According to Mach's Principle remote masses of the universe may be assumed to have some influence on local phenomena like, in particular, the appearance of inertial forces. As mentioned in a recent discussion on "aether", see reference below, the cumulative gravitational potential of remote masses is about 108 times larger than the local potential of the sun at the earth's distance. Close to the sun's surface the local potential of the sun according to lower distance is about two orders of magnitude larger which is still 106 times smaller than the cumulative potential originating from background masses of the universe. Interesting to note that the Shapiro delay when being assigned to a local retardation of luminal speed due to some locally enhanced gravitational potential this will have a relative effect of similar order.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Dear Antoine,
Fantastic! Theoreticians are wasting their time, why do we need General Relativity? We take Maxwell equations for gravitational field and introduce the equivalent to the electric field and magnetic field in gravitation. Good! Very good! Why not quantum gravitomanetic field in parallel to QED or perhaps better, why not the Yang-Mills equations instead of Maxwell equations? The four interactions will be exactly one and the Standard Model would be exactly a gauge model taking everything that we have nowadays so separated.
Perfect Antoine! Go ahead!
Dear Johan,
The velocity of the light only depends of electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum which are independent of the gravitation. Perhaps if we could find a unified theory in the future this could be a good test. Notice that in such a case even the Hubble constant would be needed to reconsider and most of the nowadays assumed cosmological concepts.
Dear Johan
J D Franson ([email protected]) published an interesting article in the New Journal of Physics (16 (2014) 065008 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008) about ``Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential." In his contribution, he considered the effects of including the gravitational potential energy of massive particles in the Hamiltonian of quantum electrodynamics, which resulted in a correction to the speed of light that is proportional to the fine structure constant. Accordingly, the correction to the speed of light obtained in this way depends on the gravitational potential and not the gravitational field, which is not gauge invariant and presumably nonphysical and the predicted results are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations from Supernova 1987a. Otherwise, as pointed also out by the author, this is not a general relativity treatment, and the way I see, the lack of general covariance is an element that can transform his results into non-physical ones. The answer given by Daniel Baldomir about the independence of the graviton on the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum is very interesting in the sense that opens a door in the direction of figuring out the quantum nature or essence of the graviton. Anyway, one should remember that Einstein predicted that the velocity of light, c(r), would be reduced by a gravitational potential, represented by Phi(r) as =>
c(r) = c(0) ( 1 + 2 Phi(r)/c^3(0) ) (c(0) is the speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame) (Einstein A 1911 Ann. Phys. 35, 898). One should thus consider that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is not a constant, but rather a variable depending upon the coordinates of the (non inertial) reference frame of the observer. And that only in local inertial frames the measured speed of light equals the nominal speed of light (which corresponds in this case to Phi(r) = 0). In this sense, it seen to me, the answer to your question would be yes. However, the magnitude of the effect must be related to the ratio Phi(r)/c^3(0) making this effect probably small from the observational point of view. It is interesting to measure to see.
Dear Cesar,
thank you very much for linking to the 2014 paper by J.D. Franson which clearly relates to Einstein's ideas about the influence of local gravitational potential. It appears rather strange, however, that only few authors, in particular, Ernst Mach and James C. Keith, see reference below, take into consideration the very much higher contribution to local gravitational potential originating from background masses of the universe.
Dear Johan
Well I have no comment on your statement, but it is clear that Einstein in 1911 pointed out the influence of local gravitational potentials in the value of the local velocity of light. all the best.
"Notice that in such a case even the Hubble constant would be needed to reconsider and most of the nowadays assumed cosmological concepts."
Dear Daniel,
serious revision would, in fact, be a good idea !!
Dear Johan,
I agree that it would be nice to find a revision of the present cosmology, but it must be serious. The velocity of light is important factor but it seems to be quite well established as a fundamental simple fact:
1. Since the oldest cosmological measurements in cosmology its velocity has been assumed and measured as a constant.
2. Maxwell equations tell us that C=(Ɛ0μ0)-1/2 which only depends of the electromagnetic features of the vacuum, not on the gravity interaction, Hamiltonians, etc...It is very simple.
3. By Optics we know perfectly that this velocity changes in materials with different pemittivity and permeability. This also gives a very exact measurements by, for instance, means of the refraction index.
4. General Relativity and Special Relativity are based in the constance of the light velocity.
5. Mach's principle is very appealing but very difficult to apply to the constant of the light velocity, as you can see, because it only takes into account gravitational energy, which in principle doesn't change the electromagnetic vacuum.
"gravitational energy, which in principle doesn't change the electromagnetic vacuum."
Dear Daniel,
that's surely the general line of sight, and what textbooks make us believe. Here is what Professor Vasconcellos stated yesterday in the present discussion: "it is clear that Einstein in 1911 pointed out the influence of local gravitational potentials in the value of the local velocity of light."
Dear Johan,
I think that we have a misunderstood among us. In general relativity the velocity of light c is always invariant and with the same value,i.e. ds2=0. There is no doubt and if it didn't follow such statement this theory would be not well defined at all. Perhaps what Professor Vasconcellos refers (I don't know that Einstein said such a thing) is that we may measure the speed of light at a distant location to be less than c is because spacetime is curved by mass/energy. Thus the coordinates that you use for measuring spacetime will not match the coordinates used by a distant observer, and that's why the two of you measure different values for the speed of light. In practice, this can be solved by Einstein's equations to find out how spacetime curves relative to your co-ordinate system. Notice that your question would be easily fall in this false interpretation because if you have a great gravitational potential and therefore energy, you have also great curvature. But the velocity of light cannot notice it locally although a distant observe can measure a lower velocity of light.
In any case, Match's principle doesn't follow and the potential locally cannot change the velocity of light, only wrong considerations of distant coordinates systems could provide lower velocities of light taking into account the spacetime curvature associated to the energy-momentum tensor.
"I don't know that Einstein said such a thing"
Dear Daniel,
Einstein in 1911 postulated clocal = c0(1 + Φ/c2) with c0 denoting the "vacuum" speed of light, and Φ the local gravitational potential originating from a local mass. In 1916 he updated to clocal = c0(1 + 2Φ/c2). We should be aware, however, that Φ didn't include the cumulated gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe which amounts to about 106 times the gravitational potential at the sun's surface, and about 108 times the sun's potential at our location.
When measuring the local speed of light at half our distance from the sun it should turn out smaller by about 10-8* of the value measured at our location, which should be in reach of state-of-the-art instrumentation.
*amendment (2 days later): previous value 10-6 was wrong - did anyone notice?
Dear Johan,
In 1911 Einstein tried to use the redshift effect to show experimentally the physical impact of the relativity and he assumed the change of time flow of the electromagnetic fields under a gravitational potential. Using just special relativity he introduced the metric
ds2=(-1+2V(r)/c2) (cdt)2 +dx2+dy2+dz2
where the frequency changes in function of the point within the gravitational potential. But this is very different to say that he has deduced the change of the velocity of light in function of the potential V(r). Relativity always assume a constant velocity c in vacuum independent of the observer, emitter or gravitation potentials. Light must follow the geodesic which obviously is determined by potentials or energy stored in spacetime.
Dear Johan,
You were right that he wrote your result in
http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
But this is written by no inertial observers and this result is a little confusing because he mixtures special relativity with non inertial observers.
"Relativity always assume a constant velocity c in vacuum independent of the observer"
Dear Daniel,
so you think that c as measured in a lab orbiting halfway between earth and sun will be exactly the same as the one measured on earth? Do you know of any attempt to do such an experiment?
P.S.
Thanks a lot for linking to PDF version of Einstein's original paper. Interesting to note what Einstein states in the last sentence of that paper: "Denn abgesehen von jeder Theorie muss man sich fragen, ob mit den heutigen Mitteln ein Einfluss der Gravitationsfelder auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes sich konstatieren lässt." - English translation via DeepL: "For, apart from any theory, one has to ask oneself whether the influence of the gravitational fields on the propagation of light can be ascertained with today's means."
Dear Johan,
My expertise is in Electromagnetism although as theoretician I have also a training in Relativity. Thus I have no idea of how the velocity of light, which only depends of the electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum, can change with gravitational energy. Einstein's equations only give a curvature of the spacetime with the energy-momentum tensor. Thus we can have a curvature for the velocity of light and thus apparent projected velocity, but its real value is for me impossible to follow. Frankly I would like to know if this is a mistake of Einstein or if there is a real explanation which I don't see.
"I have no idea of how the velocity of light, which only depends of the electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum, can change with gravitational energy."
Dear Daniel,
in view of our search for a unified theory of electromagnetism and gravity why should we exclude any mutual dependence in vacuum space?
Dear Johan,
This unification theory doesn't exist for the moment and the velocity of the light is same that Maxwell has found in XIXth century. Do you understand the arguments of Einstein in the paper of 1911? Could you explain them?
"Do you understand the arguments of Einstein in the paper of 1911? Could you explain them?"
Dear Daniel,
as I understand Einstein's paper he would have come into trouble when trying to explain gravitational red shift by loss of periods arriving per unit time at an observer on earth, as compared to the number of periods per unit time sent off from a massive star's surface. He resolved the problem by adaptation of clock rates at the respective locations according to the local gravitational potential. So he eventually came to the conclusion that gravitational red shift should be explained as resulting from an equivalent slowing down of luminal speed due to loss of potential energy.
Dear Johan,
The gravitational redshift doesn't need at all to change the velocity of the light. It only needs to consider the change of frequency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"It only needs to consider the change of frequency"
Dear Daniel,
I understand that this is where Einstein in his 1911 paper started from and which took him to the speed of light solution.
Dear Johan,
As you can see in wikipedia don't need to change the velocity of light for explaining the gravitational redshift.I repeat that this only depends of the electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum and no of gravitation at all, in all that I know. And I would be very surprise if somebody could show such a relationship.
"As you can see in wikipedia ..."
Dear Daniel,
apart from Wikipedia it appears worthwhile to have a closer look sometimes also at the original literature ...
And what if we take the Maxwell equations with damping?
(Inside the 'empty space' of course...)
An example of a numerical integration:
http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/08072108X?journalCode=sjoce3
The relevant constant has a very small value, but if we deal with cosmological distances, then it becomes significant.
Dear Johan,
It is not a question of reading new literature but to understand what one is reading. The question is how is possible to change the velocity of light by gravitation if only depends of electromagnetic constants? If you or other person can explain that I would be very grateful and very surprise too.
Dear Demetris,
Maxwell equations are independent of gravitation and therefore also their solutions. It is true that you can write electrodynamics within a Riemann spacetime changing the Minkowski's metric by one of Riemann, but it is very well studied in the literature and never can be obtained anything which makes the velocity of light gravitational dependent.
"If you or other person can explain that I would be very grateful and very surprise too."
Dear Daniel,
what is your comment on Einstein's 1911 arguments (see our yesterday's dicussion above) in favour of luminal speed retardation due to enhanced gravitational potential? See also our parallel discussion linked below on Shapiro delay.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Shapiro_delay_slowing_of_c_or_path_increase?_ec=topicPostOverviewFollowedQuestions
Dear Johan,
I think that we have a misunderstood between us. I know that Einstein and Shapiro using Einstein's theory of gravitation says that time slows on a strong gravitational field and therefore they say that the velocity of light must decrease. This is ok and I understand it!
But on the other hand Electrodynamics (Classical or Quantum) tell me that the velocity of light only depends of two constants in vacuum and it is independent of the state of motion.
Thus how is possible to say where is the problem? For me it is clearly shown that the velocity of light only depends of the permittivity and permeability, how gravitation or time can change these physical quantities?
"For me it is clearly shown that the velocity of light only depends of the permittivity and permeability, how gravitation or time can change these physical quantities?"
Dear Daniel,
that's what we should really think about rather than preclude it !
Here is a P.S. to my previuous post, cited from our parallel discussion on Shapiro delay:
"I've seen explained* the bending of light at the sun's surface by assigning the local gravitational potential an equivalent refractive index of the order 1.000002, like in an optical medium, and an associated local reduction of luminal speed."
*https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro-Verz%C3%B6gerung
Dear Johan,
that's what we should really think about rather than preclude it !
I absolutely agree with you, I only say that the interpretation of a change of velocity by a gravitational potential is not easy to understand (for me impossible at this moment because c depends only of epsilon and mu in vacuum) and less if only is given by theoreticians without experimental values.
Respect to Shapiro, that is not a change of velocity locally but a global change due to the curvature of spacetime or the dilatation of time. Translation a sentence of your wikipedia:
The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation which increases the path length.....Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculated the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations.
if you have a longer path calculating it in a non-Euclidean geometry assuming c constant or if you take a longer time for the projected Euclidean distance, this means that you can deduce a lower c. But this is not at all the real velocity c, that is just a deduction. That I must to say impossible to understand for a person (as me) who knows well what is the nowadays concept of velocity of light.
"c depends only of epsilon and mu in vacuum"
Dear Daniel,
these are constants only within our present measurement accuracy. For this reason I suggest measuring local speed of light at halfway our distance from the sun. From my point of view geometrical considerations as according to GRT are less convincing as they much depend on the metric applied.
Dear Daniel,
I didn't write anything about gravity, instead I just mentioned the fact that all oscillations are of a damping nature.
Light is not an exception, although all modern theories have been created upon that assumption.
The only certainty is that absorption of light by 'empty space' (another joke) is extremely small, so for small distances it can be considered as a negligible effect and we can use the linearized version of EM equations.
Dear Johan,
these are constants only within our present measurement accuracy. For this reason I suggest measuring local speed of light at halfway our distance from the sun
Ok.If you think that the electromagnetic vacuum is not constant and it depends of the gravitational potential, that could be a good form to satisfy you. But frankly I think that is not necessary, Einstein and Shapiro has assumed that no this dependence and they just take into account the geodesics in space time to change when the potentials (energy) changed. Thus they speak about a global velocity coordinate dependent and not about the local velocity of light. I am clearly convince that gravitation can change the velocity of light locally because cannot change the vacuum electromagnetic properties. Perhaps I am wrong.
"If you think that the electromagnetic vacuum is not constant"
Dear Daniel,
I just think it will be constant as far as the local gravitational potential is constant. In fact, I don't expect any significant change with time but, of course, with location close to stellar masses.
Dear Johan,
I suggest measuring local speed of light at halfway our distance from the sun
I understand you. Close to the stars you have a big potential and what is so important, a gradient of such a potential. In such a case you are going to have a time dilatation and therefore the Shapiro gravitational interpretation. But I still follow to think that we are not speaking about the electromagnetic features of the vacuum which could change the local velocity of the light.
Dear Daniel,
It is a difficult question.
Estimation of the non zero conductivity for vacuum can be done by at least by three methods, those used to estimate photon rest mass, see book 'Modern Nonlinear Optics' of Myron W Evans, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
"...From the hypothesis of a nonzero electrical conductivity in the vacuum
and the corresponding dispersion relation [20,48, 50–52], the concepts of
‘‘tired light’’ and the observed cosmical redshift could be interpreted and
associated with a nonzero photon mass of about 1068 kg. The related
frequency dependence can also become a measure of the mass."
An interesting chapter book is also:
"EINSTEIN-DE BROGLIE-PROCA THEORY OF LIGHT AND
SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF TRANSVERSE AND
LONGITUDINAL PHOTONS" of SISIR ROY AND MALABIKA ROY
inside the book "The Present Status of the Quantum Theory of Light", Proceedings of a Symposium in Honour of Jean-Pierre Vigier, Springer.
If you solve eq(6) of that chapter for sigma0 you can obtain an estimation of it.
Dear Demetri,
Please be so kind, solve eq(6) because I'm intrigued for knowing the final result. Thanks.
"what is so important, a gradient of such a potential"
Dear Daniel,
Einstein in his 1911 paper clearly considers gravitational potential, not gradient thereof, see my earlier comments. In view of Einstein I still suggest that c, ε and μ should be closely related to gravitational potential Φ in a way that we aren't yet aware of.
Dear Johan,
I still suggest that c, ε and μ should be closely related to gravitational potential Φ in a way that we aren't yet aware of.
May be but for the moment is far of being solved this issue because gravitation is absolutely independent of electrodynamics. In any case this is a form to justify the unification theories research that I never thought.
Daniel Baldomir wrote: “gravitation is absolutely independent of electrodynamics”
In any case it is a fact that gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena propagate in vacuum with the same speed c. This supports the idea that gravitational and electromagnetic fields should be constituted by the same elementary constituent: a “particle” moving with the speed of light.
In the frame of that hypothesis gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena can be interpreted as the macroscopic manifestations of the two different attributes of the same elementary “particle”. The mathematical development of the mentioned idea leads to the “gravitoelectromagnetic” description of gravity that is analogue to the Maxwellian description of electromagnetism.
Dear Antoine,
Fantastic! Theoreticians are wasting their time, why do we need General Relativity? We take Maxwell equations for gravitational field and introduce the equivalent to the electric field and magnetic field in gravitation. Good! Very good! Why not quantum gravitomanetic field in parallel to QED or perhaps better, why not the Yang-Mills equations instead of Maxwell equations? The four interactions will be exactly one and the Standard Model would be exactly a gauge model taking everything that we have nowadays so separated.
Perfect Antoine! Go ahead!
Dear Daniel,
Thank you very much for your "fantastic" comment on my answer! You’re right. Ideas that do not directly correspond to those of professional “theoreticians” deserve no attention, they should be ridiculed!
Perfect Daniel! Go ahead!
"why do we need General Relativity?"
GR provides highly valuable aspects of physics, yet we should allow development of alternative aspects as well. In general, nature of many things and processes cannot fully be grasped from only a single perspective.
Hello Johan- I think you are on to something real. As the universe ages, past light cones expand and as a result the total gravitational potential at any point is continuously increasing. If that causes the speed of light to decrease, red-shifts will show up even in a static universe.
Also, if a gravitational potential causes the speed of light to decrease, the modified special relativity metric equation takes a form which yields predictions of gravity that match observations.
That's the topic of my own research project. I just uploaded an updated project report, if you want to see the details.
Dear Johan,
Indeed, “GR provides highly valuable aspects of physics, yet we should allow development of alternative aspects as well. In general, nature of many things and processes cannot fully be grasped from only a single perspective.”
GR describes on a billiant way how gravity might work (works?) on the scale of the universe. Newton’s law of general gravitation and gravito-electromagnetism (Maxwell-Heaviside) describe that same phenomenon on a more modest scale.
However – in my opinion - the fact that we have a good description of a phenomenon may not be a reason to stop the search for a physical explanation of it; the search for an answer to the question: "What is the physical reality behind the described observed phenomenon?"
"As the universe ages, past light cones expand and as a result the total gravitational potential at any point is continuously increasing."
Dear Ian,
thanks a lot for hinting to your most challenging "AltU" concept on the basis of spacetime scale factor ast !!
I just had a first look at your current PDF draft that opens up valuable alternative perspectives on gravitation and cosmology and new sights on well established observations. I have one spontaneous question: Do we really need something like a Big Bang?
Dear Daniel
Your comment:
Perhaps what Professor Vasconcellos refers (I don't know that Einstein said such a thing)...
Read please the literature. In particular the Einstein paper: Einstein A 1911 Ann. Phys. 35, 898, about his prediction that the velocity of light, c(r), would be reduced by a gravitational potential, represented by Phi(r) as => c(r) = c(0) ( 1 + 2 Phi(r)/c^3(0) ) c(0) is the constant speed of light as measured in a local freely-falling reference frame. Only in local inertial frames the measured speed of light equals the nominal constant speed of light (which corresponds in this case to Phi(r) = 0).
... the search for an answer to the question: "What is the physical reality behind the described observed phenomenon?"
Dear Antoine,
I agree! Please explain: What does GR tell us about the effect of remote masses that don't contribute to spacetime curvature? We should now have a closer look at Ian Miller's challenging "AltU" concept.
I absolutely agree with Antoine Acke's comment about searching for physical explanations. The universe doesn't know anything about equations and conservation laws! (I think of them as something like what a biologist might use to describe the flight of a flock of birds: excellent for describing and even predicting, but of little value for understanding what the birds are actually individually doing).
Re Johan's question re the Big Bang, in my AltU concept there was a point when 'time started'. That's when masses started to generate their gravitational fields, and the 'rate' of time (and the speed of light) started to drop exponentially down towards their current values. Perhaps not so much like a Big Bang as like a Big Parachute opening. (I can't extrapolate the concept of causality to times 'before' that, to try to probe further- which is frustrating).
"perhaps not so much like a Big Bang as like a Big Parachute opening."
Dear Ian,
this somehow associates an inflation process that you apparently were able to get rid of in your concept.
"I can't extrapolate the concept of causality to times 'before' that ..."
Backward extrapolation of causality will typically lead to some start point. Where would your concept lead us when assuming an infinite universe?
Dear Johan,
My concept is that since the beginning of time the universe has had the same spatial scale. (It isn't necessarily infinite, but we haven't seen any evidence of a boundary.).
This is all embarrassingly speculative, but... If we extrapolated backwards in time towards the start we would see the local speed of light increasing and becoming unbounded at the limit. If there were physical processes that were constrained by the speed of light, in the limit that constraint went away and there would have been the equivalent of a static equilibrium throughout the universe. Perhaps just a quantum-mechanics wave function. The function collapses, particles emerge, those with mass start to grow their gravitational fields so time slows, particles and anti-particles annihilate so temperatures rise, nucleosynthesis occurs, the gravitational fields cause dense regions to get even denser, and the universe is off and running.
"the beginning of time"
Dear Ian,
do we really need a beginning of time? Nobody would presumably talk about the end of time. I think the beginning of time is a typical human imagination as we aren't able to imagine infinity, in particular, backward infinity of time.
Dear Johan. Do we really need a beginning of time? It's a good question! We can really only speculate...
I think of time as a process, rather than a dimension, and a local process at that. Even though it is local, because of causality my local clock can't do its next 'tick' until it has heard from all of the earlier clocks on my past light cone. So distance enters the equation, and the speed of light, and relative velocities: my local wave function has to be 'updated' by that information before it can make its next step. So everything in the universe has to more or less 'march in step'.
If gravity does reduce the speed of light, and we extrapolate back in time for some 14 billion years, we find that the effective light speed becomes infinite. Perhaps that means that everything becomes coupled, and time and distance no longer have a meaning. The universe could still have a geometric form, but it wouldn't be evolving via the process that we call time.
So, I think, time as we know it did start then. Perhaps there was some sort of evolution of the universe's state before that, but the underlying process wasn't what we think of as time, and our concept of causality did not apply.
What do you think?
“I think of time as a process, rather than a dimension, and a local process at that.“
Dear Ian,
in an earlier discussion on the nature of time we have come to similar statements such as: “Time makes events happen.“ As I understand your above statement, local processes don't neccessarily require reference to and dependence on events that have happened before at some distant location. It has been Hubble's interpretation of cosmological red shift only that took us to the assumption of a Big Bang event at “time zero“ followed by an inflation and expansion of the universe.
As according to your remarkable AltU concept we don't need neither Big Bang nor expansion of the universe, why should we hold upright the idea of “time zero“ and associated implications like, in particular, spatial limitation of the universe? As you already state in your current draft, the discovery of galaxies in quite an advanced state of development at the edge of the universe may appear rather odd when simultaneously assuming that their “age“, i.e. distance from “time zero“, is only a few hundred million years.
Why shouldn't we seriously consider the idea of an infinite universe and infinite backward extension of time? We would simply have to accept that it is only our horizon that is limited due to “optical“ properties of space. Would such an idea fit your AltU concept?
Dear Johan,
I think that on this topic I'm really just speculating. My hope is that the AltU concept will give a starting point for some brilliant quantum physicist to actually spell out the mechanism by which our 'clocks tick'. If we can understand that mechanism then we will be able to more realistically extrapolate back towards what currently looks like a discontinuity at 'time zero', and perhaps even see a little further- and answer your question.
By the way, thanks for your kind words about the AltU concept!
"kind words about the AltU concept"
Dear Ian,
I like your AltU concept because it is based on a minimum of bias, but offers a whole range of credible results and potential for expansion.
I read a lot of interesting ideas within this discussion (my first one, as I am new member).
What if:
One of my favours is Antoine's phrase: "the fact that we have a good description of a phenomenon may not be a reason to stop the search for a physical explanation of it "
Dear Johan,
c=2.4*10-18*R/sec , R:= Universe's radius.
2. Is just a proposition in order experimental results to be fitted.
3,5,6,... are the conclusions of my project that is based mainly on a new space-time manifold.
(https://archive.org/details/hadjidakis_Has_the_time_com)
4. dimensional analysis of G gives m/kg (as distance(m) and time(sec) have the same metric to this new manifold).
P.S. 4) should be: Gravitational const. is the metric of the proportion mass/"time", that is inverse proportional to time. (G*R=const.)
Dear all,
But aren't we going a bit too fast here? What are the measurable items and what is just philosophy?
1) Let us look at the speed of light outside the Earth's gravity. Would it differ? If all the gravitons from the universe are cumulated to form a local aether, which defines the medium for light, would it differ?
2) Let us look at the meaning of the gravitational constant.
Why is there a perfect observational, unique empiric (and unexpected) link with the Sun's dynamics?
Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...
Dear all,
“Is speed of light basically limited by local cumulative gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe?”
From my “postmodern physics” point of view the answer is this: The speed of light depends on the local energy density of space. Electric permittivity, magnetic permeability, gravitational and electromagnetic potentials are all measures of the universal energy density.
From this unification follows a theory which has resemblance with general relativity, but is based on the equation of radiative energy transfer and not on any magical, innate ability of mass to “warp space”. The solutions of the said equation are complete realizations of Mach’s principle.
It ends up introducing the mechanism by which “matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move”, but in Euclidean space, time separated and quantum phenomena included.
Daniel Baldomir wrote: “I agree that it would be nice to find a revision of the present cosmology, but it must be serious.”
Modern Cosmology is based on two definitions: “A photon is defined as a quantum of energy,” and “A quantum is defined as an indivisible unit of energy.” Big Bang Cosmology is based on nothing but alleged knowledge of photons and not on any theory of them. But photons à la modern cosmology do not exist.
Bosons are toroidal in structure. They are simplest possible solutions of nonlinear Maxwell's curl equations, meaning that they are electromagnetic vortices. They are concentrations of energy, but, as is the case with all waves of nature, energy is leaked into the surrounding space. Estimates say that photons lose about 5‐6% of their energy every 100 light years of distance.
Edwin Hubble was so bothered by this possibility that he felt compelled to mention it about a dozen times throughout the book The Observational Approach to Cosmology. Cosmological redshift can be shown to be a part of the ubiquitous, fundamental 1/f noise spectrum.
Serious cosmology is based on a serious model of photons.
“Fantastic! Theoreticians are wasting their time, why do we need General Relativity? We take Maxwell equations for gravitational field and introduce the equivalent to the electric field and magnetic field in gravitation. Good! Very good! Why not quantum gravitomagnetic field in parallel to QED or perhaps better...”
Dear Daniel, the realization of this has been published in Thierry’s journal, titled "On the Origin of Forces." It might be interesting also to other participants of the discussion, at least to those who “search for a unified theory of electromagnetism and gravity”. Here is the link:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/7182
"From this unification follows a theory which has resemblance with general relativity, but is based on the equation of radiative energy transfer and not on any magical, innate ability of mass to “warp space”. The solutions of the said equation are complete realizations of Mach’s principle."
Dear Jouko,
thanks a lot for referencing to your exciting review of quite a remarkable number of well established physical phenomena and related explanations on the basis of your "postmodern" view on physics. What fascinates me in view of some past investigations and more recent ideas is your special reference to Mach's principle. With this in mind I expect you might be interested in James C. Keith's proposal on the interaction of a high-speed rotor with remote masses of the universe and maybe also some more recent questions, see references below.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_formation_of_elementary_particles_confirm_Machs_principle
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_probe_the_local_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Dear all,
Thank you, Johan. From these discussions I see that you (and many others) have an intuition of the importance of Mach’s principle. In my usage “postmodern physics” refers to theories that are independent of theories of relativity and present quantum theories.
My take on this is based completely on Mach’s principle. The contribution of distant masses to local physics is the continuous flow of energy and momentum from all directions.
This background radiation is composed of photons which suffer from redshift. The farther they come from, the smaller is their energy. The existence of particles presupposes a flow of energy from all directions. Particles are electromagnetic vortices in that flow.
Force fields have sources only in the sense that fermions scatter the background radiation and thereby become apparent sources of force fields. If Mach’s principle is defined as a flow of energy-momentum, then everything that exists follows from Mach’s principle.
The aim of my work is the mathematical realization of this idea. The pages relevant to this discussion are 27 (Birth of a Fermion) and 132 ( 1/f Spectrum of the Universe).
"The existence of particles presupposes a flow of energy from all directions. Particles are electromagnetic vortices in that flow."
Dear Jouko,
I'm really happy to notice that my related intuitive approach, as recently described in a parallel discussion, apparently complies with your much further developed ideas and conclusions:
"I should have explained what idea motivated me to develop the above cited "triple-gyro" model of the proton. The idea was simply that energy may exist in two states, a propagating and a localized one. Next consideration was that something moving straight, like a car, may get localized by turning in a circle. Next question was about the circle diameter when taking into account energies typical of elementary particles. Surprisingly, the circle diameter turned out as nearly equal to the proton diameter, provided the proton is made of three subcomponents as described in the above paper. Astonishingly, not only the proton diameter but also its magnetic moment turns out right.
Mach's principle comes in via inertial momentum I, which he suggests to be a phenomenon due to interaction with remote masses of the universe."
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_formation_of_elementary_particles_confirm_Machs_principle
Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment
I just found a remarkable paper, see reference below, the conclusion of which apparently fits to the ideas presented in the current discussion.
Dear Johan,
I read the paper by Stephen Gift that you attached, and I'm intrigued but not convinced by his arguments. Specifically, he discusses the observation that the observed time duration between successive occultations of Io, by Jupiter, is greater when the Earth is receding from Jupiter than when it is approaching Jupiter. He interprets this as revealing an asymmetric speed of light, but it looks to me to be simply a Doppler shift: when the Earth is receding the successive 'pulses' are traveling increasing distances, so the period appears to have increased. When the Earth is approaching, the reverse happens.
What do you think?
"it looks to me to be simply a Doppler shift"
Dear Ian,
I think your remark is not in contradiction with Stephan Gift's reasoning as may possibly become clearer from a preceding paper by himself, see reference below.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics