Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
GSS
I have been taking part in various sci.physics discussion forums on
usenet for almost a decade now. Even though I found these discussions
quite useful, still I failed to communicate my viewpoint to most of
the readers. Perhaps, communication of a certain viewpoint in bits and
pieces cannot be expected to 'stick', to have any permanent
impression. On the suggestion of a well wisher, I have now compiled
all the bits and pieces of my un-orthodox viewpoint into a new book
titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields". Keeping in view
the nature of contents, I want to get it reviewed by the competent
readership of the usenet forums, before getting this book formally
printed. I also want to get suitable feedback for improving the
presentation and readability of this book.
You may kindly download 1.8 M pdf file of the book from,
http://www.fundamentalphysics.info/matter_and_fields.pdf
or
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/matter_and_fields.pdf
However, for getting a brief over-view or introduction before
downloading the book (or any of its chapters) kindly visit the
website,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
(For removing Ads on right, kindly click on '>>' at top right)
Therefore, I earnestly request all readers to kindly spare a little
time to review and suggest improvements for better presentation and
readability of the said book. Specifically, the following
shortcomings, if noticed in the book, may please be pointed out.
(a) Logical, mathematical or typographical errors if any.
(b) Inconsistencies in presentation of the viewpoint, if any.
(c) Faulty assumptions or faulty deductions, if any.
On the other hand, if you appreciate any aspect of this presentation,
kindly let me know. Suggestions are also welcome on my e-mail
address.
With sincere thanks in advance.
Dono
http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume.jpg
LymanAlpha
> Friends,
>
http://bestytmnd.ytmnd.com/
--
"Out here on the perimeter there are no stars"
Steve --Inglo--
Alie...@gmail.com
> I have been taking part in various sci.physics discussion forums on
> usenet for almost a decade now. Even though I found these discussions
> quite useful, still I failed to communicate my viewpoint to most of
> the readers. Perhaps, communication of a certain viewpoint in bits and
> pieces cannot be expected to 'stick', to have any permanent
> impression. On the suggestion of a well wisher, I have now compiled
> all the bits and pieces of my un-orthodox viewpoint into a new book
> titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields". Keeping in view
> the nature of contents, I want to get it reviewed by the competent
> readership of the usenet forums, before getting this book formally
> printed. I also want to get suitable feedback for improving the
> presentation and readability of this book.
> However, for getting a brief over-view or introduction before
> downloading the book (or any of its chapters) kindly visit the
> website,
> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
> Therefore, I earnestly request all readers to kindly spare a little
> time to review and suggest improvements for better presentation and
> readability of the said book. Specifically, the following
> shortcomings, if noticed in the book, may please be pointed out.
> (a) Logical, mathematical or typographical errors if any.
> (b) Inconsistencies in presentation of the viewpoint, if any.
> (c) Faulty assumptions or faulty deductions, if any.
I found nothing regarding one of my primary areas of interest. In
the electron-beam version of Young's two-slit diffraction experiment,
we understand that the matter waves of the electron(s) interfere with
each other just as do the wave aspect of photons in the light beam
version of the experiment, which makes sense as mass is not quantized;
however, electric charge _is_ quantized and does not lend itself to
self-interference. Yet as we see, the charges of individual electrons
_do_ behave like waves and give us no "which way" information in one-
electron-at-a-time experiments.
How do you address this?
Mark L. Fergerson
GSS
Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
book.
In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
waves of electrons. And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
Regarding your observation "the charges of individual electrons _do_
behave like waves", let me reproduce a relevant part from chapter 18
(The Electron Structure and Coulomb Interaction) of the book.
Based on the spherically symmetric solution of equilibrium
equations in the Elastic Space Continuum, we have introduced a new
model for the structure of the electron core and its wave field. The
mass of electron, as of any other particle, is shown as the inertial
equivalent of the total strain energy content ‘locked up’ in the
oscillating strain bubble. The sign of charge of positron / electron
has been associated with the direction of propagation, outwards or
inwards, of the strain phase waves linked with the oscillating core.
The ‘intrinsic spin’ of electron is shown to be the result of
rotation of the displacement vector U at a characteristic angular
frequency kc. The Coulomb interaction has been derived from the
superposition of strain wave fields of the interacting particles,
resulting in overall change in combined field energy. Among salient
parameters, the electron and positron core radii are found to be 1.61
x 10^-15 m. Beyond this core boundary of 1.61 fm radius, the strain
wave field of the electron extends to infinity and accommodates about
35 percent of its total mass energy.
Regarding the mutual interference of photons, let me quote a relevant
portion from chapter 19 (The Photon Wave Packet and Neutrinos ) of the
book.
The photon may be viewed as a sinusoidal pulse of electromagnetic
field Ep & Bp with exponentially decaying amplitude and ‘significant’
spatial extension of just about one wave length in all directions.
The Photon Interaction. Here it may be appropriate to point out
that just like computation of Coulomb Interaction, mutual interaction
of two or more photons separated by distance ‘d’ along any Cartesian
coordinate axis, can be easily computed. This is done by superposition
of the strain tensor components of two interacting photons separated
by distance d along any coordinate axis and referred to a common
Cartesian coordinate system. The strain energy of the superposed or
combined field can then be easily computed. The computation results
show that the interaction energy for two photons of same frequency
depends on functions of the type 2hf.exp(-k.d).cos(k.d). That is,
any two photons of same frequency f, will tend to get mutually
coupled at certain optimum separation of the order of ‘odd number of
half wave lengths’. Their interaction energy will change from
negative to positive if their separation along any coordinate axis is
changed by about one half wave length, resulting in their mutual
repulsion. This may account for the conventional interference and
dispersion effects encountered in a stream of photons of the same
frequency.
GSS
Dono
GSS
In this book I have presented a bold un-orthodox viewpoint that
demonstrates the feasibility of representing whole physical phenomenon
involving matter and fields in the form of orderly 'space-time'
distortions or dynamic deformations and strains in the space
continuum.
Through the study and analysis of dynamic deformations and strains in
the space continuum it is shown that all natural physical phenomenon
as well as the shape and size of all matter particles can be brought
within our mental grasp and mental visualization.
Whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate
space, the physical measurable properties of permittivity eps_0,
permeability mu_0 and intrinsic impedance Z_0 are only associated with
physical space.
Just like the intrinsic impedance Z_0 = sqrt(mu_0 /eps_0 ) , the speed
of strain wave propagation c = 1/sqrt(eps_0.mu_0 ) is a measurable
property of physical space.
I have shown that an absolute fixed reference frame, like the
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), can be constructed in
any closed volume of space with finite matter content. The concept of
absolute reference frame is extended to the Universal Reference Frame
and I have outlined an experimental technique for practically
establishing the same just like the ICRF.
The exchange theory of interaction which is the founding postulate of
the SM, is fundamentally invalid due to the absence of any suitable
physical mechanism for prior exchange of required information.
Part II of the book mainly covers the hitherto unexplored field of
space-time distortions to analyze the shape, size, internal structure
and mutual interactions of elementary particles. A detailed analytical
study of dynamic deformations in the physical space continuum, through
the time dependent displacement vector field U provides a more
fundamental level of investigation into the workings of Nature, in
comparison to the fields currently employed for the purpose.
The detailed study of any deformed or the stressed region of the
Elastic Space Continuum primarily involves the detailed solution of
the equilibrium equations subject to appropriate boundary conditions.
A closed region of the Elastic Space Continuum in a permissible
strained state, satisfying the equilibrium equations and boundary
conditions, may be termed a strain bubble provided the total strain
energy content in this closed region is time invariant constant.
We have obtained particular solutions for the strain bubbles that
correspond to well known stable particles namely electron, positron,
proton, neutron and the photon. Strain bubble solutions that
correspond to neutrinos and some of the unstable particles like
mesons, have also been discussed.
The fundamental nature of the matter particles and their associated
fields, as brought out in this book, represents only the proverbial
"tip of the iceberg". Tremendous amount of further research work is
called for in this direction.
Dono
> Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields
> ---------------------------------------
>
> In this book I have presented a bold un-orthodox viewpoint
No, you are presenting pure...shit.
Uncle Al
>
> Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields
> ---------------------------------------
>
> In this book I have presented a bold un-orthodox viewpoint that
> demonstrates the feasibility of representing whole physical phenomenon
> involving matter and fields in the form of orderly 'space-time'
> distortions or dynamic deformations and strains in the space
> continuum.
>
> Through the study and analysis of dynamic deformations and strains in
> the space continuum it is shown that all natural physical phenomenon
> as well as the shape and size of all matter particles can be brought
> within our mental grasp and mental visualization.
1) A narrow light beam propagates tangent to the surface of the
Earth within an evacuated, hollow, large diameter, dieletric tunnel.
Compare its downward acceleration to that of a local massed body in
vacuum free fall.
2) Calculate the precession of Mercury's perihelion over time.
3) Calculate velocity and gravitational well depth clock
corrections for a GPS satellite in orbit at 11,900 miles altitude
above sea level.
No falsifiable predictions, no theory.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Alie...@gmail.com
(brevity snip)
> Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
> book.
>
> In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
> experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
> electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
> waves of electrons.
If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
seen.
> And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
> has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
> photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
it isn't.
Mark L. Fergerson
Richard Schultz
: No falsifiable predictions, no theory.
You mean like the way your web page fails contain a single example of
an experiment that could refute *your* theory?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
John Kennaugh
The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
sense of the word 'interfere'. If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.
If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
interference. Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
out. You cannot get 0.345 of a photon. In the double slit experiment, a
complete whole photon arrives at some point on the detector each and
every time. Some mechanism is involved which determines which direction
a photon takes when leaving the slit and that mechanism is such that
there is an increased probability of it travelling in some directions
and a decreased probability of it travelling in others.
Maxwell's wave in aether theory was comprehensively disproved by both
the MMX and the discovery of the particulate nature of light and yet
relativity is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's theory is
impeccable.
Orthodox physics has compromised its integrity by dispensing with the
aether while arbitrarily clinging to aspects of aether theory it was
reluctant to lose. It failed to keep the intellectual discipline to
follow through on its own doctrine. In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.
My argument goes as follows. While Maxwell's theory was wrong in the
sense that light does not consist of physical waves, its predictive
accuracy shows that there is a link between charge and light - Maxwell's
equations are based upon the properties of charge. It follows therefore
that there must be a link between photons and charge.
If one applies the necessary discipline then in the absence of an aether
one should accept that action at a distance is the axiomatic way in
which all force acts and that a 'field' is simply the metaphysical
'field of influence' caused by charge and cannot exist in the absence of
the cause of that influence.
If you take these two things together then it supports the model of a
photon put forward by Waldron [1] that a photon consists of equal
quantities of positive and negative charge which are rotating. The field
of influence produced by this rotating charge is the electromagnetic
field associated with the photon. One does not then need an aether to
support the concept of an independent field nor does one have to jump
intellectual hoops to convince oneself that 'no aether' and 'independent
fields' are somehow compatible or convince oneself that 'space in which
independent fields can exist' is somehow fundamentally different to 'the
aether'. As Waldron points out [2] if a positron and an electron result
in two neutral photons each photon must carry away half the +ve charge
of the positron (and half its mass) and half the -ve charge of the
electron (and half its mass). His maths work.
While the photon may indeed pass through one slit, the rotating field
could energise the other and have the necessary effect on the resultant
direction.
One question you might ponder is why, if photons singly produce the
distribution associated with 'interference' why monochromatic incoherent
light does not.
One might also look at the geometry of the double slit experiment. One
has to conclude that independent of the photon density far more photons
must fail to go through the slits than make it to the detection screen.
It would be naive to simply assume that these have no effect whatsoever.
Now my own field is electronics but I am not an expert in antenna design
but I believe the following is correct. If one moves the double slit
experiment down the frequency scale to Radio frequency the first thing
one finds is that one would have to make the slits out of a material
opaque to radio waves i.e. a metal. Secondly one would see the two slits
as slot antenna. Thirdly one would not see energy emerging from the
slits as merely the energy which 'got through because it was going in
the right direction' one would see all the energy incident on the plate
as energising the slot antenna and the slot antenna re-radiating that
energy. The efficiency depends on optimising the dimensions of the
slots.
From this one might conclude that in the optical experiment one should
perhaps pay more attention to the difference between material opaque to
light (and therefore suitable for making the slits) and transparent to
light. To the actual dimensions of the slits in relation to the
wavelength which give best results and to whether the total energy
reaching the detector is actually simply in proportion of the area of
the slits to the area of the beam. One might experiment to see whether
the interference patterns caused by a low intensity beam can be
disrupted by illuminating the slits with a high intensity beam of a
different colour.
[1] "The Spinning Photon" R A Waldron 'Speculations in science and
technology Vol 6, No 2 (1983) p171-181'.
[2] "The wave and Ballistic Theory of light - a critical review"
R.A Waldron Muller 1977
--
John Kennaugh
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
Nice ideas. A true revolution in science is coming but first
Einsteiniana's priests should OFFICIALLY abandon Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate. For the moment theoreticians all over the world
continue to reject, automatically and subconsciously, any idea, not
necessarily contradicting, just leading to a discussion of, the Divine
Beginning of modern physics.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the classic
> sense of the word 'interfere'.
Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon is
NOT a "classical" object.
> If two waves of unity amplitude interfere
> the result is an amplitude which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on
> the phase and can have every value in between. e.g. At some phase
> difference there will be an amplitude of say 0.345.
Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
directions....
> If you think about the photon model it may well conform mathematically
> to the concept of interference but physically it just is not
> interference.
Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.
> Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel
> out.
That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.
> [... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]
Tom Roberts
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
>>classic sense of the word 'interfere'.
>
>Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon
>is NOT a "classical" object.
That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced mysticism
to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is used almost as
an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make sense of it.
>> If two waves of unity amplitude interfere the result is an amplitude
>>which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on the phase and can have
>>every value in between. e.g. At some phase difference there will be
>>an amplitude of say 0.345.
>
>Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
>same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
>directions....
As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.
>
>
>> If you think about the photon model it may well conform
>>mathematically to the concept of interference but physically it just
>>is not interference.
>
>Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.
Interference by definition means two things interfere. A null is caused
by two thing cancelling. A peak is two things reinforcing. You don't
have two things to interfere, two things do not reach the detector and
cancel and two things do not reach the detector and reinforce and
certainly two things of arbitrary phase do not arrive at the detector
and partially cancel. A null is where no photons arrive because no (or
very few) photons leave the double slits travelling in that direction. A
peak is where a lot of photons arrive because that is the direction
which has the highest probability.
>
>
>> Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel out.
>
>That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
>LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.
>
>
>> [... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]
No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
travel at c if it has mass - and it does.
A photon has mass because:
1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
mass.
2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
object with mass.
3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
any other projectile.
4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
particles with mass will.
5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
photon to take away any excess mass.
6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)
The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
above. The mass equations all balance.
SR is Einstein's attempt to rescue Maxwell's wave in aether theory from
experimental evidence which disproved it. Even then it is only a 'fix'
for the MMX. The fact that light physically isn't waves and is
particulate he simply ignored despite having got a Nobel prize for
establishing the fact. Having ditched 3 perfectly reasonable and
sensible axioms of physics to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory
physics then, a couple of decades later rejected the aether Einstein had
made physics pay such a high price to save, effectively sawing off the
intellectual branch it was supported by. Einstein's aether - the aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's - was rejected. The aether was
removed from physics not as the result of any experiment, nor through
some theoretical wizardry but by the totally arbitrary decision made by
physicists, on behalf of physicists, that physical interpretation was no
longer considered a necessary part of physics. Thus saving physics from
the embarrassing position it had accepted. It left the way open to
today's mysticism where there is no quality assurance. Once having
accepted that it is nature which is weird (rather than that physics is
totally cocked up) nothing can be rejected. You cannot reject something
on the grounds that "nature may be weird but it cannot be *that* weird".
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
GSS
> On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (brevity snip)
>
> > Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
> > book.
>
> > In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
> > experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
> > electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
> > waves of electrons.
>
> If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
> linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
> seen.
>
individual electrons passing through a tiny hole in a carbon film had
been experimentally demonstrated by Hermann, Krahl, K¨ubler, M¨uller,
and Rindfleisch in 1971. Secondly, in the electron-beam version of
Young's two-slit diffraction experiment, an electron biprism is used
which is not exactly equivalent to the two-slit setup.
> > And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
> > has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
> > photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
>
> I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
> time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
> there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
> itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
> would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
> it isn't.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Well, let me offer *another* interpretation.
In such experiments, one-photon-at-a-time is supposed to free one-
electron-at-a-time which could then be detected through appropriate
instrumentation. The point however is that if there were (say) seven-
photons-at-a-time coming in a mutually coupled group of photons, they
too will be able to dislodge or free only one- electron-at-a-time from
the relevant electron orbital. In that case only one photon out of
the group will be 'used up' and the remaining photons will just move
on. As pointed out in my previous post, photons of the same frequency
can get coupled through mutual interactions to form group packets or
streams of photons.. Practically it will be almost impossible to
isolate (or obtain) one-photon-at-a-time unless the emission of each
and every photon from each of the corrosponding atoms is strictly
controlled. What has been actually done however is to obtain one-
electron-at-a-time and *assume* the dislodging photon to be just one-
at-a-time instead of a coupled group of many-photons-at-a-time. Such
a group of many photons can break up into two sub-groups while passing
through 'two-slits' and undergo interference process after passing
through the slits.
Hope it is a convincing interpretation!
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
Tom Roberts and his superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu have already solved this problem: Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if "it is ultimately
discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)":
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."
http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
I believe that what you quote is saying a different thing to what I am
talking about. What is being discussed in your quote is I think a case
of hedging their bets and saying that if instead of having zero mass a
photon had a minute mass, all it would mean is that the theoretical
constant c would not be the speed of light and that photons would have
to travel at very slightly less than c.
What I am saying, and what Waldron showed mathematically is that a
photon has substantial mass.
The energy of a photon is made up of two terms
W = 1/2 m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2
The first term is internal energy the second kinetic energy where v is
the speed of the photon relative to the observer. Waldron speculates
that the internal energy is due to rotating charge (equal positive and
negative).
If the observer is stationary w.r.t the source v = c and W = m c^2. This
is of course equal to Fo x h. so you get the equation
Fo x h = mc^2
from which one can calculate the mass. The value calculated using that
equation is consistent with the effect of gravity on a photon and the
momentum of a photon and even the total mass of the two photons produced
by electron positron so called "annihilation". According to Waldron's
maths mass, charge, and energy are conserved in such an interaction. The
mass of the two photons is the same as the mass of the electron and
positron.
The quotes you give - speculating that photons might have a minute mass
reminds me of the dubious history of the neutrino.
Having discovered the quantized nature of the photon it was assumed that
all matter must consist of discreet lumps. When it became apparent that
the energy states of electrons orbiting the nucleus were also a series
of fixed values it became an article of faith that energy must be
quantized in the atom. Unfortunately it was found that the energy of
beta particle ejected from radioactive atomic nuclei varied smoothly
over at least a ten-to-one range. The beta radiation is apparently not
quantized when dogma said it should be. Based on the modern approach
which says never accept a theory is wrong - invent a new particle
instead the idea of the neutrino was born.
Pauli saved the day, by postulating the existence of a neutrino or
"small neutral particle" which had about the same mass as an electron
but no electric charge. Such a particle, he suggested, would not show up
in any ordinary particle counter or photograph. So: if one neutrino were
to be emitted along with every radioactive beta electron, nobody would
ever be able to detect the fact; but the invisible neutrino would carry
away energy too, so that it and the beta electron, between them, could
possess the quantized line spectrum of energy that faith demanded. (The
failure to quantize the sharing of this energy between the neutrino and
the beta electron in fixed proportions was not explained).
When first invented by Pauli they had about the same mass as an electron
(so as to share the missing energy equitably, on average); then suddenly
it was proved that they could have no rest mass, but must be like some
kind of non-radiant, undetectable photon. However, to make up for that
they must be spinning - "but not mechanically, of course, since there is
no structure there to spin".
Neutrino detectors work on the principle that what is detected must be a
neutrino because "it can't be anything else". I suspect that had no one
invented a neutrino then people would be queuing up wanting to get their
papers published suggesting what is being detected. Theory says that it
is almost but not quite impossible to detect a neutrino so the numbers
'detected' are very small. Even so only 1/4 of the number which should
be detected are, so it has been decided that they must be able to
transmute into one of at least 4 different sorts of neutrino, only one
of which shows up in the detector. That poses a problem in that if they
are massless and travel at c as previously thought then according to
relativity their clock is stopped and there is no way they can at some
'time' change from one manifestation to another. So now it is assumed
that they do have a tiny mass and travel at just less than c - so that
their clock can run and at some time they can - for no apparent reason -
change into a different sort of neutrino.
You couldn't make it up could you.
--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be
describing an incredibly silly idea.
Pentcho Valev
There is a second message in the quotes (designed to confuse mainly
zombies, not clever Einsteinians). Tom Roberts, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
and Jong-Ping Hsu suggest that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
obsolete and therefore even if the speed of light is variable, not
constant, special relativity "would be unaffected". Note that,
logically, this suggestion has nothing to do with the problem of the
mass of the photon.
Anyway, the analysis you give below is quite instructive.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
GSS
wrote:
.........
> In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
> stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
> physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
> failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
> arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.
> John Kennaugh
Dear Kennaugh,
With reference to your above quoted observations, kindly share your
opinion/information on the following relevant points.
(a) Did Maxwell distinguish between his notion of 'aether' and the
physical space with characteristic properties of permittivity,
permeability and intrinsic impedance?
(b) Did he quantify the stress at any point in the 'aether' with a
stress tensor?
(c) Did he also use strain tensors in his analysis of the stressed
state of the aether?
(d) How did he correlate the stress and strain tensors at any point in
the aether?
(e) Did he establish any equilibrium equations of elasticity in terms
of stress or strain tensors in the aether?
(f) If so, did he present any solutions of those equilibrium
equations?
John Kennaugh
OK. It is understandable why they would want that to be the case. Any
relativist who isn't acutely embarrassed by the origins of relativity
obviously hasn't studied and understood the history. Einstein's starting
point was unashamedly Lorentz's Aether Theory - a modification to
Maxwell's Aether Theory. Now to do the maths of LET one transforms to
and from the 'aether FoR'. Unfortunately the aether FoR is
indistinguishable from every other FoR. Fortunately that doesn't matter
because if you select any FoR as the aether frame and get the same
answer. There is nothing therefore to prevent you from always selecting
the observer's FoR as the aether frame and if you do that you get
something indistinguishable from SR. In other words one way of looking
at SR is that it is simply a mathematical approach to doing LET maths.
The theory is still that of Lorentz.
Another way of viewing it is that the followers of Maxwell -
Einstein and Lorentz included - interpreted the MMX as showing that for
some reason the observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t Maxwell's
aether. Lorentz had put forward an explanation as to why that is the
case - LET says that it is an illusion brought about by distortion of
measurement - Einstein didn't like that explanation so took a completely
empirical approach and said in effect "lets just accept that every
observer IS stationary w.r.t the aether, for whatever reason". The
second postulate simply describes exactly what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would experience.
Another way to look at it is that Einstein objected to the
asymmetry in the theoretical structure of LET and came up with a
'theory' (same maths) without a theoretical structure. To be fair to
Albert he tried to come up with something - his aether without the
immobility of Lorentz's - but failed. In essence (1920 lecture) he
argued in favour of the aether but against the accepted assumption that
an aether had to imply a unique FoR stationary w.r.t it. Put simply he
was suggesting, in deliberately vague terms, that there could be an
aether which every observer naturally finds himself stationary w.r.t. as
per the second postulate. The aether is of course central to his
thinking because it is the aether which controls the speed of light
which is why its speed is assumed to be not source dependent.
Physics was taken over by mathematicians who were enjoying the
new mathematical challenge and who casually ditched the aether without
realising the decision to accept Einstein's version of Lorentz's version
of Maxwell's aether theory look somewhat dodgy without it. Decades later
the "aether" has become a taboo word and the origins of relativity
remain the skeleton in the cupboard which anyone can discover if they
care to look under the mountains of spin which have been added in 100
years. Despite the fact that Maxwell's wave in aether theory was
disproved firstly by the MMX and then by the discovery that light isn't
waves but particles SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's
theory is impeccable. One would not accept the ditching of 3 long
accepted and apparently sensible axioms of physics in order to retain a
theory unless one considered that theory to be anything less than
impeccable would one?
Now there are attempts to distance physics from the embarrassing 2nd
postulate by using mathematical wizardry to show that the Lorentz
transforms can be derived only from the first postulate. It is possible
that it can be done - I'll deal with the implications later - but
certainly one example I have seen involves mathematical 'slight of
hand'. That is the treatment I found in an on-line Harvard university
text book. One must understand that Lorentz transforms and Galilean
transforms are not 2 from a set of many transforms they are the only two
options. The Lorentz transforms use up all possible degrees of freedom.
The text I mentioned seemed overly complex considering what it was
trying to show and at one point imported an equation from one of the
Appendices. The average student being lazy would probably not bother to
check but I did. It had a constant in it x, (I think) and when I tracked
back I found that x=1 corresponded to the Galilean transform and that
having imported the equation into the main text he divided by x-1. The
result is of course then invalid for Galilean transforms so he was left
only with Lorentz transforms.
It is possible that is a bad example and I admit that others I have seen
are beyond my mathematical capabilities but the bottom line is that
ballistic theory is completely consistent with the first postulate. It
differs only w.r.t the second postulate so if what is claimed is true SR
and Ballistic theory must be mathematically identical. This isn't as far
fetched as it seems. If you look at my thread "Does SR transform to
Ballistic theory1" I show that in several quite widely different
experiments both theories give the same result and I suggest that just
as the geocentric theory of the solar system managed to transform the
maths to give the right answer that what Lorentz transforms do is
transform a wrongly based theory in order to give the same answer as the
correctly based ballistic theory. In both cases the problem is incorrect
but unshakeable belief. In one case a belief that everything goes around
the earth and in the second that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable despite it having been experimentally disproved.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On Jun 5, 4:09 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>.........
>> In Maxwell's theory a 'field' is a
>> stress in the aether. If one accepts the no aether doctrine of modern
>> physics then clearly it cannot be a stress in the aether but physics has
>> failed to say what else it can physically be. On the contrary it has
>> arbitrarily made it a key doctrine that it doesn't need to.
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>
>Dear Kennaugh,
>With reference to your above quoted observations, kindly share your
>opinion/information on the following relevant points.
>(a) Did Maxwell distinguish between his notion of 'aether' and the
>physical space with characteristic properties of permittivity,
>permeability and intrinsic impedance?
Permittivity and permeability are physical properties of Maxwell's
aether. They are the physical properties which determine at what speed
the wave propagates in the propagating medium. If you talk about space
with those physical properties you are simply describing the aether.
Historically the aether or rather aethers predate Newton. They were
first proposed to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a
distance. The thinking was that a force requires some sort of
'connecting rod' through which to act. It was proposed that everywhere
there existed aethers. Charges caused stresses in the aether and the
interaction of the stress patterns caused the actions at a distance
force observed.
Oersted, Ampere and Faraday established links between charge and
magnetism and it was Faraday's relationships which were the basis of
Maxwell's electrodynamics. The impact of Maxwell was enormous because he
showed that a single aether explained:
a field = a stress pattern in the aether,
action at a distance magnetic and electrostatic forces (interaction
between stress patterns)
and the propagation of light (the stress propagating through the
medium).
What Physics has done is to fudge the issue. It has accepted the no
aether doctrine without following it through. It has retained the idea
of the existence of an independent field, independent of anything
causing it. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a
renamed aether.
Note that contrary to popular myth Einstein did not come up with a
theory which didn't need the aether - he argued for its retention
neither did anyone at the time (1905) see the MMX as indicating that
there is no aether as your book states. On the contrary both Lorentz's
theory and Einstein SR theory were attempts to save Maxwell's wave in
aether theory from the threat posed by the MMX.
IF the MMX had been seen as indicating that there is no aether then the
obvious question becomes "if the speed of light is not controlled by and
constant w.r.t the aether then what does control it and what is it
constant w.r.t.?" The obvious answer to which is certainly not that the
speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer observing it as there is
no possible causality. The only logical answer is that it must be
constant w.r.t the source but Einstein did not get that answer because
he wasn't trying to answer that question. The question as far as both
Lorentz and Einstein were concerned was "Why does the speed of an
observer w.r.t the aether always appear to be zero?" - as per the MMX.
Lorentz put forward an explanation as to why that is the case - LET says
that it is an illusion brought about by distortion of measurement due to
speed relative to the aether - Einstein didn't like that explanation so
took a completely empirical approach and said in effect "lets just
accept that every observer IS stationary w.r.t the aether, for whatever
reason". The second postulate simply describes exactly what an observer
stationary w.r.t the aether would experience and is a statement of what
was the generally accepted view - the particulate nature of light having
had no significant effect on the thinking.
A couple of decades later the aether became unpopular and the "no aether
doctrine" was accepted not because of any experiment which showed it did
not exist, nor through any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
arbitrary decision that physical interpretation was no longer to be
considered an essential compliment to the mathematics.
Now there is a perfectly sound reason to get rid of the aether and that
is because light isn't made up of waves but of particles and particles
don't need an aether. In fact if it existed it would get in the way. In
order to follow through that idea I believe one has also to address the
question of action at a distance. The reason the aether was invented in
the first place was that force acting at a distance was seen as being
different to the way all other force appeared to act but today we know
different in that we now believe that ALL force acts at a distance. I
think one should accept that as axiomatic - requiring no explanation.
However if one takes that view then a 'field' becomes metaphysical. It
is the 'field of influence' of a charge (say). It is a map of the action
at a distance force and direction which *would* act on a probe charge
*if* a probe charge were placed at a given point. From this viewpoint
independent fields cannot exist without a source of influence and if
photons carry fields along with them then they must contain charge.
While Maxwell's theory should no longer be considered as a true model of
nature its predictive accuracy clearly shows a link between charge and
light in that Maxwell's equations are all based on relationships
relating to charge. If there is a link between charge and light there
must be a link between charge and photons which is what light is made up
of.
Going back to your original question - permittivity is now not a
property of space. What you have is the action at a distance force
between charge. Naturally this is modified if something containing
charged particles - i.e. matter - is placed between the charges. How
much it is modified depends on the material and the effect is described
by what we call permittivity. While Free space is given a value in order
to get our familiar units of capacitance it is not a physical property
as space. It is simply the action at a distance force between charges
when nothing exists to modify it. It is a property of charge not of
space.
Once you say that space can have a modifying effect, can have physical
properties you have reinvented the aether.
>(b) Did he quantify the stress at any point in the 'aether' with a
>stress tensor?
>(c) Did he also use strain tensors in his analysis of the stressed
>state of the aether?
>(d) How did he correlate the stress and strain tensors at any point in
>the aether?
>(e) Did he establish any equilibrium equations of elasticity in terms
>of stress or strain tensors in the aether?
>(f) If so, did he present any solutions of those equilibrium
>equations?
I don't believe that the word 'tensor' was a part of Maxwell's
vocabulary.
--
John Kennaugh
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
>>> classic sense of the word 'interfere'.
>> Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon
>> is NOT a "classical" object.
>
> That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced mysticism
> to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is used almost as
> an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make sense of it.
Nonsense. It is just "forbidden" for idiots who do not understand basic
quantum mechanics to "make sense of it". And there is a simple and
obvious solution: LEARN SOMETHING!
>> Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
>> same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
>> directions....
>
> As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
You merely substitute "mysticism" for "magic". If you would LEARN about
modern physics, you would not be mystified.
> A photon has mass because:
> [...]
If you had any understanding of modern physics, you would understand why
EVERY ONE of your claims here is wrong, and NONE OF THEM imply that a
photon has mass. Specifically: giving photons a mass larger than the
current upper limit causes electrodynamics to not agree with
experiments. EVERY ONE of your items is fully consistent with photons
having zero mass.
Tom Roberts
GSS
Has this phenomenon of 'stresses in the aether' caused by charges and
the 'interaction of stress patterns' been technically or
quantitatively analyzed by any scientist so far? If so which
parameter(s) represented the 'stresses in the aether' in relevant
equations?
> Oersted, Ampere and Faraday established links between charge and
> magnetism and it was Faraday's relationships which were the basis of
> Maxwell's electrodynamics. The impact of Maxwell was enormous because he
> showed that a single aether explained:
> a field = a stress pattern in the aether,
> action at a distance magnetic and electrostatic forces (interaction
> between stress patterns)
> and the propagation of light (the stress propagating through the
> medium).
>
> What Physics has done is to fudge the issue. It has accepted the no
> aether doctrine without following it through. It has retained the idea
> of the existence of an independent field, independent of anything
> causing it. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a
> renamed aether.
>
How do you mentally visualize an 'independent field'?
..........
> A couple of decades later the aether became unpopular and the "no aether
> doctrine" was accepted not because of any experiment which showed it did
> not exist, nor through any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
> arbitrary decision that physical interpretation was no longer to be
> considered an essential compliment to the mathematics.
>
Do you consider it as an overbearing dominance of mathematics over
physics or an overbearing dominance of mathematicians over physicists
during the 20th century?
............
>> (b) Did he quantify the stress at any point in the 'aether' with a
>> stress tensor?
>> (c) Did he also use strain tensors in his analysis of the stressed
>> state of the aether?
>> (d) How did he correlate the stress and strain tensors at any point in
>> the aether?
>> (e) Did he establish any equilibrium equations of elasticity in terms
>> of stress or strain tensors in the aether?
>> (f) If so, did he present any solutions of those equilibrium
>> equations?
>
> I don't believe that the word 'tensor' was a part of Maxwell's
> vocabulary.
> --
> John Kennaugh
In that case kindly clarify whether your observation - "In Maxwell's
theory a 'field' is a stress in the aether", is your own
interpretation of Maxwell's theory or Maxwell had actually used the
concept of 'stress in the aether' in his theory? If Maxwell did use
the concept of 'stress in the aether', kindly give some example of a
field parameter which was used to represent the 'stress in the aether'
in the field equations.
Alie...@gmail.com
> On Jun 5, 12:25 am, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:20 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (brevity snip)
>
> > > Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
> > > book.
>
> > > In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
> > > experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
> > > electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
> > > waves of electrons.
>
> > If that were the case a double-slit pattern would be the simple
> > linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but that isn't what's
> > seen.
>
> The formation of Fresnel fringes resulting from the arrival of
> individual electrons passing through a tiny hole in a carbon film had
> been experimentally demonstrated by Hermann, Krahl, K¨ubler, M¨uller,
> and Rindfleisch in 1971.
Yes, and?
> Secondly, in the electron-beam version of
> Young's two-slit diffraction experiment, an electron biprism is used
> which is not exactly equivalent to the two-slit setup.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745
"...in 1961 Claus Jönsson of Tübingen, who had been one of
Möllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual double-slit
experiment with electrons for the first time (Zeitschrift für Physik
161 454). Indeed, he demonstrated interference with up to five slits."
Exactly what is your quibble with the electron biprism? Do you also
quibble with the optical version?
http://www.physique.ens-cachan.fr/franges_photon/index.htm
> > > And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
> > > has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
> > > photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
>
> > I see no room for any other interpretation of the one-photon-at-a-
> > time, two-slit version; an interference pattern slowly builds up, but
> > there's nothing for any given photon _to_ interfere with except
> > itself. Again if it were simple diffraction the double-slit pattern
> > would be the simple linear sum of the individual slits' patterns, but
> > it isn't.
> Well, let me offer *another* interpretation.
> In such experiments, one-photon-at-a-time is supposed to free one-
> electron-at-a-time which could then be detected through appropriate
> instrumentation. The point however is that if there were (say) seven-
> photons-at-a-time coming in a mutually coupled group of photons, they
> too will be able to dislodge or free only one- electron-at-a-time from
> the relevant electron orbital. In that case only one photon out of
> the group will be 'used up' and the remaining photons will just move
> on. As pointed out in my previous post, photons of the same frequency
> can get coupled through mutual interactions to form group packets or
> streams of photons.. Practically it will be almost impossible to
> isolate (or obtain) one-photon-at-a-time unless the emission of each
> and every photon from each of the corrosponding atoms is strictly
> controlled. What has been actually done however is to obtain one-
> electron-at-a-time and *assume* the dislodging photon to be just one-
> at-a-time instead of a coupled group of many-photons-at-a-time. Such
> a group of many photons can break up into two sub-groups while passing
> through 'two-slits' and undergo interference process after passing
> through the slits.
>
> Hope it is a convincing interpretation!
No.
http://www.physique.ens-cachan.fr/franges_photon/single_photon_source.htm
Mark L. Fergerson
John Kennaugh
I suggest you consult the work of Maxwell. He was a far better
mathematician than I am. Essentially he took the relationships which
Faraday had produced relating to charge and magnetism (which is still
charge) and realised the similarity between these relationships and the
wave equations of fluid dynamics. In other words he saw in those
equations the equivalent of stress strain displacement etc. an analogue
of all those properties in a fluid which allow a wave to propagate.
Taking the analogy a step further he calculated at what speed the 'wave'
would propagate at. The speed of propagation in a fluid depends on two
parameters. The equivalent parameters in his new wave equations were
Faradays constants of permeability and permittivity. From these
parameters he calculated at what speed the electromagnetic wave would
propagate at in a vacuum if such a thing did in fact exist and was
surprised to find it was the same as the speed of light.
>
>> Oersted, Ampere and Faraday established links between charge and
>> magnetism and it was Faraday's relationships which were the basis of
>> Maxwell's electrodynamics. The impact of Maxwell was enormous because he
>> showed that a single aether explained:
>> a field = a stress pattern in the aether,
>> action at a distance magnetic and electrostatic forces (interaction
>> between stress patterns)
>> and the propagation of light (the stress propagating through the
>> medium).
>>
>> What Physics has done is to fudge the issue. It has accepted the no
>> aether doctrine without following it through. It has retained the idea
>> of the existence of an independent field, independent of anything
>> causing it. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a
>> renamed aether.
>>
>How do you mentally visualize an 'independent field'?
Einstein thought it through as follows:
"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The aether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are
not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which
are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable
matter."
Einstein is here pointing out that the alternative is that instead of a
'field' being a state in a medium, what I describe as stress in the
aether as per Maxwell, a 'field' may be made up of physical 'stuff' - a
sort of matter.
"This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to
Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter,
brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special
theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of
distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing
as a special form of energy. More careful reflection teaches us,
however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to
deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give
up ascribing a definite state of motion to it..." 1920 lecture.
Put simply Einstein suggests an alternative but comes down in favour of
sticking with the idea that a field is 'stress in the aether'. I agree
with Einstein that IF an independent field exists those are the two
alternatives although I think he is too restrictive in that the
"physical stuff" alternative may be matter of a different form to that
we are familiar with but it must nevertheless fit in with other concepts
of matter.
I personally do not believe that independent fields can exist because I
do not believe in the aether - the reason it was postulated is no longer
valid and I don't accept the alternative that a field consists of
mysterious physical stuff. The concept of a physical field should have
been junked when the aether was junked.
>..........
>> A couple of decades later the aether became unpopular and the "no aether
>> doctrine" was accepted not because of any experiment which showed it did
>> not exist, nor through any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
>> arbitrary decision that physical interpretation was no longer to be
>> considered an essential compliment to the mathematics.
>>
>Do you consider it as an overbearing dominance of mathematics over
>physics or an overbearing dominance of mathematicians over physicists
>during the 20th century?
According to one prominent physicist the three most important thing you
need to be a physicist are maths, maths, and maths. You cannot talk of
"the dominance of mathematics over physics" because you can no longer
define physics as being different to mathematics of distinguish between
physicists and mathematicians.
As Waldron put it:
"Physics started to go wrong in 1905 when Einstein published his
relativity theory. Accepting the theory, physics abandoned the attempt
to understand nature, and asserted that the business of science is not
to understand but merely learn how to manipulate".
Dr Scott Murray puts it even simpler:
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
>............
>
>>> (b) Did he quantify the stress at any point in the 'aether' with a
>>> stress tensor?
>>> (c) Did he also use strain tensors in his analysis of the stressed
>>> state of the aether?
>>> (d) How did he correlate the stress and strain tensors at any point in
>>> the aether?
>>> (e) Did he establish any equilibrium equations of elasticity in terms
>>> of stress or strain tensors in the aether?
>>> (f) If so, did he present any solutions of those equilibrium
>>> equations?
>>
>> I don't believe that the word 'tensor' was a part of Maxwell's
>> vocabulary.
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>
>In that case kindly clarify whether your observation - "In Maxwell's
>theory a 'field' is a stress in the aether", is your own
>interpretation of Maxwell's theory or Maxwell had actually used the
>concept of 'stress in the aether' in his theory? If Maxwell did use
>the concept of 'stress in the aether', kindly give some example of a
>field parameter which was used to represent the 'stress in the aether'
>in the field equations.
I suggest you look at Maxwell's work. He is one of the heavyweights of
physics. I am amazed that someone contemplating producing a text book
would have the presumption to do such a thing without studying in depth
the father of field theory.
--
John Kennaugh
PD
wrote:
>
> I suggest you consult the work of Maxwell. He was a far better
> mathematician than I am.
And a better physicist. See below.
> Essentially he took the relationships which
> Faraday had produced relating to charge and magnetism (which is still
> charge) and realised the similarity between these relationships and the
> wave equations of fluid dynamics. In other words he saw in those
> equations the equivalent of stress strain displacement etc. an analogue
> of all those properties in a fluid which allow a wave to propagate.
> Taking the analogy a step further he calculated at what speed the 'wave'
> would propagate at. The speed of propagation in a fluid depends on two
> parameters. The equivalent parameters in his new wave equations were
> Faradays constants of permeability and permittivity. From these
> parameters he calculated at what speed the electromagnetic wave would
> propagate at in a vacuum if such a thing did in fact exist and was
> surprised to find it was the same as the speed of light.
>
The two parameters that you refer to in material media are an inertial
factor that conveys the ratio of the response of the medium to the
impetus. The other is a stiffness factor that conveys how tightly one
bit of the medium connects to the next. For example, in a liquid,
these are the mass density and the compression modulus. In the case of
light, it was recognized very quickly that, if there were a material
medium, it would have to have a spectacularly small inertial factor
and a spectacularly large stiffness factor. This was the first hint
that something was amiss.
Maxwell later decided that treating the wave phenomenon like that of a
material medium was neither wise nor necessary, giving the fields a
life of their own, quite independent of any supposed material
substrate.
PD
John Kennaugh
>On Jun 9, 1:26 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I suggest you consult the work of Maxwell. He was a far better
>> mathematician than I am.
>
>And a better physicist.
I have never claimed to be either a physicist nor a mathematician. My
area of interest is the history and conceptual development which led to
modern physics.
>See below.
>
>> Essentially he took the relationships which
>> Faraday had produced relating to charge and magnetism (which is still
>> charge) and realised the similarity between these relationships and the
>> wave equations of fluid dynamics. In other words he saw in those
>> equations the equivalent of stress strain displacement etc. an analogue
>> of all those properties in a fluid which allow a wave to propagate.
>> Taking the analogy a step further he calculated at what speed the 'wave'
>> would propagate at. The speed of propagation in a fluid depends on two
>> parameters. The equivalent parameters in his new wave equations were
>> Faradays constants of permeability and permittivity. From these
>> parameters he calculated at what speed the electromagnetic wave would
>> propagate at in a vacuum if such a thing did in fact exist and was
>> surprised to find it was the same as the speed of light.
>>
>
>The two parameters that you refer to in material media are an inertial
>factor that conveys the ratio of the response of the medium to the
>impetus. The other is a stiffness factor that conveys how tightly one
>bit of the medium connects to the next. For example, in a liquid,
>these are the mass density and the compression modulus.
Thank you for confirming what I said. I couldn't be bothered to look up
which mechanical parameters corresponded with the electrical parameters
of permeability and permittivity. It was not essential to my argument.
>In the case of
>light, it was recognized very quickly that, if there were a material
>medium, it would have to have a spectacularly small inertial factor
>and a spectacularly large stiffness factor. This was the first hint
>that something was amiss.
The aether, if mechanical in the accepted sense, had to be a solid.
>
>Maxwell later decided that treating the wave phenomenon like that of a
>material medium was neither wise nor necessary, giving the fields a
>life of their own, quite independent of any supposed material
>substrate.
You may well have read such a statement in a text book but it isn't
true. Authors of text books tend to re-write history. My understanding
is that Maxwell always thought of the aether as a mechanical medium.
"The development of the theory of electricity along the path opened up
by Maxwell and Lorentz gave the development of our ideas concerning the
ether quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Maxwell himself the
ether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although
of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of
tangible solid bodies." AE 1920 lecture
Einstein quite rightly links Maxwell with Lorentz as what is now found
in text books under 'Maxwell's theory' is Maxwell considerably developed
by Lorentz and added to. Even the "Maxwell's equations" found in modern
text books are Lorentz's re-work of Maxwell. Certainly Lorentz
did not consider that a "field has a life of its own" in his formulation
of LET which he published in 1892, by which time Maxwell had been dead
13 years.
Lorentz's contribution should not be underestimated. Einstein describes
his contribution as "the most important advance in the theory of
electricity since Maxwell". Neither should you see Lorentz's Aether
theory as merely an ad hoc fantasy as it is often portrayed.
As I have said the aether explained action at a distance force between
charge as well as the propagation of light. Lorentz produced his theory
in 1892 while the first successful theory of atomic structure was not
until Bohr in 1913. Lorentz suggested that a solid consists of a matrix
of charged particles held in equilibrium by their action at a distance
forces. He calculated what the effect would be if the aether
transmitting that action at a distance force was moving relative to the
solid and showed mathematically that the altered equilibrium would mean
that the solid would be shorted in the direction of motion as per the
Lorentz contraction. I understand that similar calculations today make
the electron orbits into ellipses - again giving the Lorentz
contraction.
Again modern texts play down the role of Lorentz, imply that his theory
was a bit silly and claim that Einstein came up with a theory which did
not require an aether. None of which is actually true. Einstein
clarifies his position in his 1920 lecture. He gives due credit to
Lorentz but objects to the "theoretical structure" of LET - the idea
that there is a unique and theoretically important FoR - the aether
frame - which is indistinguishable from every other FoR. He found such
asymmetry in the theoretical structure, not reflected in the world of
experience, unacceptable. He argues in *favour* of the aether but claims
that having an aether does not imply a unique FoR associated with it. As
his ideas were not developed and not accepted it is true to say that
Einstein objected to the asymmetry in theoretical structure of Lorentz's
theory and avoided it by producing a 'theory' without a theoretical
structure - in other words maths - the same maths as Lorentz's.
It was others who "got rid of the aether" not by experiment proving it
did not exist nor by any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
arbitrary decision to change the nature of physics such that physical
interpretation (theoretical structure) is no longer a necessary
compliment to the maths. A decision I don't agree with. Without that
decision Einstein would have had to come up with an alternative
theoretical structure to that of Lorentz otherwise his 'theory' isn't an
alternative theory and Lorentz's theory stands.
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor
Spaceman
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qj5QyHS$kTI...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> It was others who "got rid of the aether" not by experiment proving it
> did not exist nor by any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
> arbitrary decision to change the nature of physics such that physical
> interpretation (theoretical structure) is no longer a necessary
> compliment to the maths. A decision I don't agree with. Without that
> decision Einstein would have had to come up with an alternative
> theoretical structure to that of Lorentz otherwise his 'theory' isn't an
> alternative theory and Lorentz's theory stands.
So true and yet so sad.
and that is why Einstein has "math alone for cause in some stuff"
such physics is actually "non-physical" and should be discarded
as The Science of Physics , and called The Science of Mathematical
Prediction
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Greg Neill
news:9qj5QyHS$kTI...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
> did not exist nor by any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
> arbitrary decision to change the nature of physics such that physical
> interpretation (theoretical structure) is no longer a necessary
> compliment to the maths. A decision I don't agree with. Without that
> decision Einstein would have had to come up with an alternative
> theoretical structure to that of Lorentz otherwise his 'theory' isn't
> an alternative theory and Lorentz's theory stands.
That's not right. Diligent searches for an aether failed
to find one. The Michelson-Morley experiments, for example.
The aether was not abandonded on a whim, but by empirical
necessity.
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:484e7aa8$0$3044$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>That's not right. Diligent searches for an aether failed
>to find one. The Michelson-Morley experiments, for example.
>The aether was not abandonded on a whim, but by empirical
>necessity.
MMX did nothing more than prove that in a closed
enviroment, a bounce will occur the same as if the
constant moving enviroment were not moving at all.
It proved nothing about an aether not existing.
The only thing that MMX proved about the aether is
that it must be dragged if it exists at all.
No proof of non existance could have been made
with MMX since drag is a fact about our entire atmosphere.
Greg Neill
news:VYidna3K6vzhGdPV...@comcast.com
Your knowledge here is faulty (at best). Aether
dragging was considered and likewise rejected
because the effects of a dragged aether were not
detected (light aberration from stars, frictional
drag on the orbits, etc.).
And James, it was not a closed environment. The
object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
the source of light.
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>Your knowledge here is faulty (at best). Aether
>dragging was considered and likewise rejected
>because the effects of a dragged aether were not
>detected (light aberration from stars, frictional
>drag on the orbits, etc.).
>Greg,
>the orbits are caused by the motion of the aether
>like a water moving anything it can.
>The aether would still be dragging and the
>entire system is a box in itself.
>And James, it was not a closed environment. The
>object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
>through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
>the source of light.
It was closed technically.. c.mon Greg.
Think.....
It was a bigger box around the smaller box.
Let me try this for example.
Place a tiny MMX detector in a small box
(we will call that box, our Solar system)
Now place a box around that box,
(we will call that our Galaxy)
then go ahead.. place another box because
everyone knows our galaxy is part of the Universe Box.
what is holding the Universe? who knows..
maybe yet another box.
but.. If you are in the box, you will not measure the drag
because the smallest box is at the mercy of the largest box.
drag and all!
:)
Good thing the boxes are not completely solid.
imagine of someone kicked the biggest box.
Greg Neill
> news:484e811e$0$3044$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
[snip]
>> And James, it was not a closed environment. The
>> object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
>> through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
>> the source of light.
>
> It was closed technically.. c.mon Greg.
> Think.....
> It was a bigger box around the smaller box.
> Let me try this for example.
> Place a tiny MMX detector in a small box
> (we will call that box, our Solar system)
> Now place a box around that box,
> (we will call that our Galaxy)
> then go ahead.. place another box because
> everyone knows our galaxy is part of the Universe Box.
> what is holding the Universe? who knows..
> maybe yet another box.
> but.. If you are in the box, you will not measure the drag
> because the smallest box is at the mercy of the largest box.
> drag and all!
> :)
> Good thing the boxes are not completely solid.
> imagine of someone kicked the biggest box.
Absurd. Are you saying that nothing moves in the
Universe? Are you Louis Savaine in disguise?
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
[snip]
Opposite Greg,
Everything moves in the unverse and it all moves
just like spheres within spheres so each
sphere will have it's own spherical aether moving
with it.
The Universe is the entire train connected together,
The Galaxies Are The Train Cars
etc...
start throwing things towards any of the walls
in any part of the universe, guess what?
all the tennis balls bounce as if they were not even moving
as long as the speed is close to a constant in any single
box you are throwing it in.
:)
Greg Neill
> > Universe? Are you Louis Savaine in disguise?
> >
> Opposite Greg,
> Everything moves in the unverse and it all moves
> just like spheres within spheres so each
> sphere will have it's own spherical aether moving
> with it.
Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
portion near the surface) then it can't also be
sationary with repect to stars in all directions.
Aberration and velocity diifferences for light would
be observed.
James, you should check out some of the popular
literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
trumped philosophy.
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
>in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
>remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
>stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
>portion near the surface) then it can't also be
>sationary with repect to stars in all directions.
Greg,
when you jump from air to space,
the aether would make such a difference you would
call it the airs change.
once above such you would not see anythign but space
moving along with the planets motion mostly.
until the next "change in aether is seen" and again
it will only be seen when something like matter shows it.
so the matter will be the "observational cause
of the shift.... etc...
>James, you should check out some of the popular
>literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
>chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
>arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
>trumped philosophy.
I have checked a lot of it out.
it all comes down to bouncing balls in constant moving boxes still.
Greg Neill
> news:484e99a1$0$16248$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
>> in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
>> remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
>> stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
>> portion near the surface) then it can't also be
>> sationary with repect to stars in all directions.
>
> Greg,
> when you jump from air to space,
> the aether would make such a difference you would
> call it the airs change.
> once above such you would not see anythign but space
> moving along with the planets motion mostly.
> until the next "change in aether is seen" and again
> it will only be seen when something like matter shows it.
> so the matter will be the "observational cause
> of the shift.... etc...
So since the aether is the supposed medium that
carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
was not and is not observed.
>
>> James, you should check out some of the popular
>> literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
>> chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
>> arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
>> trumped philosophy.
>
> I have checked a lot of it out.
> it all comes down to bouncing balls in constant moving boxes still.
Oy vey. What a silly little man you are.
Spaceman
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>So since the aether is the supposed medium that
>carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
>refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
>was not and is not observed.
the boundaries contain other matter so of course
other matter will be accepted as the main cause.
Sheesh!
LOL
Greg Neill
> news:484ea791$0$25602$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> So since the aether is the supposed medium that
>> carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
>> refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
>> was not and is not observed.
>
> the boundaries contain other matter so of course
> other matter will be accepted as the main cause.
Please provide references. Otherwise I think you're
making stuff up again (lying).
The point is that *NO* such refraction or aberration
is seen, yet it *Must* be seen if aether exists.
Through your replies. Start by understanding what
it is you're trying to answer.
John Kennaugh
Maxwell's wave in aether theory made two predictions in respect of the
aether.
1/ That the speed of light would be unaffected by the speed of the
source because it was controlled by and constant w.r.t the aether.
2/ Because the speed of light is controlled by and constant w.r.t the
aether That the speed of an observer relative to the aether would result
in a change in the measured speed of light.
The MMX was a difference method which did not measure the speed of light
but the difference in the speed of light in two paths who's speed
relative to the aether was different. It was intended to confirm
prediction 2. What it showed was that that prediction isn't true. That
is all that it showed. The rest is a matter of interpretation.
One interpretation is that there is no aether. If one takes that
interpretation then as both of the predictions depend upon the
assumption that the speed of light is controlled by and constant w.r.t
the aether both predictions are falsified. The obvious question then is
-"if there is no aether then what controls the speed of light and what
is it constant w.r.t?" There is only a source an observer and the space
between and if there is no aether then there is nothing in the space
between to take control. This leaves the source and the observer and
there is no possible causality whereby the observer can control the
passage of light all the way from source. If one interprets the MMX as
showing that there is no aether one concludes that the speed of light
must be controlled by the physical processes which generate it and c
must be referenced to the source. There was no experimental evidence to
rule this out and it actually fits rather well once the particulate
nature of light was discovered and it is by far the simplest explanation
of the MMX. While Walter Ritz advocated that route he died in 1909
leaving the field open to Einstein who certainly did not take that
route.
Einstein's SR theory assumes that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is
impeccable. The MMX is a valid experiment which in terms of Maxwell
measures the speed of an observer relative to the aether. The null
result shows not that there is no aether but that the speed of an
observer relative to the aether is, or appears to be always zero i.e.
that an observer always finds himself stationary w.r.t the aether. The
Question that first Lorentz tried to answer and then Einstein was - "why
does it appear that an observer is always stationary w.r.t. the aether?"
Lorentz suggested that motion through the aether affected measurement in
such a way as to bring about the illusion that one was stationary w.r.t
the aether because with altered instruments one always computed the same
value for the speed of light no matter what it 'really' was. Einstein's
approach was simpler. He merely assumed that for whatever reason the
observer IS always stationary w.r.t the aether. His second postulate
simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would
observe and is a simple statement of the way it was seen by his
contemporaries at the time. If you study his 1905 paper he goes to some
length to justify his first postulate but makes no attempt to justify
his second. He saw the first as controversial while the second he knew
was generally accepted. Note the second postulate also assume the
validity of the other untested prediction of Maxwell's theory:
1/ That the speed of light would be unaffected by the speed of the
source because it was controlled by and constant w.r.t the aether.
The problem comes that having accepted Einstein's SR theory which junked
3 perfectly sensible and long standing axioms of physics to save
Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the threat posed by the MMX,
physics turned its back on the aether which so much had been sacrificed
to retain. Text book writers have to re-write the history to try and
make it look sensible. Had the MMX been seen at the time as showing that
there is no aether physics would have gone on an entirely different
route but text book writers have to try and justify why no one believes
in the aether. The decision to ditch the aether had nothing to do with
the MMX or any other experiment neither was it anything Einstein did -
he argued in favour of retaining it. It was an arbitrary decision made
by physicists that physics no longer needed to have physical
explanations to compliment the maths. The aether is a part of the
physical explanation of light being made up of physical waves requiring
a physical medium and therefore was declared redundant.
What the MMX showed is that if there is an aether it is impossible to
detect our motion w.r.t it. The aether itself can in theory be detected
if it can be shown that the speed of light is independent of the source.
Claims have been made that this has been shown.
--
John Kennaugh
Szczepan Bialek
"John Kennaugh"
>
> What the MMX showed is that if there is an aether it is impossible to
> detect our motion w.r.t it.
You should know that MMX was designed to detect 30 km/s. And MMX shown that
no such plough thru ether.
Next Michelson (in 1925) designed more sensitive apparatus to detect 0.46
km/s. This time he detected Earth's rotation.
Now geodesist and students do it when they want.
S*
John Kennaugh
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>>> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
>>>>classic sense of the word 'interfere'.
>>> Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The
>>>photon is NOT a "classical" object.
>> That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced
>>mysticism to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is
>>used almost as an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make
>>sense of it.
>
>Nonsense. It is just "forbidden" for idiots who do not understand basic
>quantum mechanics to "make sense of it". And there is a simple and
>obvious solution: LEARN SOMETHING!
>
>
>>> Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the same
>>>direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
>>>directions....
>> As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.
>
>"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> -- Arthur C. Clarke
>
>You merely substitute "mysticism" for "magic". If you would LEARN about
>modern physics, you would not be mystified.
You clearly do not understand the difference between technology and
science.
>
>
>> A photon has mass because:
>> [...]
>
>If you had any understanding of modern physics,
I understand what modern physics says. I do not accept the validity of
its basis. Physics has granted itself so many concessions it no longer
has any right to call itself science.
>you would understand why EVERY ONE of your claims here is wrong, and
>NONE OF THEM imply that a photon has mass.
> Specifically: giving photons a mass larger than the current upper
>limit causes electrodynamics to not agree with experiments.
Electrodynamics does not agree with experiment because it is WRONG. It
was disproved. Light isn't waves in aether it is particles with mass.
There is no aether so the waves of electrodynamics are not physical
waves and cannot transport physical energy. Photons are real physical
particle which can. I don't care if electrodynamics does not agree with
experiment - I don't expect it to. Why should it? It is a disproved
theory. It started with Maxwell's theory. Its predictions were falsified
by the MMX and then by Lord Rayleigh, then by Planck and finally by
Einstein who showed that light was generated in quantized lumps it
remained in quantized lumps - it does not metamorphose into waves once
generated as Planck and others thought.
Einstein then totally ignored the fact that he had shown that light
isn't waves and set about fixing Maxwell's wave in aether theory - but
only in respect of the MMX - not in respect of its other failures. To
even do that partial fix he had to ditch 3 perfectly reasonable and long
established axioms of physics.
> EVERY ONE of your items is fully consistent with photons having zero
>mass.
Only if you ditch a perfectly reasonable and long established definition
of Mass. If I recall your new definition is:
"The mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum"
How many intellectual hoops are you willing to go through? Maxwell
united three branches of physics and showed that a single aether can
explain what a field is (=stress), magnetic and electrostatic action at
a distance (interaction between stress patterns), and the propagation of
that stress in the form of electromagnetic waves. That was mind
bogglingly impressive at the time but in the end it turned out to be
wrong. No one believes in the aether.
--
John Kennaugh
Pentcho Valev
Here it is almost obligatory to quote Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's
apostle:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
[snip]
>> Electrodynamics does not agree with experiment because it is WRONG. It
>> was disproved. Light isn't waves in aether it is particles with mass.
>> There is no aether so the waves of electrodynamics are not physical
>> waves and cannot transport physical energy. Photons are real physical
>> particle which can. I don't care if electrodynamics does not agree with
>> experiment - I don't expect it to. Why should it? It is a disproved
>> theory. It started with Maxwell's theory. Its predictions were falsified
>> by the MMX and then by Lord Rayleigh, then by Planck and finally by
>> Einstein who showed that light was generated in quantized lumps it
>> remained in quantized lumps - it does not metamorphose into waves once
>> generated as Planck and others thought.
>>
>> Einstein then totally ignored the fact that he had shown that light
>> isn't waves and set about fixing Maxwell's wave in aether theory - but
>> only in respect of the MMX - not in respect of its other failures. To
>> even do that partial fix he had to ditch 3 perfectly reasonable and long
>> established axioms of physics.
>
>Here it is almost obligatory to quote Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's
>apostle:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
>(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
not a lot of point My French isn't good enough
[snip] French
>
>Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
>of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
>earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
>moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
>rest.
and a photon from a source moving towards you, has higher energy than a
photon from a similar stationary force.
>Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
>independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
>consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
>particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
>not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
>transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
>Morley experiment.
Quite so. Whatever happened to the idea of accepting the simplest
explanation.
> Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
>temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
>simple and familiar.
I don't think "resist" is nearly strong enough. In formulating SR Albert
totally ignored his own discovery that light is not only generated in
quantized lumps (as per Planck) but remains particulate until it reaches
its destination. i.e. at no time does it become a wave. At no point does
it require aether. At no point does it conform to Maxwell's concept of
light.
>He introduced his second postulate, more or less
>evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
"more or less evident" is correct. My researches conclude that the
second postulate was a simple statement of what was generally accepted
by physicists of the time having been brought up with an unshakeable
belief in Maxwell. That is why in AE's 1905 paper he goes to some length
to justify his first postulate - which he saw as potentially
controversial - and makes no attempt whatsoever to justify the second as
it was what was generally accepted.
If you have an unshakeable belief in Maxwell then the MMX showed that
for some reason an observers speed relative to the aether is always zero
i.e. the observer is always stationary w.r.t the aether. The second
postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t the
aether would observe. It is simply saying
"Let us assume that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether and so
for every observer light will travel every which way at c"
This is reflected in the maths:
"Let us assume that every observer is stationary w.r.t an inertial FoR
and that for every observer light will travel every which way at c"
How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which way at
c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is
nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical
effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because
of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try
and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
jem
The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>
> If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is
> nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical
> effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because
> of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try
> and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
What do you think cause-and-effect relationships /are/, Kennaugh,
other than logical connections between certain behavior of Nature and
other behavior? And what do you think physical theories /are/, other
than devices for inferring certain behavior of Nature from other
behavior*?
* the ordering of logical relationships within any given theory isn't
generally unique, so cause-and-effect designations are generally
arbitrary.
GSS
> John Kennaugh wrote:
.........
>> How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
>> properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which way at
>> c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
>> adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
>
>> I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
>> the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
>> freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
>> accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
>> unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
>
> The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
> and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>
If so then where is the direct link of *space curvature* to
measurement?
In reality you can neither physically measure the space curvature nor
describe a technical procedure for measurement of space curvature even
in principle. You cannot even define the space curvature in physical
terms (other than the usual mathematical definition in GR).
I hope you can atleast mentally visualize the space curvature! Can
you??
>
>> If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is
>> nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical
>> effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because
>> of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try
>> and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
>
> What do you think cause-and-effect relationships /are/, Kennaugh,
> other than logical connections between certain behavior of Nature and
> other behavior? And what do you think physical theories /are/, other
> than devices for inferring certain behavior of Nature from other
> behavior*?
>
Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called
cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct
consequence (result) of the first. If a certain sequence of events is
not causally connected, that set of events will be referred as random
events. If a sequence of events is causally connected, we may
attribute such causal connection between events to certain physical
law of nature. If appropriate logical explanation is available for the
causal connection between events then such causal connection plus the
appropriate logical explanation is called a physical theory of the
associated phenomenon.
GSS
wrote:
> GSS wrote:
.....
>>Has this phenomenon of 'stresses in the aether' caused by charges and
>>the 'interaction of stress patterns' been technically or
>>quantitatively analyzed by any scientist so far? If so which
>>parameter(s) represented the 'stresses in the aether' in relevant
>>equations?
>
> I suggest you consult the work of Maxwell. He was a far better
> mathematician than I am. Essentially he took the relationships which
> Faraday had produced relating to charge and magnetism (which is still
> charge) and realised the similarity between these relationships and the
> wave equations of fluid dynamics. In other words he saw in those
> equations the equivalent of stress strain displacement etc. an analogue
> of all those properties in a fluid which allow a wave to propagate.
> Taking the analogy a step further he calculated at what speed the 'wave'
> would propagate at. The speed of propagation in a fluid depends on two
> parameters. The equivalent parameters in his new wave equations were
> Faradays constants of permeability and permittivity. From these
> parameters he calculated at what speed the electromagnetic wave would
> propagate at in a vacuum if such a thing did in fact exist and was
> surprised to find it was the same as the speed of light.
>
detail. As I understand, Maxwell used the mechanical models of
'stress, strain, displacement' etc. only as mechanical illustrations
to assist the imagination, but not to account for the phenomenon. In
this regard let me reproduce some excerpts from an 1861 historic paper
"On Physical Lines of Force" by J. C. Maxwell.
[ I have found the geometrical significance of the "Electrotonic
State," and have shown how to deduce the mathematical relations
between the electrotonic state, magnetism, electric currents, and the
electromotive force, using mechanical illustrations to assist the
imagination, but not to account for the phenomenon. ...]
Here there is a subtle difference between using mechanical models just
for illustrations to assist the imagination and actually modeling the
physical phenomenon as a mechanical system of stresses and strains in
physical space. I agree that Maxwell actually wanted to model the
electromagnetic phenomena with stress strain pattens in a physical
medium but perhaps due to the prevailing intellectual environment, he
used it only for analogies and mainly concentrated on developing an
independent electromagnetic field model that accounts for physical
observations.
[We are dissatisfied with the explanation founded on the hypothesis of
attractive and repellent forces directed towards the magnetic poles,
even though we may have satisfied ourselves that the phenomenon is in
strict accordance with that hypothesis, and we cannot help thinking
that in every place where we find these lines of force, some physical
state or action must exist in sufficient energy to produce the actual
phenomena. My object in this paper is to clear the way for speculation
in this direction, by investigating the mechanical results of certain
states of tension and motion in a medium, and comparing these with the
observed phenomena of magnetism and electricity. By pointing out the
mechanical consequences of such hypotheses, I hope to be of some use
to those who consider the phenomena as due to the action of a medium,
but are in doubt as to the relation of this hypothesis to the
experimental laws already established, which have generally been
expressed in the language of other hypotheses. ....]
[In the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal for January 1847,
Professor William Thomson has given a "Mechanical Representation of
Electric, Magnetic and Galvanic Forces" by means of the displacements
of the particles of an elastic solid in a state of strain. .... The
author of this method of representation does not attempt to explain
the origin of the observed forces by the effects due to these strains
in the elastic solid, but makes use of the mathematical analogies of
the two problems to assist the imagination in the study of both.... ]
However, in my subject book titled "Fundamental Nature of Matter and
Fields" I have modeled the origin and existence of all matter
particles and the associated fields as dynamic stress strain patterns
in the physical space continuum.
>>> What Physics has done is to fudge the issue. It has accepted the no
>>> aether doctrine without following it through. It has retained the idea
>>> of the existence of an independent field, independent of anything
>>> causing it. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a
>>> renamed aether.
>
No, that is not quite true.
There is no unanimity on the notion of aether, especially in view of
the self contradictory properties being attributed to it. Aether is
supposed to be an elastic solid, an ideal fluid, a nothingness type
material medium that is also supposed to get 'drifted' and 'dragged'
with massive bodies. Above all, aether is supposed to be un-testable
and un-detectable and its relationship with ordinary matter is
supposed to be un-defined. Under these circumstances if physics could
manage without the notion of aether, then what is the harm?
On the other hand if we start with physical space and build our
analysis on its measurable physical properties like the intrinsic
impedance Z_0, then why should it be necessary to refer to this
physical space by the old discredited name 'aether'?
>>How do you mentally visualize an 'independent field'?
>
> Einstein thought it through as follows:
> ....
Sorry, I didn't ask for Einstein's thoughts.
>
> I personally do not believe that independent fields can exist because I
> do not believe in the aether - the reason it was postulated is no longer
> valid and I don't accept the alternative that a field consists of
> mysterious physical stuff. The concept of a physical field should have
> been junked when the aether was junked.
>
That leaves you nowhere!!
You cannot afford to just 'close your eyes' on physical reality!
>>..........
>>> A couple of decades later the aether became unpopular and the "no aether
>>> doctrine" was accepted not because of any experiment which showed it did
>>> not exist, nor through any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
>>> arbitrary decision that physical interpretation was no longer to be
>>> considered an essential compliment to the mathematics.
>
>>Do you consider it as an overbearing dominance of mathematics over
>>physics or an overbearing dominance of mathematicians over physicists
>>during the 20th century?
>
> According to one prominent physicist the three most important thing you
> need to be a physicist are maths, maths, and maths. You cannot talk of
> "the dominance of mathematics over physics" because you can no longer
> define physics as being different to mathematics or distinguish between
> physicists and mathematicians.
>
I don't agree with this viewpoint.
A physicist needs to be a mathematician, a philosopher and an
engineer; a three-in-one scientist.
A mathematician does not bother about dimensional analysis and
generally cares two hoots for the sanctity of physical dimensions.
A physicist cannot afford to neglect dimensional analysis and
maintains contact with physical reality through careful track of
physical dimensions.
A mathematician is mainly concerned with mathematical representations
whereas a physicist is also concerned with physical interpretations of
mathematical representations.
As remarked earlier, Maxwell had used the mechanical illustrations to
assist the imagination, but not to account for the phenomenon. As per
wikipedia, Maxwell's field equations are a set of four partial
differential equations that describe the properties of the electric
and magnetic fields. Individually, the equations are known as Gauss'
law, Gauss' law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and
Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction. None of the parameters in
these equations have been shown to possess the dimensions of 'stress'
or 'strain'. As such, in Maxwell's theory a 'field' is not a stress in
the aether, even though Maxwell did believe that the electromagnetic
field 'somehow' could be represented by stress-strain patterns in the
aether medium. In this regard let me again quote Maxwell from his 1861
paper,
[We have already shown that all the forces acting between magnets,
substances capable of magnetic induction, and electric currents, may
be mechanically accounted for on the supposition that the surrounding
medium is put into such a state that at every point the pressures are
different in different directions, the direction of least pressure
being that of the observed lines of force, and the difference of
greatest and least pressures being proportional to the square of the
intensity of the force at that point. Such a state of stress, if
assumed to exist in the medium, and to be arranged according to the
known laws regulating lines of force, will act upon the magnets,
currents, etc. in the field with precisely the same resultant forces
as those calculated on the ordinary hypothesis of direct action at a
distance. This is true independently of any particular theory as to
the cause of this state of stress, or the mode in which it can be
sustained in the medium. ...]
Therefore, in my opinion, you are under the wrong impression that
Maxwell's theory gets invalidated by not accepting the existance of
aether. On the other hand, what I have shown in the subject book is
that Maxwell's field theory could be extended to cover the structure
of matter particles through detailed analytical examination of
physical space continuum with known physical properties.
John Kennaugh
Surely random events are ones where the cause is far to complex to
analyse or predict rather than one not having a cause.
>If a sequence of events is causally connected, we may
>attribute such causal connection between events to certain physical
>law of nature. If appropriate logical explanation is available for the
>causal connection between events then such causal connection plus the
>appropriate logical explanation is called a physical theory of the
>associated phenomenon.
If only! Modern physics allows itself liberties whereby a theory can be
accepted with totally absurd causality. Take SR and Doppler shift.
Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
to SR light travelling w.r.t. you travels at c having separated from the
source at a speed of separation c. If you now change your speed so that
you are travelling away from the source at v the frequency of the light
you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the
light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the
frequency has, then the wavelength must have changed. What the maths is
saying is that in your new frame of reference the wavelength has changed
because the light is now separating from the source at c+v generating
longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is that your
change of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at
the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated to 1 light year
ago as there is no 1 year delay in the frequency changing. When I point
this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly and that one has
changed from a FoR where the light separates from the source at c - and
always did - to one where it separates from the source at c+v - and
always did. That is simply a description of the mathematics not of what
is physically happening. Physically one has to assume that when you
change speed you change from a universe where light separates from the
source at c to a parallel universe where it separates from the source at
c+v and always has done.
Physical interpretation of SR is not allowed. Relativity is a principle
theory (a posh name for a mathematical model) and as such makes no
attempt to address physical questions. The fact is that a FoR is a
mathematical abstraction which cannot impose physical restrictions on
light photons. The problem is that the physical space which the FoR maps
out is claimed not to contain anything which can possibly impose
physical restrictions on light photons either.
The only causal mechanisms that I am aware of is my parallel universe
explanation and that put forward by Lorentz involving Lorenz's aether.
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
> If only! Modern physics allows itself liberties whereby a theory can be
> accepted with totally absurd causality. Take SR and Doppler shift.
> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
> to SR light travelling w.r.t. you travels at c having separated from the
> source at a speed of separation c. If you now change your speed so that
> you are travelling away from the source at v the frequency of the light
> you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the
> light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the
> frequency has, then the wavelength must have changed. What the maths is
> saying is that in your new frame of reference the wavelength has changed
> because the light is now separating from the source at c+v generating
> longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is that your
> change of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at
> the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
> even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated to 1 light year
> ago as there is no 1 year delay in the frequency changing. When I point
> this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly and that one has
> changed from a FoR where the light separates from the source at c - and
> always did - to one where it separates from the source at c+v - and
> always did. That is simply a description of the mathematics not of what
> is physically happening. Physically one has to assume that when you
> change speed you change from a universe where light separates from the
> source at c to a parallel universe where it separates from the source at
> c+v and always has done.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence but, as you suggest, in Einstein
zombie world the absurdities deduced from Divine Albert's Divine
Theory damage the heretic who deduces them, not the Divine Theory.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
jem
> GSS wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 6:31 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>> .........
>>>> How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
>>>> properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which
>>>> way at
>>>> c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
>>>> adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
>>>
>>>> I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
>>>> the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
>>>> freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
>>>> accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
>>>> unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
>>>
>>> The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
>>> and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>>>
>> Do you consider GR to be a physical theory?
>> If so then where is the direct link of *space curvature* to
>> measurement?
The link mentioned above is between real-world measurements (e.g.
ruler and clock measurements) and the variables (e.g. x,y,z,t) of
physical theories (e.g. GR).
>> In reality you can neither physically measure the space curvature nor
>> describe a technical procedure for measurement of space curvature even
>> in principle. You cannot even define the space curvature in physical
>> terms (other than the usual mathematical definition in GR).
In reality, you don't know what you're talking about.
Learn before pontificating.
Spaceman
> The link mentioned above is between real-world measurements (e.g.
> ruler and clock measurements) and the variables (e.g. x,y,z,t) of
> physical theories (e.g. GR).
Real world measurements "rulers" and "clocks" ar not the physicals
themselves.
A space-time cause for real world effects is as silly as "math alone"
causing stuff.
Relativity lacks all physical cause for any of it's effects.
They ignore clock malfunctions for thier "time dilations"
and ignore illusions for the rubber rulers (length contraction)
It is a rubber ruler and malfunctioning clock theory only.
and has no physical causes related to anything sadly.
> Learn before pontificating.
It is rubber ruler worshippers that should learn instead of just
parrot what was learned without any physical cause ever found.
What was the cause?
AHHH DUH ... space-time of course.
Oh,
so a 3D distance and a mathematical periodic counting method
was the cause?
NOT!
GSS
wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
>>"John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
the frequency (and wavelength) of light in two light paths of MMX is
assumed to be constant.
It is an experimentally established fact that the frequency of light
emitted from an emitter is influenced by the state of motion of the
emitter. Let f be the frequency of light emitted from a stationary
(say in BCRF) emitter and f' be the frequency of light from an emitter
moving with velocity v. Then the ratio f'/f will be a function of v.
Consequently the frequency and wavelength of light in the two light
paths of MMX will not remain same.
If it could be shown that the number of wavelengths on each of the two
light paths of the MMX are independent of v then it will confirm the
fact that velocity v wrt a fixed reference frame cannot (even in
principle) be detected with MMX type setups.
In this regard let me refer to an interesting article titled "Much Ado
about Nil: Reflection from Moving Mirrors and the Interferometry
Experiments" by Christo I. Christov at,
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-10.PDF
Further, you may also refer to chapters 5 and 12 of the subject book
in this regard.
GSS
wrote:
In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
wrong!!
GSS
term 'space curvature'. Strictly speaking, the term 'space curvature'
implies 'deformation of space' induced by a change in its metric
(other than through the admissible transformation of coordinate
system). Let us first start with a spacetime curvature.
1. An important mathematical notion of spacetime curvature had
dominated the fundamental physics during the last century.
Mathematically however, the term 'spacetime curvature' implies a non-
zero value of the Riemann tensor computed from the metric coefficients
of the 4D spacetime manifold. In any gravitation free region of
space, the metric of 4D spacetime manifold may be represented by
g_ij(x) such that the corresponding Riemann tensor is zero and an
infinitesimal separation distance ds between two neighborhood
points P(x^i) and Q(x^i+dx^i) is given by:
(ds)^2 = g_ij dx^i dx^j ..................... (1)
However, in the same region of space under the influence of a
gravitational field, the metric of 4D spacetime manifold will be
represented by h_ij(x) (as per EFE) such that the corresponding
Riemann tensor is non-zero and an infinitesimal separation distance
ds' between the neighborhood points P' and Q' is given by:
(ds')^2 = h_ij dx^i dx^j ..................... (2)
2. To distinguish between a rigid and a deformable continuum of
space points, let P be any point in this continuum and P1, P2, ....
Pn be n points in the neighborhood of P. Let ds_1 be the separation
distance between points P and P1, ds_2 be the separation distance
between points P and P2, ..., ds_n be the separation distance between
points P and Pn. If these separation distances ds_1, ds_2, .... ds_n
from point P to all of its neighborhood points, remain constant under
all circumstances, then the continuum under consideration can be
regarded as rigid. If under certain circumstances, these separation
distances change to say ds_1', ds_2', .... ds_n' then the continuum
under consideration will be regarded as deformable. Since the
separation distance ds between two neighborhood points of the
spacetime continuum does change under the influence of gravitational
field (as per GR), the spacetime continuum is assumed to be deformable
in GR. Considering only the spatial components of the metric tensor,
it can be shown that the separation distance ds between two
neighborhood points of the space continuum also changes under the
influence of gravitational field (as per GR). Therefore the space
continuum is also assumed to be deformable in GR.
3. Obviously, whenever the separation distance between
neighboring points P and Q in the space continuum, changes from ds to
ds' it implies a relative shift in the original positions of P and Q
to the changed positions say P' and Q' such that arc element P'Q' =
ds'. This relative shift in positions of P and Q to the changed
positions P' and Q' may be referred as the relative displacement of
these points. Specifically, the vector PP' may be defined as the
displacement vector U and the corresponding displacement of Q to Q'
will then be represented by the incremented displacement vector U
+dU . Hence, whenever the separation distance ds between two
neighboring points P and Q changes to ds' as given by equations (1)
and (2), the associated displacement vector field U will be defined at
all points P of the space continuum.
The deformation of the continuum can be said to be fully determined
when the displacement of every point P in the continuum is known or
uniquely determined. The existence of displacement vector U at every
point P as a function of position coordinates of P will constitute a
displacement vector field U in the continuum. The displacement vector
from point P(r) to P’(r') is given by the relation,
U = r' – r
= u^i a_i …………………. (3)
where u^i are the components of vector U and r, r' are the position
vectors of P and P'.
4. In general the displacement vector field U in the space
continuum will be a function of space coordinates and time. As such
the time dependent deformations of physical space, that could be
represented through a time dependent displacement vector field U, may
be described as the space-time distortions. The representation of
space-time distortions through displacement vector field U is far
superior than its current representation through spacetime curvature.
The space and time derivatives of U will correspond to the strain
tensor field in the space continuum. Since the above referred time
dependent deformations in the space continuum are reversible, the
physical space continuum can be assumed to be elastic in nature.
Hence logically the displacement vector and strain tensor fields will
also be accompanied by the corresponding stress tensor field in the
physical space continuum. The study of space-time distortions through
the detailed study of corresponding displacement vector, strain tensor
and stress tensor fields in the space continuum may be termed as space
dynamics. I believe that a detailed analytical study of space
dynamics can provide us a valuable insight into the fundamental
structures of various elementary particles and their interactions.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gravity is round curvature.
Mitch Raemsch
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> On Jun 1, 4:44 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <Alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 3:56 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Friends,
> >> I have been taking part in various sci.physics discussion forums on
> >> usenet for almost a decade now. Even though I found these discussions
> >> quite useful, still I failed to communicate my viewpoint to most of
> >> the readers. Perhaps, communication of a certain viewpoint in bits and
> >> pieces cannot be expected to 'stick', to have any permanent
> >> impression. On the suggestion of a well wisher, I have now compiled
> >> all the bits and pieces of my un-orthodox viewpoint into a new book
> >> titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields". Keeping in view
> >> the nature of contents, I want to get it reviewed by the competent
> >> readership of the usenet forums, before getting this book formally
> >> printed. I also want to get suitable feedback for improving the
> >> presentation and readability of this book.
> >> However, for getting a brief over-view or introduction before
> >> downloading the book (or any of its chapters) kindly visit the
> >> website,
> >> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
> >> Therefore, I earnestly request all readers to kindly spare a little
> >> time to review and suggest improvements for better presentation and
> >> readability of the said book. Specifically, the following
> >> shortcomings, if noticed in the book, may please be pointed out.
> >> (a) Logical, mathematical or typographical errors if any.
> >> (b) Inconsistencies in presentation of the viewpoint, if any.
> >> (c) Faulty assumptions or faulty deductions, if any.
>
> > I found nothing regarding one of my primary areas of interest. In
> > the electron-beam version of Young's two-slit diffraction experiment,
> > we understand that the matter waves of the electron(s) interfere with
> > each other just as do the wave aspect of photons in the light beam
> > version of the experiment, which makes sense as mass is not quantized;
> > however, electric charge _is_ quantized and does not lend itself to
> > self-interference. Yet as we see, the charges of individual electrons
> > _do_ behave like waves and give us no "which way" information in one-
> > electron-at-a-time experiments.
>
> > How do you address this?
>
> > Mark L. Fergerson
>
> Yes, I have not discussed the electron diffraction phenomenon in this
> book.
>
> In my opinion, the fringe pattern in the electron beam diffraction
> experiments is a consequence of diffraction from sharp edges (or the
> electron biprism) and not a result of mutual interference of matter
> waves of electrons. And I don't think quantization of mass or charge
> has anything to do with this phenomenon. Even in the interference of
> photons, there is no question of 'self-interference'.
>
> Regarding your observation "the charges of individual electrons _do_
> behave like waves", let me reproduce a relevant part from chapter 18
> (The Electron Structure and Coulomb Interaction) of the book.
>
> Based on the spherically symmetric solution of equilibrium
> equations in the Elastic Space Continuum, we have introduced a new
> model for the structure of the electron core and its wave field. The
> mass of electron, as of any other particle, is shown as the inertial
> equivalent of the total strain energy content ‘locked up’ in the
> oscillating strain bubble. The sign of charge of positron / electron
> has been associated with the direction of propagation, outwards or
> inwards, of the strain phase waves linked with the oscillating core.
> The ‘intrinsic spin’ of electron is shown to be the result of
> rotation of the displacement vector U at a characteristic angular
> frequency kc. The Coulomb interaction has been derived from the
> superposition of strain wave fields of the interacting particles,
> resulting in overall change in combined field energy. Among salient
> parameters, the electron and positron core radii are found to be 1.61
> x 10^-15 m. Beyond this core boundary of 1.61 fm radius, the strain
> wave field of the electron extends to infinity and accommodates about
> 35 percent of its total mass energy.
>
> Regarding the mutual interference of photons, let me quote a relevant
> portion from chapter 19 (The Photon Wave Packet and Neutrinos ) of the
> book.
>
> The photon may be viewed as a sinusoidal pulse of electromagnetic
> field Ep & Bp with exponentially decaying amplitude and ‘significant’
> spatial extension of just about one wave length in all directions.
>
> The Photon Interaction. Here it may be appropriate to point out
> that just like computation of Coulomb Interaction, mutual interaction
> of two or more photons separated by distance ‘d’ along any Cartesian
> coordinate axis, can be easily computed. This is done by superposition
> of the strain tensor components of two interacting photons separated
> by distance d along any coordinate axis and referred to a common
> Cartesian coordinate system. The strain energy of the superposed or
> combined field can then be easily computed. The computation results
> show that the interaction energy for two photons of same frequency
> depends on functions of the type 2hf.exp(-k.d).cos(k.d). That is,
> any two photons of same frequency f, will tend to get mutually
> coupled at certain optimum separation of the order of ‘odd number of
> half wave lengths’. Their interaction energy will change from
> negative to positive if their separation along any coordinate axis is
> changed by about one half wave length, resulting in their mutual
> repulsion. This may account for the conventional interference and
> dispersion effects encountered in a stream of photons of the same
> frequency.
>
> GSS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The photon has 3 waves EM and probability. Go figure?
GSS
>
> The photon has 3 waves EM and probability. Go figure?
If you normalize the photon EM wave, then its intensity will provide
you the probability of your choice!!
GSS
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
Dale Not sure if you ever seen any of my postings but quite some time
ago I did a post looking at the idea that curvature was relative.One
of the gedankens involved trying to model how a satellite in orbit
around a black hole could measure the curving in a beam of light in
the same orbit.
I was told that somewhere near the 3m level is where the light path
becomes so curved that a laser light beam becomes so curved that it
could at least in principle make a complete orbit around a black
hole.Then what would happen if we had our satellite even if for only a
short period of time in free fall around our black hole be able to
measure the curvature of the laser beam as it traveled thought his
satellite.Would he even be able to observe this curvature that must be
observable to us as external distant observers after all if he is in
free fall with the light and traveling along its same path how could
he.
The reasoning I came to as to why he would not be able to see the
curvature is in some ways for the same reason that a gyroscope should
not drift out of the light beams path as it might also be considered a
equivalence principle violation. Otherwise for our local observer it
could appear as if the gyroscope was rotating out of the light path
for no reason.Later on it also became obvious that this rotating of
the gyroscope out of the light path could be prevented if the slowing
of time on the lower side of the gyro were more due to its being
closer to the black holes gravity.The big point here is when looking
at how a ruler must curve in such a way as to render this curving
unmeasurable to our local observer but look Big surprise it ends up
that in mater for that to happen you need the ruler to curve matching
the light path.
Not sure now how this alternative theory started but its all based on
the idea that matter and actually everything else you can measure
anything with contracts in such a way that it expands the surrounding
space and here we have a requirement for a ruler to curve and it needs
the very atoms on lower side of the ruler to contract in mater for it
to bend in this way.Sort of like how the bi metal in a thermostat
contracts and bends.
If you saw my other postings you would know how this alternative
theory gives you an explanation on how our universe began and lots
more but I haven't really said much lately on how this could at least
partly connect GR with Quantum mechanics but this involves some later
hypothesis on how Zero point energy is actually space itself and is
not simply an odd byproduct of space having nothing to do with
actually being space.Some stuff was also posted looking at someone
trying to use Casimir plates because they would contract in this
alternative theory as a preferred frame of reference to determine ones
positions in space without outside references and why it would not
work showing a direct relation to what space actually is.Later
conclusions on what Zero point energy was can to the hypothesis that
it woks with another dimension where actual distances are ignored.
Remember the fantastic estimations of the extreme energy's that ZPE
must have when you add up all what I think was called all of the modes
and it came out to something like the mass of an entire stall on
something like a single neutron and it was so extreme it was shoved
off as just ridiculous.So in this hypothesis's it could be that it
might actually be a bit like by analogy trying to weigh a single link
in an infinitely long chain stretched infinitely tight meaning you
cant do that without also weighing all of the surrounding mass in that
part of the visible universe.This woks if we have at least 1 dimension
where distances are ignored and thats not to far out if it turns out
that ZPE is actually space itself and is the cause of distances in the
first place so it doesn't really seam that unreasonable that the cause
of space or rather distances themselves might not actually be subject
to it itself.Further clues is how entangled photons work in such as
way that distances are essentially ignored and then remembering that
the very Casimer plates works on the idea of excluding some
wavelengths i.e. ZPE from coming into existence by the distances
between the plates.Not really sure but I think that ZPE involves those
virtual photons I remember reading about but anyhow it may be that
just like light they also have a type of entanglement where distances
are ignored and we end up with something that could be called
something like Quantum Inertial Entanglement if you forgive me for
quickly making up a terminology that might not be the best choice.
Dale
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
Dale. Did a past posting on frame dragging where an proposed
hypothetical experiment actually gave a MMX type of proof.
It involved sending 2 light beams by a massive gravitating object one
going with rotation and the other against.Not sure but it really did
suggest the possibility that the 2 beams would not only separate but
travel at different speeds where the beam travailing with rotation
both bending less and traveling faster however its still slower than
the same beam outside the gravity well.
Note that on my other postings I forgot to point out that ZPE could
turn out to be more like not so much something in space the way the
hypothetical aether was supposed to be but rather more accurately the
cause of space.This is because of the idea that it works in a
dimension that ignores distances making it a bit speculative if you
could actually still say its in space.
Another point I forgot in the previous posting is where I looked at
what would happen if you had a hypothetical relativistic space ship
that could not be slowed down, dragging a cable that cannot be broken
by a black hole where the speed of light is 1/2 of ours.
If an observer were at the same level where the end of the cable were
to pass it would be traveling at something like 2 times the speed of
light if nothing else happens.Actually it might be a bit more because
his time is also slower and I never had time to look at that question.
Whats really going to happen is that the entire black hole will be
pulled on as otherwise you get a local speed of light violation for
any local observers at the end of the cable no mater how small the end
of the cable and that cant happen.No particle accelerator has even
been able to push even the tiniest particle to anything close to more
than light speed and I cant see why this would be any different.The
point of interest here is that it illustrates how everything is
actually connected locally and also suggests something more about how
I think it was Mack's principle with some wording to the effect that
inertia there affecting inertia here.Note that distances are ignored
and that this also sugests a dimention where distances are ignored.You
can even ignore the idea that black holes expand space for this
gedanken.
Dale
> medium is put into...
>
> read more »
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
wrote:
Dale
I know you probably wont listen but here goes anyhow.
Try asking yourself what would happen if you had a space ship
traveling near the speed of light and it also had a spinning wheel
whose edges were to also be traveling near light speed.Would our space
ship now be traveling with a wheel on board with its edges now
traveling twice the speed of light to our prospective.
Or wold it push the space ship backwards so as to avoid the edges of
the wheel going at twice the speed of light.
Or will one side of the wheel contract and display a slower time so we
don't have these contradictions.
Point I am trying to make if that if you don't have rubber rulers and
broken clocks you end up with other absurdities that are worse.
At least the present absurdity's are somewhat tested and reasonably
true there is just a lot of missing details.
Dale
Spaceman
> Dale
> I know you probably wont listen but here goes anyhow.
> Try asking yourself what would happen if you had a space ship
> traveling near the speed of light and it also had a spinning wheel
> whose edges were to also be traveling near light speed.Would our space
> ship now be traveling with a wheel on board with its edges now
> traveling twice the speed of light to our prospective.
> Or wold it push the space ship backwards so as to avoid the edges of
> the wheel going at twice the speed of light.
What?
Do you think FTL has been proven impossible so
we better not allow such?
You better check the proof, the fact is no proof has been
made at all about FTL being impossible.
> Or will one side of the wheel contract and display a slower time so we
> don't have these contradictions.
> Point I am trying to make if that if you don't have rubber rulers and
> broken clocks you end up with other absurdities that are worse.
> At least the present absurdity's are somewhat tested and reasonably
> true there is just a lot of missing details.
> Dale
What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
What is absurd about c+c=2c?
Is basic algebra absurd?
and Why do you call me Dale?
As I said,
the only reason they use rubber rulers is so nature and some
of thier own bullshit about time dilation does not violate
the precious house of cards they have built.
But of course, nature will blow it down sooner or later.
Simply because nature seems to think 1+1 does equal 2.
and if c can =1..
c can be doubled no problem if a smart enough technology
comes forward to do so..
:)
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
For one thing nature determines it!
Read carefully the following from Lev Landau:
"The interaction of material particles is described in ordinary
mechanics by means of a potential energy of interaction, which appears
as a function of the coordinates of the interacting particles. It is
easy to see that this manner of describing interactions contains the
assumption of instantaneous propagation of interactions. For the
forces exerted on each of the particles by the other particles at a
particular instant of time depend, according to this description, only
on the positions of the particles at this one instant. A change in the
position of any of the interacting particles influences the other
particles immediately.
However, experiment shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist
in nature. Thus a mechanics based on the assumption of instantaneous
propagation of interactions contains within itself a certain
inaccuracy. In actuality, if any change takes place in one of the
interacting bodies, it will influence the other bodies only after the
lapse of a certain interval of time. It is only after this time
interval that processes caused by the initial change begin to take
place in the second body. Dividing the distance between the two bodies
by this time interval, we obtain the velocity of propagation of the
interaction.
We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the
maximum velocity of propagation of interaction. It determines only
that interval of time after which a change occurring in one body
begins to manifest itself in another. It is clear that the existence
of a maximum velocity of propagation of interactions implies, at the
same time, that motions of bodies with greater velocity than this are
in general impossible in nature. For if such a motion could occur,
then by means of it one could realize an interaction with a velocity
exceeding the maximum possible velocity of propagation of
interactions".
If you accept causality as truth, then c as the maximum possible
velocity of propagation of signals follows. If not then you believe in
miracles.
Miguel Rios
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > Dale
> > I know you probably wont listen but here goes anyhow.
> > Try asking yourself what would happen if you had a space ship
> > traveling near the speed of light and it also had a spinning wheel
> > whose edges were to also be traveling near light speed.Would our space
> > ship now be traveling with a wheel on board with its edges now
> > traveling twice the speed of light to our prospective.
> > Or wold it push the space ship backwards so as to avoid the edges of
> > the wheel going at twice the speed of light.
>
> What?
> Do you think FTL has been proven impossible so
> we better not allow such?
> You better check the proof, the fact is no proof has been
> made at all about FTL being impossible.
Hi Spaceman
Dale Actually some of the main parts of that alternative theory I so
often post on actually dose argue for the possibility's of FTL.
Even argues that it must happen naturally in some parts of the
universe where white holes must exist for the theory to be valid.
Still haven't been able to figure out the details to actually be able
to make a portable wormhole that would make this sort of thing
possible.Got some clues however and was working on the idea that if
negative energy behaves in the opposite way with centrifugal force.For
example spin matter hard enough it always flies apart but if negative
energy exists and behaves the opposite way then there is no limit to
how much energy you can put in to spinning a bit of it as it just
clumps together with more and more force.Never mind that it spins in
reverse etc.
>
> > Or will one side of the wheel contract and display a slower time so we
> > don't have these contradictions.
> > Point I am trying to make if that if you don't have rubber rulers and
> > broken clocks you end up with other absurdities that are worse.
> > At least the present absurdity's are somewhat tested and reasonably
> > true there is just a lot of missing details.
> > Dale
>
> What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
> What is absurd about c+c=2c?
> Is basic algebra absurd?
> and Why do you call me Dale?
> As I said,
> the only reason they use rubber rulers is so nature and some
> of thier own bullshit about time dilation does not violate
> the precious house of cards they have built.
In this case it would be an even worse house of cards if we didn't
have it.But yes they do have some pretty ridiculous stuff stated as
fact.For just one example the whole stuff about singularity's touted
as fact or at least implied as fact should only have been stated as
hypothesis.To much else to go into theoretical physics is full of
nonsense or some approximation of nonsense implied as fact.
> But of course, nature will blow it down sooner or later.
> Simply because nature seems to think 1+1 does equal 2.
> and if c can =1..
> c can be doubled no problem if a smart enough technology
> comes forward to do so..
> :)
It can be doubled and tripled etc but to do that you need a bubble of
space where the speed of light is also increased by the same amount.
Dale
Spaceman
<snipped massive long twisting bullshit talk about cause and effect based
object to object interaction>
> If you accept causality as truth, then c as the maximum possible
> velocity of propagation of signals follows. If not then you believe in
> miracles.
I do accept causality as truth but i do not subscribe to
your malfunctioning clock (time slowing with speed) crap.
nor your limit of object to object interaction speed.
Traveling at any speed will not make a cause happen before
an effect.
Even at speeds of 100c would not create a cause before
an effect.
In fact...
even instantaneous travel would not violate cause before effect.
Only malfunctioning clocks and lots of bullshit talk show such bullshit
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nonsense, this is not a matter of interpretation!. Signals exist and
there is, for sure, a maximum propagation speed for these signals,
which every experiment up to this day indicates is c. So either you
prove that there exist another type of signal that transports
information at a higher speed than c, or you are just talking
nonsense, because of your ignorance.
Just forget it...I know the answer!
Miguel Rios
PD
wrote:
> jem wrote:
> > The link mentioned above is between real-world measurements (e.g.
> > ruler and clock measurements) and the variables (e.g. x,y,z,t) of
> > physical theories (e.g. GR).
>
> Real world measurements "rulers" and "clocks" ar not the physicals
> themselves.
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect. This becomes the subject of fairy tales and not
science. What you are doing is *inventing* a set of "physicals" that
behaves the way you want them to behave, according to your appeals to
your common sense. Then if measurements are in conflict with your
invention, you simply pronounce the measurements "broken" somehow.
You'll note the similarity between your approach and religion.
PD
Spaceman
The first thing you must do is forget about relativity,
wormholes, time travel, and all that nasty stuff that relativity
can summon up from space-time curvature.
and no white holes either BTW.
And Black holes are nothing like relativity states they are.
No worm holes, no bending of space-time etc..
>>> Or will one side of the wheel contract and display a slower time so
>>> we don't have these contradictions.
>>> Point I am trying to make if that if you don't have rubber rulers
>>> and broken clocks you end up with other absurdities that are worse.
>>> At least the present absurdity's are somewhat tested and reasonably
>>> true there is just a lot of missing details.
>>> Dale
>>
>> What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
>> What is absurd about c+c=2c?
>> Is basic algebra absurd?
>> and Why do you call me Dale?
>> As I said,
>> the only reason they use rubber rulers is so nature and some
>> of thier own bullshit about time dilation does not violate
>> the precious house of cards they have built.
>
> In this case it would be an even worse house of cards if we didn't
> have it.But yes they do have some pretty ridiculous stuff stated as
> fact.For just one example the whole stuff about singularity's touted
> as fact or at least implied as fact should only have been stated as
> hypothesis.To much else to go into theoretical physics is full of
> nonsense or some approximation of nonsense implied as fact.
No,
the Newtonian/Eucdlidian house is not built from cards
like Relativity is.
It is built from basic math and geometry that will make
it stand for a long time to come.
Not "warped space-time" math that can not even
compare to the Euclidian 3D reality that is all around us.
>> But of course, nature will blow it down sooner or later.
>> Simply because nature seems to think 1+1 does equal 2.
>> and if c can =1..
>> c can be doubled no problem if a smart enough technology
>> comes forward to do so..
>> :)
>
> It can be doubled and tripled etc but to do that you need a bubble of
> space where the speed of light is also increased by the same amount.
> Dale
No,
lightspeed has nothing to do with the physical "speed" of other objects.
It only has to do with how they would be viewed.
Just as the speed of sound only has to do with the hearing
of objects, not the actual speed of the objects.
Spaceman
> Nonsense, this is not a matter of interpretation!. Signals exist and
> there is, for sure, a maximum propagation speed for these signals,
> which every experiment up to this day indicates is c. So either you
> prove that there exist another type of signal that transports
> information at a higher speed than c, or you are just talking
> nonsense, because of your ignorance.
Signals we use are limited to light because such signals "ARE" transmitted
by light.
If you really think lightspeed is a "force" that stops
anything else from going faster than that force you
have given up on science already.
and...
You may have well have given up on faster than sound long ago
also.
LOL
Spaceman
> Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
> direct or indirect.
No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound
Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..
The smoke signal still was faster of course but only once the smoke was in
the air
high enough to be seen.
I simply will not "build" a wall that may not be there.
and until you have proof that "FTL is impossible,
(meaning you have proof of the entire universe and how it works.)
I will keep that wall un-built.
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
Take a closer look, the speed of light is the speed of time.
Try imagining a clock who's ticks involve the light going a certain
distance and returning then notice how you cant change anything else
without also changing everything else by the same amount.Even if time
in our universe changed it would all look the same locally.
Its a reasonable guess that even a metal rod thats made up of
particles will be in some ways just like tiny little boxes of light
because of the way that all quantum particles always have speed of
light and time dependencies that are in some ways not so different
from the light clock.
You should look over my other postings but to benefit you would need
to keep an open mind.
By the way if there is no black holes and no anything else in your
list either what exactly do you believe in.
Dale
PD
>
> In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
> through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
> wrong!!
That is bad science. The judgment of a theory is NOT based on the
"logic" or "causality" of its postulates. Those kinds of presumptions
are dangerous, because they are dependent on the structure of the
human mind. The ONLY criteria for a successful theory are:
a) mathematical self-consistency
b) accurate prediction of experimental data, to the degree that there
are no data that are inconsistent with the theory's predictions where
the theory claims to apply.
You have simply the wrong metrics for the validity or strength of a
theory.
PD
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
> > direct or indirect.
>
> No,
> I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
> Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
> Before the telegraph.
> sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
> to another person
> So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound
>
> Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
> of sound wall fell.
> We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..
Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the fastest
signal possible. This has been known since caveman days since the gaps
between lightning and thunder were noted. Galileo attempted to measure
the speed of light and knew from his measurements that it was much,
much faster than the speed of sound.
You are perhaps recalling, from your stack of Popular Mechanics, that
there was once a belief that no *aircraft* could travel faster than
the speed of sound, for reasons that had *nothing* to do with the laws
of physics.
Perhaps you also have this simple-minded idealism that *anything* is
possible, once the technology is figured out. This is perfect for
science fiction stories written for ten-year-olds, but not for much
else.
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
It is true that that light waves of dual electromagentic force are
confined to moving wave packets the wavelength and amplitude of these
waves. The electromagentic field for them does not go to infinity.
No probability allowed. I am with Einstein and I know I am right.
Mitch Raemsch
Spaceman
There is no "speed" of time.
Time is an abstracted counting method.
Many things can count faster than a cesium atomic clock.
even the "slow speed" of Earth would be able to count atoms faster
than an atomic clock.counts the vibrations of one of them.
:)
Spaceman
> On Jun 23, 4:35 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
>>> direct or indirect.
>>
>> No,
>> I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
>> Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
>> Before the telegraph.
>> sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
>> to another person
>> So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound
>>
>> Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
>> of sound wall fell.
>> We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..
>
> Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
> There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the fastest
> signal possible.
LOL
You truly are dillusional.
Your knowledge of history itself is even worse than anything you come
up with about relativity!
LOL
PD
Then back up what you say with references. Bluster and cackling
doesn't do much for me.
Spaceman
Why don't you show me one persons statement from back in those days
that said, communication is possible at faster than sound speeds?
In short,
Who said it was possible before the telegraph was invented?
in fact, who even had said the telegraph was possible?
Sheesh PD.
You truly are one funny rubber ruler guy!
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time is passing slightly slower than the speed of light for moving
matter in gravity dale. Matter and space's Gamma is above one.
Mitch Raemsch
cjcountess
I commend you for what you are doing with your work. I had the same
idea as I too participated in enough discussions to generate a lot of
thought and enough material to write a book. I've already written one
book which includes a non mathematical scientific theory of everything
and have since compiled enough to write another based around the
controversial idea that c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion
factor of energy to matter but is an actual conversion frequency at
high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter. I reason and
visualize this to happen because the wave takes on a circular or
spherical geometry such as a standing satirical wave. Like you I
believe that we can visualize this because I have done it and nobody
can tell me otherwise. Maybe their vision and /or my description is
not as clear as my vision but I am having fun arguing the case.. If
you take a wave traveling at c in the horizontal direction and give
it a equal and 90 degree angular speed of c in vertical direction,
this is c^2. This is analogous to a horizontal line of an inch, times
a vertical line of equal measure to equal a square inch.. If we draw
an arc from the beginning of the horizontal line to end of the
vertical line this creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a
circle. This can represent the trajectory a wave under the influence
of a centrifugal and a centripetal force at a 90 degree angle to each
other resulting in circular motion might take. In 3d this would be
spherical motion .
see: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
and
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,
If we start with a circular polarized wave like the one they ended up
with on the website and continue the same logic and geometry to all
dimensions of the wave, x-y and z, we should get a standing spherical
wave.
One question, did you think to include any of the Google dialogs to
show the dynamism of the arguments or do they include too much google-
gaga childish chatter that you'd rather exclude? And furthermore, is
it copyrite infringement to publish other peoples input into the
dialog or is it o.k. to include at least their responses to you. Would
appreciate your thoughts on this.
I read some of your book and think it is very inciteful.
Conrad Countess
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
Not really sure about what you mean but I am reasonably sure that if
you travel with your light clock with you as you passed by a black
hole you should not see any changes in the time on your own clock.
That would give you a preferred frame of reference and would mean that
your travelers could tell their locations by watching their clocks
speed up as their time slowed down and the relationship is not
preserved.That would mean that the clocks time would change for our
local observers as they
would measure a different speed of light than us.
Is this what you really mean, that they actually would see a different
speed of
light than us.Its a really good question if one could see what would
happen
to quantum particles if you could actually change the speed of light
while keeping everything else unchanged.It could be very interesting
if it were possible at all.
Dale
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
> Hi GSS
> I commend you for what you are doing with your work. I had the same
> idea as I too participated in enough discussions to generate a lot of
> thought and enough material to write a book. I've already written one
> book which includes a non mathematical scientific theory of everything
> and have since compiled enough to write another based around the
> controversial idea that c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion
> factor of energy to matter but is an actual conversion frequency at
> high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter.
Hi cjcountess
Dale Another poster was arguing that light was actually mass never
found time to reply but it certainly has no rest mass. Then again it
really can add the properties of mass to any container that holds it
and do this in some interesting ways. resulting in some interesting
hypothesis. I posted this question a long time ago and a Usenet
friend, somewhere in my files, suggested calling it the canary theory
for the old joke about canaries on a truck having no weight when the
truck was banged on putting the canaries into flight.Think about what
would happen if you turned 1 gram of pure energy into light then held
it in a super reflective box we know that the box would still weigh
the extra gram but how.Light gains energy when a mirror moves towards
it and loses energy as a mirror moves away from its source and this is
how light sails work.A light box has the same properties as light will
have more energy reflecting off of the bottom of the box than on its
top as well as giving the same effect when the box is moved imitating
inertia.
When the theory got interesting is when it was pointed out that if
quantum particles were in fact little boxes of light they would still
display inertia just like ordinary matter and we would never know the
difference.Later another poster pointed out than at the sub quantum
level their really is no such thing as rest mass.
Worth some more thought probably.
Dale
GSS
> On Jun 21, 2:23 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
> > through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
> > wrong!!
>
> That is bad science. The judgment of a theory is NOT based on the
> "logic" or "causality" of its postulates. Those kinds of presumptions
> are dangerous, because they are dependent on the structure of the
> human mind.
It is dangerous to underestimate the role and potential of human mind
and brain. All theories, models and infact all science is the product
of human mind. We are not 'gods' to produce any knowledge base without
using the structure of the human mind.
> The ONLY criteria for a successful theory are:
> a) mathematical self-consistency
Yes, the mathematics itself can be considered as a system of symbolic
logic.
> b) accurate prediction of experimental data, to the degree that there
> are no data that are inconsistent with the theory's predictions where
> the theory claims to apply.
Yes, accurate prediction of experimental data has to be ensured
through strict application of causality. As I mentioned earlier, "If a
sequence of events is causally connected, we may attribute such causal
connection between events to certain physical law of nature. If
appropriate logical explanation is available for the causal connection
between events then such causal connection plus the appropriate
logical explanation is called a physical theory of the associated
phenomenon."
The causal connection between events or between inputs and outputs of
a physical system is ensured through appropriate mathematical model of
the physical theory. If it is incapable of making accurate predictions
of experimental data, then it is obviously a faulty model.
>
> You have simply the wrong metrics for the validity or strength of a
> theory.
>
> PD
You have obviously got it wrong.
A physical theory must be logically consistent and must incorporate
causality in its mathematical models to ensure accurate prediction of
experimental data.
GSS
> On 23 jun, 16:20, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
> > What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
> > What is absurd about c+c=2c?
> > Is basic algebra absurd?
It is true that the speed of propagation of interactions cannot be
more than the speed of propagation of stress/strain waves c in the
physical space continuum which in turn is controlled by the physical
parameters eps_0 and mu_0 of vacuum. That is c= 1/sqrt(eps_0.mu_0).
But that must not limit the relative velocity between a moving
observer and a particle (say a photon) in flight as wrongly asserted
in relativity.
> If you accept causality as truth, then c as the maximum possible
> velocity of propagation of signals follows. If not then you believe in
> miracles.
>
> Miguel Rios
Under the second postulate of SR, the requirement of constancy of
velocity of light in vacuum was changed over to the requirement of
constancy of the velocity of light in each of the infinitely many
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, by sacrificing
the absolute nature of space and time coordinates.
Let us consider a simple example to illustrate this point. Consider
two space points A1 and A2 fixed in BCRF. Let us use the universal
coordinated time UTC within BCRF. Assume that at certain instant of
(UTC) time t0, one photon particle P1 is emitted from A1 towards A2
and another photon particle P2 is emitted from A2 towards A1.
Logically the relative approach velocity of the two particles, wrt
each other, will be 2c. But SR will not agree with this logic. As per
SR you will attach one reference frame with particle P1 and call it
inertial reference frame K1 and attach another reference frame with
particle P2 and call it inertial reference frame K2. Then SR will use
its postulates to declare that in K1, particle P2 is approaching P1
with approach velocity c and in K2 particle P1 is approaching P2 with
approach velocity c.
Do you consider it logical?
GSS
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
.........
> > Hi Spaceman
> > Dale Actually some of the main parts of that alternative theory I so
> > often post on actually dose argue for the possibility's of FTL.
> > Even argues that it must happen naturally in some parts of the
> > universe where white holes must exist for the theory to be valid.
> > Still haven't been able to figure out the details to actually be able
> > to make a portable wormhole that would make this sort of thing
> > possible.Got some clues however and was working on the idea that if
> > negative energy behaves in the opposite way with centrifugal force.For
> > example spin matter hard enough it always flies apart but if negative
> > energy exists and behaves the opposite way then there is no limit to
> > how much energy you can put in to spinning a bit of it as it just
> > clumps together with more and more force.Never mind that it spins in
> > reverse etc.
>
> The first thing you must do is forget about relativity,
> wormholes, time travel, and all that nasty stuff that relativity
> can summon up from space-time curvature.
> and no white holes either BTW.
> And Black holes are nothing like relativity states they are.
> No worm holes, no bending of space-time etc..
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
I agree with you James.
You have put it nicely. There is no point in discussing the bits and
pieces of relativity when the whole facade needs to be discarded!
GSS
GSS
> Hi GSS
> I commend you for what you are doing with your work.
Thanks.
> I had the same
> idea as I too participated in enough discussions to generate a lot of
> thought and enough material to write a book. I've already written one
> book which includes a non mathematical scientific theory of everything
In my opinion, writing a non mathematical scientific theory is
acceptable only if you are either writing a review of certain theories
or writing a popular version of some theory for the layman. But if you
are intending to cover a 'new ground' in physics, then I am afraid,
you cannot do that without mathematics.
> and have since compiled enough to write another based around the
> controversial idea that c^2 is not just a mathematical conversion
> factor of energy to matter but is an actual conversion frequency at
> high end of EM spectrum where energy turns to matter. I reason and
> visualize this to happen because the wave takes on a circular or
> spherical geometry such as a standing satirical wave. Like you I
> believe that we can visualize this because I have done it and nobody
> can tell me otherwise. Maybe their vision and /or my description is
> not as clear as my vision but I am having fun arguing the case.
You must be able to express it through mathematical equations in
addition to verbal descriptions.
> If
> you take a wave traveling at c in the horizontal direction and give
> it a equal and 90 degree angular speed of c in vertical direction,
> this is c^2. This is analogous to a horizontal line of an inch, times
> a vertical line of equal measure to equal a square inch.. If we draw
> an arc from the beginning of the horizontal line to end of the
> vertical line this creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a
> circle. This can represent the trajectory a wave under the influence
> of a centrifugal and a centripetal force at a 90 degree angle to each
> other resulting in circular motion might take. In 3d this would be
> spherical motion .
> see:http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
> and
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae694.cfm,
> If we start with a circular polarized wave like the one they ended up
> with on the website and continue the same logic and geometry to all
> dimensions of the wave, x-y and z, we should get a standing spherical
> wave.
No, unless you express the situation in mathematical 'symbolic logic'
it will not make sense.
>
> One question, did you think to include any of the Google dialogs to
> show the dynamism of the arguments or do they include too much google-
> gaga childish chatter that you'd rather exclude?
Only if you consider it be 'absolutely essential'.
> And furthermore, is
> it copyrite infringement to publish other peoples input into the
> dialog or is it o.k. to include at least their responses to you. Would
> appreciate your thoughts on this.
You must not publish other people's input as your own. You may include
other people's input after giving due credit, only for the purpose of
commenting, discussing or refuting. Otherwise you are generally
expected to get prior permission of the author for including any
portion of the copy wrighted work.
> I read some of your book and think it is very inciteful.
> Conrad Countess
Kindly let me know if you could follow the derivation of the
equilibrium equations in chapter 15.
John Kennaugh
>On Jun 20, 2:58 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> GSS wrote:
>>>On Jun 12, 6:31 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>>.........
>>>>> How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
>>>>> properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which way at
>>>>> c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
>>>>> adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
>>
>>>>> I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
>>>>> the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
>>>>> freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
>>>>> accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
>>>>> unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
>>
>>>> The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
>>>> and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>>
>>>Do you consider GR to be a physical theory?
>>>If so then where is the direct link of *space curvature* to
>>>measurement?
>>
>>>In reality you can neither physically measure the space curvature nor
>>>describe a technical procedure for measurement of space curvature even
>>>in principle. You cannot even define the space curvature in physical
>>>terms (other than the usual mathematical definition in GR).
>>
>>>I hope you can atleast mentally visualize the space curvature! Can
>>>you??
>>
>>>>> If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is
>>>>> nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical
>>>>> effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because
>>>>> of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try
>>>>> and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
>>
>>>> What do you think cause-and-effect relationships /are/, Kennaugh,
>>>> other than logical connections between certain behavior of Nature and
>>>> other behavior? And what do you think physical theories /are/, other
>>>> than devices for inferring certain behavior of Nature from other
>>>> behavior*?
>>
>>>Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called
>>>cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct
>>>consequence (result) of the first. If a certain sequence of events is
>>>not causally connected, that set of events will be referred as random
>>>events.
>>
>> Surely random events are ones where the cause is far too complex to
>> analyse or predict rather than one not having a cause.
>>
>>>If a sequence of events is causally connected, we may
>>>attribute such causal connection between events to certain physical
>>>law of nature. If appropriate logical explanation is available for the
>>>causal connection between events then such causal connection plus the
>>>appropriate logical explanation is called a physical theory of the
>>>associated phenomenon.
>>
>> accepted with totally absurd causality. Take SR and Doppler shift.
>> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
>> to SR light travelling w.r.t. you travels at c having separated from the
>> source at a speed of separation c. If you now change your speed so that
>> you are travelling away from the source at v the frequency of the light
>> you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the
>> light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the
>> frequency has, then the wavelength must have changed. What the maths is
>> saying is that in your new frame of reference the wavelength has changed
>> because the light is now separating from the source at c+v generating
>> longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is that your
>> change of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at
>> the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
>> even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated to 1 light year
>> ago as there is no 1 year delay in the frequency changing. When I point
>> this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly and that one has
>> changed from a FoR where the light separates from the source at c - and
>> always did - to one where it separates from the source at c+v - and
>> always did. That is simply a description of the mathematics not of what
>> is physically happening. Physically one has to assume that when you
>> change speed you change from a universe where light separates from the
>> source at c to a parallel universe where it separates from the source at
>> c+v and always has done.
>>
>> Physical interpretation of SR is not allowed. Relativity is a principle
>> theory (a posh name for a mathematical model) and as such makes no
>> attempt to address physical questions. The fact is that a FoR is a
>> mathematical abstraction which cannot impose physical restrictions on
>> light photons. The problem is that the physical space which the FoR maps
>> out is claimed not to contain anything which can possibly impose
>> physical restrictions on light photons either.
>>
>> The only causal mechanisms that I am aware of is my parallel universe
>> explanation and that put forward by Lorentz involving Lorenz's aether.
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>> "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
>>sufficiently
>> strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
>
>In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
>through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
>wrong!!
Physicists write their own rules. They changed the rules. Your statement
(which I agree with - but then I am not a physicist) shows that you are
out of touch with modern physics.
The aether was removed from physics not as the result of experiment nor
through some theoretical wizardry but by simply deciding that physical
interpretation is no longer a requirement in physics. The mathematics of
Maxwell's theory are now considered a complete physics theory without
the necessity of making any judgement as to whether the waves the wave
equations describe actually exist and if they do what might be their
physical nature. The modern excuse is that as we cannot get an exact
understanding of the physical nature it is better not to try and to
stick to the mathematical description.
One can see it as cause and effect. Einstein had been hailed as a genius
and his theory accepted without proper scrutiny. Closer inspection shows
that without an alternative theoretical structure it could not in all
honesty be described as a different theory to that of Lorentz and
Lorentz's theory, having a theoretical structure is the more complete of
the two. To justify their acceptance of SR physicists changed the rules.
By the new rules Einstein's theory is a better theory in that it does
not attempt to explain itself in terms of silly physical models and is a
mathematical theory in keeping with the new thinking.
Put simply if you get into a mess, then change the rules such that what
was a mess is now considered a virtue. This was the first of many. Like
the one which says "if a theory doesn't work - invent a new particle."
"If when viewed against theory it all looks silly assume that it is
nature which is weird not that theory is wrong" and so on.
I say photons have mass because they are attracted by gravity, have
momentum as they produce a force when they impact on a surface. If you
if you assume they have mass the maths works. Physicists say that
photons do not have mass because if they did it would mean SR is wrong.
Why should SR be right? It is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's
wave in aether theory is impeccable when no one now believes in the
aether and it had been shown (and totally ignored in the formulation of
SR) that not only is light emitted in quantized lumps (Planck) that it
remains in those same quantized lumps (photo electric effect) and that
at no point in between do the waves of Maxwell exist.
Of course my argument is ruled out on the grounds that it is based on
physical interpretation which is no longer a part of modern physics. The
only rule in modern physics is that accepted theory cannot be wrong. If
it doesn't work it is not because it is wrong but because it is
incomplete. Having decided that nature is weird (rather than physics
which is off the rails) it is not difficult to patch up any accepted
theory. One cannot reject a 'fix' on the grounds that "Nature may be
weird but it cannot be THAT weird".
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On Jun 9, 11:26 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> GSS wrote:
>.....
>>>Has this phenomenon of 'stresses in the aether' caused by charges and
>>>the 'interaction of stress patterns' been technically or
>>>quantitatively analyzed by any scientist so far? If so which
>>>parameter(s) represented the 'stresses in the aether' in relevant
>>>equations?
>>
>> I suggest you consult the work of Maxwell. He was a far better
>> mathematician than I am. Essentially he took the relationships which
>> Faraday had produced relating to charge and magnetism (which is still
>> charge) and realised the similarity between these relationships and the
>> wave equations of fluid dynamics. In other words he saw in those
>> equations the equivalent of stress strain displacement etc. an analogue
>> of all those properties in a fluid which allow a wave to propagate.
>> Taking the analogy a step further he calculated at what speed the 'wave'
>> would propagate at. The speed of propagation in a fluid depends on two
>> parameters. The equivalent parameters in his new wave equations were
>> Faradays constants of permeability and permittivity. From these
>> parameters he calculated at what speed the electromagnetic wave would
>> propagate at in a vacuum if such a thing did in fact exist and was
>> surprised to find it was the same as the speed of light.
>>
>On your suggestion I have consulted the work of Maxwell in greater
>detail. As I understand, Maxwell used the mechanical models of
>'stress, strain, displacement' etc. only as mechanical illustrations
>to assist the imagination, but not to account for the phenomenon. In
>this regard let me reproduce some excerpts from an 1861 historic paper
>"On Physical Lines of Force" by J. C. Maxwell.
>
>[ I have found the geometrical significance of the "Electrotonic
>State," and have shown how to deduce the mathematical relations
>between the electrotonic state, magnetism, electric currents, and the
>electromotive force, using mechanical illustrations to assist the
>imagination, but not to account for the phenomenon. ...]
>
>Here there is a subtle difference between using mechanical models just
>for illustrations to assist the imagination and actually modeling the
>physical phenomenon as a mechanical system of stresses and strains in
>physical space. I agree that Maxwell actually wanted to model the
>electromagnetic phenomena with stress strain pattens in a physical
>medium but perhaps due to the prevailing intellectual environment, he
>used it only for analogies and mainly concentrated on developing an
>independent electromagnetic field model that accounts for physical
>observations.
>
>[We are dissatisfied with the explanation founded on the hypothesis of
>attractive and repellent forces directed towards the magnetic poles,
>even though we may have satisfied ourselves that the phenomenon is in
>strict accordance with that hypothesis, and we cannot help thinking
>that in every place where we find these lines of force, some physical
>state or action must exist in sufficient energy to produce the actual
>phenomena. My object in this paper is to clear the way for speculation
>in this direction, by investigating the mechanical results of certain
>states of tension and motion in a medium, and comparing these with the
>observed phenomena of magnetism and electricity. By pointing out the
>mechanical consequences of such hypotheses, I hope to be of some use
>to those who consider the phenomena as due to the action of a medium,
>but are in doubt as to the relation of this hypothesis to the
>experimental laws already established, which have generally been
>expressed in the language of other hypotheses. ....]
>
>[In the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal for January 1847,
>Professor William Thomson has given a "Mechanical Representation of
>Electric, Magnetic and Galvanic Forces" by means of the displacements
>of the particles of an elastic solid in a state of strain. .... The
>author of this method of representation does not attempt to explain
>the origin of the observed forces by the effects due to these strains
>in the elastic solid, but makes use of the mathematical analogies of
>the two problems to assist the imagination in the study of both.... ]
>
I think it is partly a case of semantics. Let us go back to basics.
Imagine you are in deep space. You can define a 'box' of space. If a
short flash of narrow beam light enters that box at some time and exits
that box at some time later then for a finite period that box contains
energy. Two options have dominated science. Option 1 that the box is
normally devoid of substance and that some thing travelling from source
to destination simply passes through the box on its way. Option 2 that
the box contains some substance, some sort of medium which can
temporarily store energy. That medium has been traditionally called the
aether. Energy is stored by the aether in the form of an 'altered state'
*analogous to* the stress in an elastic mechanical medium.
Unfortunately I know of no term having been coined to describe the
changed state in a medium and the word "stress" is frequently used as
shorthand which is OK provided it is understood that it is shorthand and
does not imply that the aether is a mechanical medium nor that it means
the same as mechanical stress.
Rather than my shorthand description "a field is a stress pattern in the
aether" one might substitute: "The electric field maps out the altered
state in the aether medium".
Certainly Maxwell and those who followed him considered the aether to be
physically real and capable of storing real physical energy.
>However, in my subject book titled "Fundamental Nature of Matter and
>Fields" I have modeled the origin and existence of all matter
>particles and the associated fields as dynamic stress strain patterns
>in the physical space continuum.
This is simply a modern version of aether theory which I have come
across before. This says that a fundamental level there is only aether
(or whatever name you want to call it). What we call matter particles
are stable concentration of the aether analogous to 'stable knots' in
the aether and the reason matter can travel at high speed through the
aether without disturbance or impediment is because matter and aether
are one and the same thing. If a matter particle is annihilated,
analogous to the knot coming undone, the energy flows out as waves in
the aether. This is not a new idea.
>
>>>> What Physics has done is to fudge the issue. It has accepted the no
>>>> aether doctrine without following it through. It has retained the idea
>>>> of the existence of an independent field, independent of anything
>>>> causing it. 'Space in which independent fields can exist' is simply a
>>>> renamed aether.
>>
>No, that is not quite true.
>There is no unanimity on the notion of aether, especially in view of
>the self contradictory properties being attributed to it. Aether is
>supposed to be an elastic solid, an ideal fluid, a nothingness type
>material medium that is also supposed to get 'drifted' and 'dragged'
>with massive bodies.
As Einstein pointed out the word aether has changed its meaning many
times. The basic concept of the aether is as I outlined above. A medium
which can store energy by means of an altered state. You are confusing
arguments of 'what the aether is' with arguments as to 'whether there is
an aether' and 'what the aether does'. Following from that is 'if there
is no aether how do we alternatively explain the things which the aether
was thought needed to explain?'.
> Above all, aether is supposed to be un-testable
>and un-detectable
This is a myth. Maxwell's aether theory gave at least two predictions
relating to the aether.
1/ Because the speed of light is controlled by and constant w.r.t the
aether the measured speed of light will be the sum of the speed of light
and the speed of the observer relative to the aether.
2/ Because the speed of light is controlled by and constant w.r.t the
aether the measured speed of light will be independent of the motion of
the source.
The MMX, and other experiments were intended to test 1 and failed. They
showed that it is impossible to detect motion w.r.t the aether. Lorentz
Poinceré and Einstein tried to explain why this is without abandoning
Maxwell's theory. However detecting the aether, i.e. showing it exists
rather than measuring our speed w.r.t it, is still possible by showing 2
is correct.
Light is produced by a physical process which is at least partly
understood. If light's speed is not a direct result of that physical
process, if you can show that light speed is not source dependent, then
you have shown that it is dependent upon something else which must take
control immediately light leaves the source. If you can show that light
speed is source independent then you have detected the existence of that
'something else' = the aether.
Of course relativists would say that this is nonsense. That the MMX
showed there is no aether. But if no aether then both 1 and 2 are
incorrect while SR assumes that the failure of 1 can be explained and
that 2 is still true. Relativists are not good when it comes to history
because it conflicts with their belief system.
>and its relationship with ordinary matter is
>supposed to be un-defined. Under these circumstances if physics could
>manage without the notion of aether, then what is the harm?
>
>On the other hand if we start with physical space and build our
>analysis on its measurable physical properties like the intrinsic
>impedance Z_0, then why should it be necessary to refer to this
>physical space by the old discredited name 'aether'?
So your whole point is that you don't want to use the word aether - you
want something which does the same thing and call it by a different
name. Why? If you believe that space contains something physical which
can store energy by means of an altered state - i.e. can support an
independent physical field - then it is an aether theory. Stick up for
what you believe in.
>
>>>How do you mentally visualize an 'independent field'?
>>
>> Einstein thought it through as follows:
>> ....
>Sorry, I didn't ask for Einstein's thoughts.
I quoted them as they expressed my own. If you have 'independent fields'
then either they consists of altered states in a medium, or they are
some form of matter which has to fit with our other views of matter.
This option says that a charge emanates "stuff" of some sort and the
field is made up of this 'stuff'. This 'stuff' can break away and lead a
separate existence producing an independent field. Like Einstein I feel
that of the two, sticking with a field being an altered state in a
medium is preferable however I believe there is a third option that
independent fields do not exist and neither does any aether medium.
>>
>> I personally do not believe that independent fields can exist because I
>> do not believe in the aether - the reason it was postulated is no longer
>> valid and I don't accept the alternative that a field consists of
>> mysterious physical stuff. The concept of a physical field should have
>> been junked when the aether was junked.
>>
>That leaves you nowhere!!
>You cannot afford to just 'close your eyes' on physical reality!
I believe my position is consistent and a logical starting point on
which to rebuild physics. One only has to look at history and remove
from it the human factor. Think about what should have happened without
the distortion caused by unsustainable belief and human egos.
Maxwell had a massive impact. He was described as the greatest physicist
since Newton but unfortunately it turns out that he was wrong. The
problem is that physicists refused to accept that he was wrong. Clung to
their beliefs and took physics via two divergent paths. That was a
century ago and physics has been getting screwed up ever since.
If you go back to Maxwell and look at the history.
Strike 1 - The MMX showed that one of the predictions of Maxwell was
wrong.
Stike 2 - Then Lord Raleigh used Maxwell's electrodynamics to predict
black body radiation and what it predicted was seriously wrong. What
became referred to as the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Strike 3 - Planck showed why - light is generated in quantized lumps.
Perhaps it was thought, having been generated in quantized lumps it
metamorphosed into waves as per Maxwell.
Strike 4 - Einstein showed that light arrived at the destination in the
same quantized lumps as Planck said they were generated in (The
photoelectric effect).
Put simply at no point does light become the waves of Maxwell's theory.
Maxwell may provide useful equations for engineers to design aerials
with but his theory is not suitable as a basis for building upon in
physics. The whole of physics should have been demolished and rebuilt
from the foundations up. It wasn't.
Light is made of particles so it doesn't need an aether - it would get
in their way. Our 'box in space' does not need to store energy merely
allow photons (which carry energy) to pass through it.
Do we still need the aether to explain other things? long before it was
pressed into service as a medium for light The aether was originally
proposed to explain action at a distance force between charges and
magnets. We now know that magnetism is explained by charge - they are
not different phenomena. So we need to understand how, at a distance one
charge affects another? When the aether was first suggested action at a
distance seemed to defy nature. You need a 'connecting rod' to transmit
a force so something physical, the aether was required to transfer the
force.
That was then. It can be seen as simply a limitation of human
imagination. Now we see *all* force acts at a distance. The force
between charges is no longer something we need to explain it is
something we need to get our head around and accept - just as I can get
my head around the fact that my oak desk is made up of atoms and an atom
is nearly all empty space. 'At a distance' is the natural way all force
acts. It is axiomatic. I believe if you want to get rid of the aether
rather than fudge the issue this is the way to go.
What then of a field. If a field is not mapping the altered state of the
aether medium then what? Well if action at a distance force is axiomatic
then the field around a charge is a 'field of influence'. It maps the
direction and magnitude of the action at a distance force which WOULD
exist IF a charge were put at any given point.
What this means however is that a field of influence cannot exist out in
space with nothing to be a source of influence. If experiment implies
that a field exists then there must be a charge causing it.
If photons have electromagnetic fields associated with them then photons
must contain charge (equal +ve and -ve obviously) and if we are going to
ever explain wave phenomena, properties such as frequency and wavelength
then I agree with Waldron that the charge must be spinning. In any case
there is other strong evidence that photons are linked with charge.
Maxwell's equations are built exclusively on relationships surrounding
charge and while his theory must be junked the predictive accuracy of
his equations must indicate a link between light and charge and
therefore between charge and photons.
I have just broken a taboo of physics. I have Maxwell and photons in the
same paragraph. I am guilty of mixing two entirely different branches of
physics both allowed to exist both dealing with light in their own way.
As I say physics diverged 100 years ago when it refused to accept what
experiment showed. It did not reject the disproved Maxwell's wave in
ether theory and the ideas which were dependent on it on the contrary
relativity, assumes that Maxwell's electrodynamics are impeccable. One
does not, as Einstein did, ditch 3 perfectly sensible and long
established axioms of physics relating to time mass and space for a
theory you have any doubts about. A corner stone of modern physics is
based on unsustainable BELIEF. Belief that contrary to the evidence a
theory is still impeccable.
>>>..........
>>>> A couple of decades later the aether became unpopular and the "no aether
>>>> doctrine" was accepted not because of any experiment which showed it did
>>>> not exist, nor through any theoretical wizardry but by the totally
>>>> arbitrary decision that physical interpretation was no longer to be
>>>> considered an essential compliment to the mathematics.
>>
>>>Do you consider it as an overbearing dominance of mathematics over
>>>physics or an overbearing dominance of mathematicians over physicists
>>>during the 20th century?
>>
>> According to one prominent physicist the three most important thing you
>> need to be a physicist are maths, maths, and maths. You cannot talk of
>> "the dominance of mathematics over physics" because you can no longer
>> define physics as being different to mathematics or distinguish between
>> physicists and mathematicians.
>>
>I don't agree with this viewpoint.
>A physicist needs to be a mathematician, a philosopher and an
>engineer; a three-in-one scientist.
>A mathematician does not bother about dimensional analysis and
>generally cares two hoots for the sanctity of physical dimensions.
>A physicist cannot afford to neglect dimensional analysis and
>maintains contact with physical reality through careful track of
>physical dimensions.
>A mathematician is mainly concerned with mathematical representations
>whereas a physicist is also concerned with physical interpretations of
>mathematical representations.
You would be accused of failing to understand modern physics. Of
clinging to old fashioned concepts. You would be told that nature has
been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly
imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. A
modern physicist is the 21st century shaman. He owes his status to the
fact that he deals in ideas beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.
--
John Kennaugh
PD
I said there were several. You said there were none. Here's one to get
you started.
Ole Roemer measured the speed of light (communication that has been
used since the dawn of time) in 1676.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Rømer
The telegraph was invented in 1809.
> In short,
> Who said it was possible before the telegraph was invented?
> in fact, who even had said the telegraph was possible?
> Sheesh PD.
> You truly are one funny rubber ruler guy!
You truly are one stubbornly ignorant guy!
Now, what do you suppose you could do to remedy that?
PD
> On Jun 24, 2:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 2:23 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
> > > through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
> > > wrong!!
>
> > That is bad science. The judgment of a theory is NOT based on the
> > "logic" or "causality" of its postulates. Those kinds of presumptions
> > are dangerous, because they are dependent on the structure of the
> > human mind.
>
> It is dangerous to underestimate the role and potential of human mind
> and brain. All theories, models and infact all science is the product
> of human mind. We are not 'gods' to produce any knowledge base without
> using the structure of the human mind.
That is not correct. If there is a conflict between what measurement
tells you and what the human mind conceives, then what must change is
the human concept set. Even basic human conceptual assumptions can be,
and are frequently, undermined by evidence presented by nature. This
is as it should be.
What follows such a realization is a mental shift to embrace a new set
of conceptual assumptions. Some people are more agile at this than
others. Those who are not, typically insist that it is a bad thing to
do so.
jem
As always, Kennaugh, you get it wrong. The modern strategy for
understanding the world, which /Science/ has adopted, hasn't been
adopted because Nature is "wierd" (whatever that means), but simply
because no one's come up with any strategy that leads to a greater
understanding of the world.
Maybe someday you'll remove the blinders and try to understand why the
approach you're constantly criticizing is the favored approach. Nah.
Spaceman
Yes,
If 2 objects traveling away from each other at c,
they are relatively moving FTL.
Simple as that.
But you still have the fact of the matter about humans
only being able to use the "limited communication factors" of today,
That is simply not proof that faster than c reactions between
mass does not occur.
It is simply the limit we see today.
Such as the limit we saw with sound long ago.
again,
simple as that.
:)
> Under the second postulate of SR, the requirement of constancy of
> velocity of light in vacuum was changed over to the requirement of
> constancy of the velocity of light in each of the infinitely many
> inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, by sacrificing
> the absolute nature of space and time coordinates.
>
> Let us consider a simple example to illustrate this point. Consider
> two space points A1 and A2 fixed in BCRF. Let us use the universal
> coordinated time UTC within BCRF. Assume that at certain instant of
> (UTC) time t0, one photon particle P1 is emitted from A1 towards A2
> and another photon particle P2 is emitted from A2 towards A1.
> Logically the relative approach velocity of the two particles, wrt
> each other, will be 2c. But SR will not agree with this logic. As per
> SR you will attach one reference frame with particle P1 and call it
> inertial reference frame K1 and attach another reference frame with
> particle P2 and call it inertial reference frame K2. Then SR will use
> its postulates to declare that in K1, particle P2 is approaching P1
> with approach velocity c and in K2 particle P1 is approaching P2 with
> approach velocity c.
>
> Do you consider it logical?
I do,
but the rubber ruler kingdom will need to bring in
the self limiting math known as a transform.
Spaceman
Thank you,
and..
I am really surprised that such "smart" people will ignore looking
for a clock fault and allow a meter that has a "speed" in it at all.
The bases of the problem with todays physics,
is the meter being a non standard variable when in motion,
and the acceptance of time being a variable instead of
scientific absolutes.
:)
It is the 2 most simple facts about science and measurement,
yet they will not accept it because they need to keep the
rubber ruler kingdom funded.
:)
Spaceman
Nice twist there PD.
Now find a person that said, they can communicate with sound,
faster than sound.
finding the speed of light has nothing to do with what I stated.
As I also stated. communicating at the speed of light
was done with smoke signals long ago.
I am talking about the limits of the communication speeds.
We did not know the limits back then, and we can not know
the physical limits (beyond our technology today)
The only proof is "lack of proof" so far.
and that is not proof at all.
> You truly are one stubbornly ignorant guy!
No,
you truly are a rubber ruler worshipping ignorant guy.
At least I know when "lack of proof" is not proof at all.
PD
Why? You can't communicate with sound faster than the speed of sound.
Nor can you communicate with light faster than the speed of light.
Nor can you communicate with any signal faster than the speed of the
signal.
There is a limit to the speed of the signal that has to do with the
mass of the carrier of the signal and that is a physical law. There is
obviously a lower limit on the mass of 0, and the limit in signal
speed in this case is c.
Now, consider what this means.
In order to have a signal propagation speed faster than c, then you
either have to
- break the law that ties signal speed to mass of carrier
- find a carrier that has a mass less than zero
I presume your faith that technology can overcome this is based in
something other than religious fervor.
Spaceman
> Why? You can't communicate with sound faster than the speed of sound.
> Nor can you communicate with light faster than the speed of light.
> Nor can you communicate with any signal faster than the speed of the
> signal.
Yippee!
He is grasping some of it finally.
Now all you will need to do is prove that something that
can move faster than the speed of light does not exist
at all so you will have the proof that it is impossible to
do such.
Have fun!
Or change your thoughts a bit and realize, there is no
physical proof yet that FTL can not exist "at all".
:)
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Why? You can't communicate with sound faster than the speed of sound.
> > Nor can you communicate with light faster than the speed of light.
> > Nor can you communicate with any signal faster than the speed of the
> > signal.
>
> Yippee!
> He is grasping some of it finally.
> Now all you will need to do is prove that something that
> can move faster than the speed of light does not exist
Please reread what I wrote about the connection between the speed of
the signal and the mass of the signal carrier.
What YOU need to prove is that there is a signal carrier that either
has a mass less than zero or that can break the physical law tying the
speed of the signal and the carrier mass.
Spaceman
> On Jun 24, 11:44 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Why? You can't communicate with sound faster than the speed of
>>> sound. Nor can you communicate with light faster than the speed of
>>> light. Nor can you communicate with any signal faster than the
>>> speed of the signal.
>>
>> Yippee!
>> He is grasping some of it finally.
>> Now all you will need to do is prove that something that
>> can move faster than the speed of light does not exist
>
> Please reread what I wrote about the connection between the speed of
> the signal and the mass of the signal carrier.
Please read what I have said about a different signal carrier
we have not detected yet.
sheesh!
> What YOU need to prove is that there is a signal carrier that either
> has a mass less than zero or that can break the physical law tying the
> speed of the signal and the carrier mass.
No,
To say it might be possible, needs no proof,
To say it is impossible needs the proof.
You need to show the proof of the impossibility.
So far, you have no proof.
and so far .. I have no proof either, but I have not
said it IS definitely possible.
You are lacking such "antiproof" you need.
I at least know no proof has been made either way.
:)