Thanks for your answer Christian.  I have numbered the peripheral questions so that we can hone-in on their answers.

Regards, Bernardo.

Dear  Bernardo : 

Because  special theory of relativity is invalid.

An electron passes by our lab at speed v. According to length contraction, its Compton (not de Broglie) wavelength must contract as observed from the lab. Therefore, by the spatiotemporal (ST) relation λf=c its Compton frequency must be observed to have increased. If the Compton frequency of an electron can be considered a clock, how is this contradiction explained?

Bernardo.

Bernardo,

I the idea behind debunking relativity should not even be part of the question.  The reason is that like all theories Relativity is just a mathematical approximation method.  There will be at some time a better way to look at the entire system and the idea behind science is to discover better and better ways to find the best approximation.

There are ways to set up systems to prove and or to disprove ALL the theories.  We in the scientific community have become complacent in our inability to come up with better ideas.  This is what is fueling the push by the publishing companies to never publish any work that does not match what they think is correct.  This in my opinion is why we have not gone further in science that we have today.

If we would give up on some of the notions of the past and allow better answers to be put forward we would have better science.  Relativity is a classical model that has some remarkable ability to predict.  This does not mean that is is correct but rather that it is much better than the old model.  Part of the problem comes in defining the issues with the theories. 

Here is one example of what I am talking about.  In relativity and for that matter in all gravity theories, gravity is a (field, force) force felt over all distances from the center of an object that has mass.  The problem is that forces and fields take energy to product and or maintain and therefore there is only a given amount of energy that any mass has available to produce a gravity field or force.  This means that there is a limit to gravity and that limit is dictated by Planck's constant.  Therefore gravity has to be seen as a limited force.  Albert Einstein put his famous "Cosmological Constant" in his equations of General Relativity not for this reason but for the reason that he thought the Universe was static.  It turns out that we seem to have to have this constant in the equations or the theory does not work as good as if we left out the constants. 

In my estimation this is one of the biggest problems in science today.  If we understood the real force that creates gravity we would have to see that it is a limited force in space and time.

So I think that you will not resolve the issue of this question until we solve the issue of the limits of gravity and thereby understand why we see things like this happen.

George 

George,

Thanks for your answer.

I added the "debunking of relativity" statement because I wanted to convey the message that my question is about understanding the interpretation of two particular aspects of SR that appear contradictory to me, not about considering it invalid, as Sheng Liu has stated to believe. The two particular aspects are length contraction and clock retardation, when applied to Compton or de Broglie properties.

On the second part of your answer, I fail to see how a lack of understanding of gravity affects the answer to my question, since SR was formulated in the absence of forces.

Bernardo.

Sorry for the confusion on the SR as I was thinking of GR.  And yes it has the forces applied to it but the idea behind the theory being wrong should be let go.  Both are valid in the limits that work for the theory.  I think that we are convinced that the theories are more than just theory and this is why we will never advance in the science.  We must understand that both SR and GR are vary good approximations of gravity in a static field and in a dynamic field.  

I do not understand how SR is in the absence of force?  The theory was formulated to show that it was impossible to distinguish between the gravity field and the pulling force of an accelerated body in a static or strait line motion.  Are these not forces?  Can you please explain?

Special Relativity is just the strait line or static force of gravity and its equivalence to an acceleration.

I think I may be missing something?

George 

George,

I was thinking of Einstein's original first postulate of SR that refers to inertial systems (non-accelerated frames of reference), which I interpret to mean "in the absence of forces". That may not be the right interpretation, so maybe I'm missing something.

Bernardo.

Thank you.  I was just under the impression that any work that involved gravity has to consider either a moving field or a static field both of which are forces.

George    

As far as Einstein's postulates are concerned there are many things that have never been considered.  I think that when he proposed Relativity in 1905 there were only two postulates that he based the theory on. 

1) The Relativity Principle of Galileo.

2) The Light Postulate 

Both were simple in nature one just said that the laws of physics should appear the same to all freely moving bodies.  Which makes sense until you start to look at it closer in the light of forces that are uniformly applied to things.  The second stated that we always see light at the speed c ( 299 792 458 m / s) because the speed of light is independent of the source that emitted the light.  This one has always made my skin crawl.  I think that we misunderstand light and what it is made of.  Light even to Albert Einstein had a physical meaning and in this definition it does not have a physical meaning, it has a metaphysical meaning.  In other words in this way of looking at light we are looking at it as having a special place in physics that no other thing has and that is the lack of Relativity.

I think that Albert's theories are some of the most brilliant work ever done.  There is work to be done on the meanings that we assign to his work.  I have been contemplating Relativity for more than 40 years and have come to some remarkable conclusions based on the Philosophical approach to the science which allows one to understand the meanings of the work.    

George

George,

The constancy of the speed of light is a mystery that I believe is probably the most meaningful of all, if we are ever to decipher the nature of Reality. If you are interested, I uploaded recently a monograph on that very subject, where the speed of light is treated from the unconventional point of view of Information Theory. At first this point of view may appear strange to you, but at the end I obtain some interesting results.

I know this is outside the context of the present thread, but you may download it from my profile if you wish. If you do, I would love your feedback on its document page so as not to clutter this thread. The same goes for anyone following this thread that may be interested.

Regards, Bernardo.

George,

I think light has a special place in physics, the revolution of quanta of light made by Planck on 1900 tell us something...

Christian,

I share your thoughts.  I realized a long time ago that relativity was a good approximation of gravity and that it had nothing to do with anything other than being able to calculate gravity as curved space and time were meaningless out of the equations.  This was meant to be a way to look at it that allowed people and math to be used to calculate gravity.  Some how in science a beautiful equation replaces reality.

Bernardo,

I would love to look at the work you have done.  Yes the consistence of light is a mystery but only if you think of it as a wave and not a particle.

Truly the only thing we can say about light is that "we" only see it at the speed of light.  Our frame of reference is one that is fixed when it comes to looking at light.  In other words we only see light at this speed in the presence of matter and that speed is constant in the presents of matter.  So the only thing we can really say about light is that is travels at "c" in the presents of matter.

This has some big implications for our inability to show any different.  In other words we no matter how fast we move an object only see the light after it has passed through matter that is in our reference frame at our speed and there for the light has the fixed speed of "c" .  Light does not travel to our detectors or our eyes through true vacuum without being in the close or contact of other much more massive particles or atoms and molecules. 

Just because we have not seen it at different speeds does not give it a special place that does not have to follow the rules of physics.  

We have been going down the rabbit hole for now more than 100 years and it has kept us from unifying Phyisics.

Stefano,

Max Planck is one of the people that is under appreciated in Physics and should be studied more for his fundamental work. 

At the time that he came up with the idea that the photon was a particle it had been excepted for more than 200 years that light was a wave.  This was just because we could use a wave equation to predict its flow and movement and much about it.  This should have been replaced by Max Planck's work and new dynamics should have been set up, but they were not and instead a wave particle duality was proposed.

Just because a wave equation can predict with great accuracy the movement or placement of something does not make it true.  This is a logical fallacy.  The particle of light just looks like a wave as it has to spin through space.

We can better describe light as a string than a point particle.  We can also better describe light as a string that was ejected from an atom at the speed of light that is spinning through space and time with little resistance as it has so small of an existence that it is undetectable as mass.

Max Planck's work is vital to getting the problem solved of why we have not had a unification of Physics.  He was on the right path and so was Albert Einstein until they both, loving the wave theory so much, gave in to the idea that it was both. 

A photon is a particle that looks like a wave as it traverses any media.  It is bent, reflected, focused, and all the other things that go along with it being something tangible but as scientists "Have we just given up on the idea that it is real?"  Even Albert, said that "the quanta seems to really exist in nature"  This meaning that it was not really a wave at all but a particle.

I think I am beating a dead horse here but "we can not fix the problems of today by the thinking that put us here."  This is another Albert quote...   

Stefano,

Yes, "light has a special place in physics", a very special place. I'm convinced that photons are neither waves nor particles, they are the transactional currency of Reality and that Reality is a discrete event system or at least it behaves like one.

I keep repeating almost as a mantra through all of my monographs on the infrastructure of Reality that the structural properties of an object although they are the existence of that object they are not always what define it. A calculator can be made out of strings and beads, metal gears and levers or electronic circuits, but it is still a calculator. What I'm trying to say is that to understand an object we should concentrate on its behavioral properties rather than its structural ones.

In other words, we shouldn't churn away our time worrying endlessly about what matter or light is made out of, as long as we fully understand its behavioral properties.

Who cares if we are not part of an objective reality, because no matter what Reality is made out of, we still perceive it as such.

What I have found is that by looking at Reality as a pure information system then I seem to be able to understand it better. So I decided to examine Reality as composed of wavicles instead of particles because wavicles are easier to model by information theory than particles are. Consequently, instead of worrying bout whether we are material or not I just redefined what is material.

I don't think this is too far from what you fellows are saying.

I think you are on a good track.  I agree that it does not matter what you call it or it looks like as long as you can predict what it is going to do.

The problem that I have is that there are some differences in how you look at something and then how it is used by that look.  Science is looking at it only from one standpoint and this limits the ability to understand the particle.

George

The basic difference between clasical physics including classical theories including GR and SR with quantum mechanics is that ligth and light quanta do not behave at all like ordinary matter do:

photons are holistic, total absorption or no interaction at all... their pure energy is independent on the gravitational potential, they develop property like entanglement an action at a distance always due to their holistic properties.

Getting back to my original question, it seems to me that either, the question has obvious answers and RG researches are bored with it, or it doesn't have any convincing answers. I know that questions like this one seem to be plaguing the RG forum, but I think this one is legitimate, at least to me.

Needless to say, without any input from RG, this is my take on it:

Therefore:

Your comments please. 

George, point taken.

Stefano,

I agree.

In my terminology, I believe that what you are saying is that photons are infrareal and therefore atemporal.

I also believe that what we see as light is a transitional event path, that's why light has different velocities in different mediums. This is of course an extremely difficult assertion to defend, considering all the properties of light, but I believe it is on the right track (no pun intended).

To all following this question:

I have not had any explicit comments/answers on my question for a couple of days. There can be many reasons for this, but at least I would like to know if some of you agree/disagree with my conclusion that if the energy and momentum formulations of SRT are valid and if the wavelength of a wavicle is a length in terms of SRT and wavicles can be clocks, then the frequency of clocks must increase with relative speed, not decrease.

I know this is not the accepted interpretation of SRT, but I am looking forward to and would appreciate your comments.

Regards, Bernardo.

Dear Christian:

I address these comments to you, because as an accelerator physicist, you have first hand experience with SRT's validity in regards to energy and momentum.

Energy and momentum are conjugate variables to time and displacement, respectively, because of their direct proportionality to temporal and spatial frequency (E=hf, p=hσ), therefore, frequency must dilate and wavelength (λ=1/σ) must contract with relative speed. In other words, energy and momentum are just different representations of temporal and spatial frequency in mass vs. ST units.

Contraction of length and dilation of time are seen as a contradiction of SRT when applied to wavicles, but I believe this contradiction is an interpretational contradiction and it does not invalidate SRT, as follows.

Length contraction can be interpreted as spatial contraction, but the interpretation is a wrong interpretation of the relativistic effect, because absolute space (the dimension) does not contract, the ruler does. In other words if you really need to talk about spatial contraction you must make it clear that it is an apparent effect and that length contraction is a real one.

The same can be said about time dilation; absolute time (the dimension) does not dilate, temporal frequency increases.

I believe that the apparent "time dilation" relativistic effect should have been referred to as "time contraction", thus leading to "period contraction", which would then be equivalent to a real frequency increase effect. There is no contradiction; just an unfortunate choice of words.

In conclusion, all of this means of course is that all experiments confirming relativistic clock frequency decrease, need to be reconsidered.

Regards, Bernardo. 

William,

Thanks for the document reference. I read it and I agree with it almost completely, except for their explanation for the artifact of clock frequency change, which they attribute to different values for the speed of light. I attribute it to SRT and the ST relation of Reality, where c is not a speed, but an ST scale-constant. I posted my explanation for the apparent time dilation effect in my previous comments to Christian.

Bernardo.

William,

I fully agree with your comments on the nature of light.

I believe the speed of light has been misinterpreted since it was postulated by SRT.

From an informatics point of view, the spatiotemporal relation (λf=c) defines the absolute relation between a spatial and the temporal dimension, and therefore it is a constraint on wavicle motion. In other words it defines the resolution of Reality as well as the maximum allowable wavicle velocity, putting a limit on the observable flow of information.

I say observable information flow, because, as entanglement and gravity suggest, atemporal (infrareal: non-local, non-observable) informational transactions must be occurring between wavicles. I believe this is what photons are; they are neither particles nor wavicles, thus making all motion discrete-transactional.

If you are interested in these concepts you can read the attached monograph.

Bernardo.

Research Matter-waves and Discrete-transitional Motion

      Dear Bernardo,

      Let me try to help to understand your question:

   1. When you say that time increase or frequency decrease when the velocity with increased speed this sentence is out of SRT. Notice that there are no an inertial observer allowing it. What happens in SRT is that systems with high speed (close to the velocity of light) their time goes much slowly than others with smaller relative velocity with respect the one of light.

     But I am sorry to say that you are making a wrong association, from my humble point of view, because period of a wave is not the same as the relativistic coordinate time of SRT. Notice that every electromagnetic wave has a finite period of time while their proper time associated to SRT is infinite, or in your words: its frequency would be zero.

     2. On the other hand, when you say that the de Broglie waves increase in frequency, I suppose that you think that at higher linear momentum corresponds higher wavelength and therefore the frequency must increase for keeping the velocity constant. That is right but notice that this reasoning is independent of the Lorentz transformations or SRT. No inertial observer is needed at all.

    Thus the comparison between both behaviours is not right from this point of view, perhaps it is due that the although the experiments of Davisson-Germer are made in parallel to the one of Compton, confusing the quantum behaviour of a photon ( wave function) with the electromagnetic wave, which are absolutely different.

I hope that this can help to the discussion.

Dear Daniel:

Thanks for your interest in clarifying my question.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the question is not about the mathematical logic and validity of SRT, but about its physical interpretation.

Also, the question is not about the frequency of electromagnetic waves so that when I use the term frequency I am referring to a clock and/or de Broglie wave. That is, ticks/s or cycles/s.

Part of the question is also about whether de Broglie waves may be considered or used as clocks. I believe this is a valid question because de Broglie waves are a behavioral property of matter not a structural one. Nevertheless, de Broglie wave properties are a very real and measurable property of matter.  The wave (Compton or de Broglie) properties of matter (particles) is what I refer to as wavicle properties.

The question then boils down to, if wavicle properties can be used as clocks, why is time dilation interpreted as frequency decrease for clocks and as frequency increase for wavicles?

What am I missing?

Regards, Bernardo.

     Dear Bernardo,

     I think that your thought is too general and it is not true. Let me just to enter in your sentence:

     "frequency increase for wavicles"

    This is not true in general, because it depends of the relative motion between the source of the waves and the observer. If they are approaching each other, the frequency increase, but it do the opposite if they separate.

     Notice that you do a very difficult identification when you associate "cycle" or "frequency" with time. The Lorentz scalar which relates them is

        kaxa=invariant

where a=0,1,2,3 and being ka=(ω/c , k) and xa=(-ct, x). This has to be valid for every wave that you want to relate with one observer.

    If you want we can enter in the de Broglie waves but that needs to be treated in another form. Notice that the wave functions belongs to a diffusion equation and no to a wave equation.

Dear DaniEl, 

Please explain .

     Dear Stefano,

    I supose that you refer to enter in the discussion of comparing the ordinary frequencies with the ones associated to the de Broglie waves. For such aim I am only to remember that the interpretation of de Broglie waves was given by Born, who put forward the idea that the quantity that describes the state of the particle—that is, its wave function Ψ, whose square defines the probability of finding a particle at various points and at various moments of time—is subject to wave laws. For a free particle, ǀΨ|2 = const—that is, the probability of finding a particle at all points is the same. Thus, de Broglie waves are probability waves rather than physical, material waves.

   Obviously trying to relate a "clock" measure of time to such "waves" is impossible, at least for me. And in any case, these "waves" is natural that they behave in very different form that the ordinary physical ones. The euphemism used is to call them "matter waves", which is a form to say that they provide only a density of probability of finding a particle in the space at global time.

Daniel,

I guess I'm not expressing myself clearly.  My statement "frequency increase for wavicles" was meant to be "relativistic frequency increase for wavicles". And by that I mean the relativistic (de Broglie) frequency property of matter.

I suppose that you can argue that de Broglie waves are not real, but that is a very debatable subject. There are numerous interference experiments that prove that the wave properties of matter are observable, and in my opinion, if a property is observable it is real. At least in the same sense that the momentum property is real.

Let's not confuse our mathematical constructs with Reality, whatever that is. In other words, mass, momentum, energy, probability density, wavefunction, frequency, wavelength, etc., are mathematical constructs used to describe the behavioral properties of matter, not used to describe its Real structure.

What Einstein and de Broglie did, was to discover that some of these properties can be expressed in terms of each other, E=mc2, E=hf, p=h/λ, etc., but these relations assert nothing about the Real structural properties of matter.

In other words, energy is as real as temporal frequency, momentum is as real as spatial frequency, etc.

My conclusion is, that relativistic effects have to be identical for all equivalent properties or we are not interpreting SRT properly.

Bernardo.

    Dear Bernardo,

    It is not a question of language. In relativity the frequencies are related as

       fobserver= fsource of wave [(1+β)/(1- β)]1/2

and β is positive + when the source is approaching the observer, if it is going away β is negative -.

Respect to the de Broglie waves, they are always treated in Quantum Mechanics context, if you want to treat them as relativistic then you need to employ Dirac formalism. But in any case, one field of probabilities is far of being interpreted its behaviour, using the period of the wave functions as the coordinate time. Conceptually, both things are very far one of each other. 

Daniel,

Of course it is a question of language.  My question (natural language) is about the interpretation (natural language) of the relativistic de Broglie wave equation (mathematical language).

The equation, fo = fs [(1+β)/(1- β)]1/2 looks to me as a Doppler equation of light coming from a moving source relative to an observer, not the relativistic relation of  the frequency of a de Broglie wave moving relative to an observer.

In any case, this thread is about a question to be hopefully answered, not an assertion to be disputed. It is about an explanation for the relativistic de Broglie relation, f=γE0/h, which implies that if total energy increases with relative velocity, then so does de Broglie frequency.

If the equation is wrong or not applicable, I would like to understand why. If it is applicable then I would like to understand why it is contradictory or it appears to be so.

By the way, I understand if my language appears to be impatient to you, but you must realize that phrases like "always treated" and "you need to employ" are dogmatic to me (I'm a systems engineer) and not very helpful to my understanding.

Also, if a natural language explanation for the apparent contradiction is not possible, then I would like to understand why, if that is possible.

So you see, it is a question of language.

Thanks, Bernardo.

     Dear Bernardo,

     First of all, let me to apologize if my form of writing doesn't like you. Sorry!

     If I say that is not a question of language, is that your relationships, that you see as contradictory are not sense physically. Let me try to put an example that I am just thinking now: the frequency that people has a cancer in Rome is not possible to identify with the frequency that the moon appears in my city. Both are frequencies but not with a period of time that depend in the same form of an inertial observer.  

   Going to your formula

         f=γE0/h

all that I can see is the Planck quantum of energy where you used the relation

         T= t/γ

and this is not allowed to do, because gamma depends of the coordinates or the observer, while the quantum of energy doesn't do it. I think that it not interesting in entering in de Broglie formalism, because the basic idea that we are discussing is the same, although with more complex concepts involved.

Daniel,

No need to apologize, I was trying to explain why my language could seem impatient.  I meant that the phrases were dogmatic to me because of my mathematical limitations, not that they were dogmatic in the general sense.  I should have been more clear.

By the way, the equation f=γE0/h is not mine it is from Wikipedia (please see the attached link).  Maybe I should improve my sources.

I have not assimilated you answer yet.  I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Bernardo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Special_relativity

Christian,

It seems to me that the Dirac statement you quoted is referring to a de Broglie wave representing a light-quanta not a particle, in which case I don't think it necessarily applies.

I do agree with you about whether a de Broglie frequency can be used or not as the analogue of a macroscopic clock. That's why I added it as part of my question.

I disagree with your statement about wave-ensemble properties because they can be considered as equivalent properties in the same sense we refer to their ensemble mass property. I think this is OK because of the linearity property.

In the time dilation expression, do the t' and t represent temporal intervals (number of ticks of a clock)? If so, dilation means enlargement, so a larger t' should mean more ticks in terms of t, which would mean higher frequency. I know this is not the accepted interpretation, but please humor me and let me explain my thinking.

We speak of length contraction and that is interpreted to mean contraction of the spatial measuring ruler, not contraction of the spatial dimension.  Then we speak of time dilation in terms of dilation of the temporal dimension not of the temporal measuring ruler (clock). This type of mixed interpretation is a perfect formula for confusion, at least for me.

Daniel says it is not a matter of language, but I believe that the language used is crucial to the proper physical interpretation of mathematical formulations.

It seems counter intuitive to me to mess with the concept of simultaneity in order to explain what may be a lexical confusion.

Then of course there is the highly possible case that I just don't understand the math that correctly explains the situation and the confusion is mine.

Bernardo.

   Dear Bernardo,

   I think that in this link finishes saying that the de Broglie waves were wrong if they were to represent real waves, as I have told you. In fact the solution to this problem was given by Max Born and Erwin Schrodinger. The waves were substitute by "wave funtions" (horrible name) whose square is the only to have physical meaning as the density of probability of finding a given particle in space-time region.

   Frankly speaking, I think that this link is very confused and I understand you if you follow it jumping from equation to equation without explaining the physical conditions to follow them.

Thanks for the link Christian.  I will take a look at it and see what I can get out of it.

    Dear Christian,

    Although I do not see what is the relation with question, your paper is very interesting. You work with the symmetric part of the algebra naturally associated to the energy ( Hamiltonian, Energy-Momentum tensor, etc) while I have been working with the pure antisymmetric associated to the fields: the exterior algebra of differential forms.

    I had a project to use both in a pricipal fiber bundle for representing the four interactions as gauge theories. It could take a lot of time, but I think that it could summarize quite well all the mathematical formalisms for field theories. I have made that for classical electrodynamics as you can see in my contributions.

    In the printing they have made some mistakes as in 45 and 46 formulae.

DeAr ChristiAn, 

Infact the DeBroglie frequency is given by the couplinG of the two complex Dirac Spinors as it is writem on the Penrose.  The coupling Constant of the spinors is determined by the scalar Higgs field.