions are involved.
According to Grunbaum, the proponent of that approach . . . begs the
question by his failure to see that the simultaneity
criterion based on the choice of e = 1/2 is used in the very
definitions of the physical quantities that enter into Maxwell's
equations and that these equations would be different for a different
choice of C, since then the various physical quantities would, in
general, have different relationships to one another. Thus, for
example, the first partial derivative of the electric field strength
with respect to one of the space coordinates represents a space
variation of simultaneous values of the quantity E .... In this way,
the simultaneity criterion e = 1/2 is presupposed in the very
equations which are used to define the electromagnetic and
electrostatic units of charge as well as in the experimental
determination of their ratios
G:
The first Maxwell equation says:
div(E) = ro / eps
where
E - electric field
ro - charge density
eps - permittivity of free space
I don't see any e equal 1/2, or whatever else.
And Maxwell made no "choice of C", but deduced C from his
equations as function of empiric constants:
C = 1/sqrt(mu * eps)
where
eps - permittivity of free space
mu - permeability of free space
His three epochal achievements are:
1.Combining electricity and magnetism in a unique construct -
the electro-magnetic field capable of propagating by itself,
without any support, the electric and magnetic components
generating mutually one another.
2.Determining C by deduction from his equations.
3.Postulating light to be EM field, in view of near identity
of his deduced C and the speed of light measured empirically.
In their light I consider him as one of three greatest
physicists, ex equo with Newton and Einstein.
================
Neil, quoting some Vasco de Gumboil:
possible non-invariance of the one-way speed of light and
compatibility between the Lorentz–Poincaré and Einstein–Minkowski
philosophies.
G:
Nice piece of bullshit to finish.
One-, Two-, Thirty five-way speed of light stays invariant
as long as you don't falsify the totality of concurrent physics.
Einstein–Minkowski SR model and Lorentz–Poincaré Aether model
are as compatible as my left foot with the ass of Brigitte Bardot.
================
Have a look at my Second Enlightenment and join me in drinking
something drinkable. I drink your health with Islay Single Malt
Bowmore.
Bob's your uncle
Georges.
================
archytas
American cousin. I felt obliged even to find the reserve bottle, as
the poor soul was returning to the threat of Budweiser, which I
understand from the adverts is made by balefully tuneful, croaking
frogs. In the USA, all beer is essentially piss-coloured water,
differentiated by advertising. Don't send your left foot for
evidential scrutiny old chap, I can trust enough to memories of the
fair maiden's unique ass-qualities and general left feet to agree your
comparison. Still, there is the odd arse that gets off by staring at
feet.
I have no idea whether any of the massive literature (of which the
above are tiny parts) has any real validity in advancing physics,
though I would say I'm not inclined to think Einstein so incompetent
he would use inverted commas merely to enhance presentation, or is
likely to have used his written submission for an impromptu darts
match which confused the type-setters. Most of the "science" I see
today is a form of pornography for the layman, delivered by Village
Idiot Promotions Inc. You are still missing the point, but then you
suggest I may be missing points writ large around a word! You may
well ask next if I can tell the time, and given an evening's end on
rather excellent Bulgarian vodka (home made), it may be a while until
I can.
In some ways, your writings lack something of the reflective quality
of your wit and criticism. There is something of a 'destructive
distillation' of words, but something of a failure to move to
experimental constructions and 'systems that are good enough' at least
to work back from to what we have missed in explanation. The
'destruction' too often applies to others, a positive and negative I
share. I have trouble with clowns, yet am appreciative of them in the
general circus as laughter is better than the cruelty to animals and
general mundanity. History is littered with philosophers and
religionists who could always go one better in deconstruction or urge
to purity, though the best of these (Kierkegaard) can be read as a
comedian. My later life teaching 'management' (surely less certain
than "time") has been a tragedy, though the Greeks might have it as a
comedy should there be a happy ending, and I at least got my students
laughing, no mean feat when all are drowning in bullshit.
The physics is by no means clear and no clearer for your method or
comment on fragments. I can't help other than to point at a
literature, one I know to have faults, know I have little grasp of as
an 'insider', yet have reason to trust far more than 'Dead Sea
Scrolls'. That physicists and philosophers of science are 'at' one
way speed of light considerations seems clear, and as clear that you
don't like it. This would be the only conclusion left after critical
scrutiny of what's in here. Your dismissals lack the criteria your
writings evince. I have a much more general construction of argument
and learning in it in mind than whether the physics is right.
Socratus was not a good start in my opinion. Sticking "vacuum" on
Einstein's dartboard might be, even leading to an idea of the journey
time to the edge of the universe taking into account of what is in
"vacuum", even if the work has been done by a woman in Australia,
mentioned before in passing and apparently of no interest to those
with a more recent 'interest' in "vacuum".
A comparison of Blair Athol with your Islay would be conducive. Shall
I bring "eggs" to show you I can suck them? My father's brother was
John. He worked at the distillery and lived far longer than science
would have given his liver.
Neil
On 3 Jan, 17:50, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ==============
> G:
> Whatever one may say about your doubtful taste of drinks,
> you are certainly not lazy. The amounts you produced on
> one-ways and things make me feel like a son of toil buried
> under ton of soil.
> Lazy myself, I'll make a short digest, if I dare say.
> Before commenting it, let me say that I'm sorry to see you
> falling pray to misleading handbooks and "interpretations".
> I happen to be one of the last Einstein's collaborators and
> certainly the last who was particularly dealing with
> ontological foundations of his Second Scientific Revolution.
> I just wrote an outline thereof in
>
> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S...