Relativity and quantum mechanics shows that speed of light (m/s) is constant in space. While a recent paper suggests that it is variable. (P. Smeulders, J. Modern Physics,3,345-349,2012). How we can decide which deduction is correct?
It depends. When speaking of the speed of light, people might be thinking of several different concepts in mind:
1) The speed of light c in Minkowski vacuum. This is by definition a constant, because the international unit meter for length is defined to be the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second.
2) The speed of light traveling in some medium different from Minkowski vacuum. This object certainly depends on the choice of medium and cannot be constant for different media.
3) The speed of light with respect to coordinate time in the presence of gravity. This object is also not constant and can change from place to place in space.
Anyway the speed of light is an object with its own unit, it is dimensionful, as apposed to pure numbers which have no unit. In practice, it is more meaningful to discuss whether an object is constant when it is made dimensionless. A very good discussion on this point is made recently by M.J.Duff's paper "How fundamental are fundamental constants?" [arXiv:1412.2040]
Of cause not, if light propagates in a medium with variable dielectric susceptibility.
Einstein's 1905 work (and extensions of it) didn't so much "show" that the speed of light is constant as it did assume it. Recall that experiments, especially the Michelson–Morley experiment, presented empirical evidence for the constancy of the speed of light (or, more specifically, they failed to detect a medium and this failure allowed the possibility of light to travel at a constant speed in a vacuum). The orthodox interpretation of QM makes it impossible for the theory to say anything much about the speed of light as the orthodox interpretation is that QM is an irreducibly statistical theory.
This is researchgate. Have you tried asking Dr. Paul Smeulders?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Smeulders
We have grown up with taking for granted that the speed of light is constant in vacuum. Now, we may be on the brink of changing this idea. Please see the attached link.
http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
Most comments above are dead right. C(vacuum) is 299700 Km/s but in air is slower, about 200200 Km/s and slower in a solid as glass. Light interacts with atoms in its way, Now, nice applications arise from variable diffraction index materials.
Yes, I consider that you, of course, are right when you consider that velocity of light constant, but very slow as at the Rolls-Royce nevertheless I also consider, as they too are right when are sure that velocity of light not stable, but very fast. as at Ferari.
I ment light may interact with dark matter or something unknown yet in space, and thus can reduce its phase velocity.
According to Godel (and accepted by Einstein) the Theory of Relativity is incompatible with a flow of time. The impossibility of two observers in motion relative to each other agreeing on the interval between two events implies that past, present and future co-exist. This does not mean "The End of Time" but only that time is a dimension that is static - a map on which chronology is laid out but which does not change.
The Universe gets larger as t increases but is not expanding. If we assume that space and time are quantised at the Planck scale then a "moving" object is one that occupies different spatial coordinates at different values of t. The maximum "speed" will be that of an object occupying a new position at every Planck unit of time, which means a "speed" of c = 1. In this case the "speed" of light will be a function of the Planck scale.
Question: Does the Planck scale vary with the size of the universe?
The speed of light is constant in vacuum. However, when passes through a medium, speed of light depends on the material of the medium.
it also depend upon the expansion of universe .. if expansion is so fast light speed also increases ..
Whai is remarkable is that c seems to be an upper bound for mechanical velocity at the rigid body motion. The question for c≠constant is open, since we are not able to have 'data' in order to make an inference.
Dear All, As per my opinion light does not have constant speed, it can vary in vacuum and as per medium. Thanks
It depends. When speaking of the speed of light, people might be thinking of several different concepts in mind:
1) The speed of light c in Minkowski vacuum. This is by definition a constant, because the international unit meter for length is defined to be the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second.
2) The speed of light traveling in some medium different from Minkowski vacuum. This object certainly depends on the choice of medium and cannot be constant for different media.
3) The speed of light with respect to coordinate time in the presence of gravity. This object is also not constant and can change from place to place in space.
Anyway the speed of light is an object with its own unit, it is dimensionful, as apposed to pure numbers which have no unit. In practice, it is more meaningful to discuss whether an object is constant when it is made dimensionless. A very good discussion on this point is made recently by M.J.Duff's paper "How fundamental are fundamental constants?" [arXiv:1412.2040]
it is constant. Albeit, when you change
medium the velocity and wave lenght also change keeping the frequency constant.
I'm an engineer but I've never had ANY physicist (I work with both theorists and experimentalists) show me a convincing argument that the speed of light is limited. What they usually do is wave some normalization at me and claim that it proves there is no media through which light travels. The famous Michelson-Morley experiment is ONLY sensitive to deterministic media, not to the heuristic media which has been shown by the Casimer effect to really exist. This issue is enlightened by real solutions to Maxwell's equations, which REQUIRE a real, positive, non-zero, finite impedance in the vacuum. (In fact, no field potential can exist with zero impedance to current flow, by definition). This impedance is defined by the same "constants" that define the speed of light: permittivity and permeability. Furthermore, we can KNOW that these parameters are directly related to the speed of light because we observe how the speed of light changes as it passes from one medium to another. Finally, what has been badly labeled as "dark energy" is completely explained if one allows for areas of space where the ratio between permeability and permittivity are different. But, I'm *only* an engineer and have no credibility in this field. That said, I would LOVE to find an open minded physicist to work on these ideas (and some others) even further but the funding and publishing systems make this very risky.
Einstein made two hypothesis when presenting his special theory of relativity. One of them was that the speed of light c was constant. In the last century the speed of light was debated and not only "voted" as constant but a fixed value was adscribed, I suppose democratically. A definition. Allow me to present a theoretical argument, mainly based on Okham´s razor: assuming a simple linear effect on length and time due to the expansion of the universe, expanding both length and time "at the same rate", any speed being space/time should not vary with the expansion of the universe. Then c should not vary with the expansion of the universe. Taking the expansion of the universe as evidence and reason for evolution then the speed of light should be a constant, to be defined as you wish.
Measurement of the speed of light is difficult. Measurement in the change of the speed of light is more difficult. The measured speed of light has varied over time. It is interesting that the measured speed has tended to decrease. The increase in response time explains this tendency.
Creationists have used the change in measurements of the speed of light to explain a young age for the earth.
Attached is a file of historical measurements of the speed of light. See both pages.
I would like to develop the answer of Sir Christian Baumgarten, about in the opposite direction. Velocity of light, as if it wasn't estimated in kilometers per second or miles an hour, it remains to the fastest among other speeds. In it also there is a constancy of velocity of light, i.e. "fast" speed. On the contrary, the speed of a snail very small and it is the conventional equivalent of "slow" speed.
Any observer "at rest" relative to a photon will see the photon infinitely extended along its line of travel and time (for the photon) static (Lorenz transformations). How do you measure its "speed"? Or, rather, what does its measured "speed" mean?
It is much easier to see in a static Universe hat a photon must extend from one spacetime quantum to an adjacent quantum until it arrives at one already occupied by something that alters the probability of its continued progress.. This raises the question: "What is mass in a static universe?"" I think that mass and energy will turn out to be just parameters invented by humans to account for their observations.
The speed of light (that is speed of photon as of a physical object) is not constant !
1. But the physical constant with the same name is a constant.
Because the constant means the upper limit (extremum) of the velocity of propagation of interactions of matter in space. And this is not the phase velocity but the group one, because the phase velocity begins to transfer to the receiver something only after the "vehicle" has come to the receiver.
2. The speed of light (speed of photon as of a physical object) is not constant, because there is no perfect vacuum because there is matter and fields! (Not to mention the virtual particles. By the way, virtual particles cannot be ordinary but short-lived particles, because their destruction would result in the emission of energy, but such radiation there is no!)
3. As the speed of any object is defined through the distance and time of its passage by this object then the speed depends on how we build a reference frame and on a method of clock synchronization. In particular, the reference frame can be built so that the speed of light will be differ from the constant “c”.
4. Since there is no pure vacuum, there is always light distributed on different speeds at different frequencies . Moreover, the frequency of light gradually decreases due to the effect of "cosmological red shift (no matter what would cause this effect).
5. The interaction of light with matter (fields) cannot be instantaneous act, otherwise the speed of light in the environment would not depend on the characteristics of the environment. Therefore, births and light absorption also take some finite time. But in this case, part of the energy and momentum of the birth of the photon is transferring to its parent particle (Mossbauer effect), that is, the energy ( and the frequency and speed) of a photon depends on the speed of its parent particle. This property wanted to use the Ritz in his Ballistic theory" (BTR) writing c2=c+V in the frame of reference of an external observer. But later he had to enter the entrainment coefficient k: c2=k*(c+V), where the source velocity V is not limited by "c".
6. So, what of the really physically entrains the photon that was emitted at a certain angle to the motion of the source? Only the medium does it, but the medium - it's single, so there is a preferred frame of reference in which this medium is stationary.
7. So, let the source (e.g., a free electron) moving in the medium which we call the vacuum. The photon emitted by the source, is entrained by medium, and moves in a medium with a speed corresponding photon energy. The speed of the emitted photons in the vacuum differ from the constant "c" on a very small procent, about 10^(-12), so this difference we can't even measured, therefore, it considered to be the same speed of a photon at any frequency. Accordingly, and in IFR of Earth moving in space we can't see in experiment the dependence of speed on frequency. We see it only at large distances, when the frequencies of the different colors come from supernova to us during a different number of days. This is especially vividly reflected in the explosion of SN Ia, when gamma-ray burst come for a few hours before the arrival this burst in visible range, and only then we receive this burst in infrared.
The speed of light (of photon) is not constant !
My question was regarding speed of light in free space. The paper by Smeulders deduced that in slowly expanding universe speed of light is variable. Then what about "observed " variation of mass with velocity or Lorentz's contraction? Whether the rest mass of photon will still remain zero?
To Research Gate Colleagues Participating in this Thread: I upvoted all your contributions simply because we are discussing one of the most important topics in science. I am almost sure that we all like to know if the speed of light is constant or not. Downvoting, here, is not constructive & is not brave act. I wish RG management has followed & wrote the name of the guy who downvoted several contributions including what I brought as reference from a respected site.
Dear Mehta Rasbindu
1. The "free" space is not free from cosmic particles and vacuum energy. Therefore, everywhere and always there is "medium". Therefore, the speed of the photons will be different for different frequencies of light. In that case there is the chance for photons to have finite non-zero rest mass.
2. The paper by Smeulders discussed items in expanding universe but this model is only one of the hypotheses, postulating the photon massless. But Your question about the physical speed of the photons must be considered in the common physical sense.
3. Please edit your initial message, adding a question about the rest mass.
Dear Dr. Nizar Matar, Colleagues,
1. You are absolutely right that the question of the speed of light is one of the most important topics in physics.
Therefore, it must be addressed not in a separate hypothesis but in the general physical sense. In my opinion, we know enough about the light to come to the conclusion that photon has rest mass, and resulting from this the conclusions. But this mass is quite small, so we can consider approximate "massless" hypothesis, however, not only for the whole Universe, where the mass of light plays a significant role. So I have such a critical attitude to the hypotheses in modern cosmology.
2. I also upvoted some messages, but downvoted few other messages. Perhaps I am just that person who downvote your message. I took the opportunity allowed by the rules of Research Gate to express my opinion .
3. I don't think it's rightly to decide on the speed of light only within the individual hypothesis, which are not applicable to the Entire Universe. About a broader discussion of this issue I write in my articles, not only in this thread. I hope you also think so!
Sincerely,
Alexander Chepick
In a Universe whose size (radius) is a function of time we perceive ourselves to exist "now", apparently at the frontier of the Universe's expansion. In this case the speed of light will be determined by the rate of expansion of the Universe which is slowly accelerating. Is there any evidence for an increase in the value of c? Would the increase be large enough to detect? If the whole Universe is growing in 4 dimensions would we be able to detect an increase anyway?
Stephen
In this theory there is the postulate of gravity - related objects are not expanded.
But from where we took that the universe can expand? Can You prove that GR is applicable to the Universe? Or this is another implicit postulate?
Why you are considering this model but do not considering alternative models?
Alexander - I can only consider one hypothesis at a time! I confess that my interest is in the Nature of Time. I am not an evangelist for block time - or for any other view or theory but, as I have said many times before in other Q&A threads: (1) Relativity has been proved by Godel and EInstein to be incompatible with a flow of time (see below); (2) This is a very uncomfortable result and seems to be ignored by physicists (amongst whom I am not numbered) and, as a humble biochemist, I would like to know why.
I assumed at first that the whole thing must have been disproved or superseded, but then I read that Stephen Hawking had tried to refute Godel, failed and then tried, and failed, to invoke a new Law to bypass the conclusion; (3) As a scientist, therefore, I provisionally accept the absence of a flow of time as the truth (reality); (4) Next I try to account for what we experience in terms of block time. Our experience is of course not reality but what our brain creates for us* from the electrical signals, which it receives from our senses and our autonomous nervous system, in order to make the universe intelligible to us.
* This phrase shows how difficult it is because it implicitly assumes cause and effect, which depends on a flow of time!
It does, however, produce an interesting result:
First we must define block time as τ to distinguish it from our perceived time, t, and also assume that spacetime is quantised at the Planck scale. Since the universe that we perceive is neither static nor random we must infer that the position of an atom or molecule matter can differ from one quantum, at, say, τ to the quantum at τ +1. Furthermore the atom or molecule cannot appear in an entirely different place but must occupy an adjacent spacetime quantum and its "state" cannot change to an extent that a discontinuity appears. Since we know that the past still, and the future already, exist the whole mass of the universe must be present in every quantum time interval. But every physical object must “know” the location and state of its predecessor and successor in every quantum adjacent to the one(s) that it currently occupies. For objects moving at terrestrial speeds a detectable change in state or location would occur only about once every1040 Planck units of time. This implies a very extended connection.
The entropy gradient presumably arises simply because, as the universe gets larger the number of available quanta, and therefore the number of possible locations, increase as τ increases and decreases as τ decreases.
The Universe, including ourselves, just "is". We feel that we experience a flow of time because we experience our lives from start to finish all the time but every moment always feels like "now" to us. "Now” is defined by our memories and expectations at that moment. We cannot go back as we are at time τ + n to time τ taking our (τ + n ) memories with us. We don't have to travel in time to experience our past and future, we occupy every quantum of our existence now, but they all feel like "now", although the "nows" are all different. We perceive them as a sequence (a flow of time) because this is the only way they make sense to us.
I don't believe, a the age of 75, that this is really my job and I hoped some young physicist would have done it already. I am, however, driven by an intense curiosity to try and work out how to explain our everyday experience in a world without a flow of time although I find it very taxing! Physicists seem to be obsessed with mathematics and models and to have lost touch with concepts. String Theory in all its versions provides a lesson in over-dependence on maths and has become bogged down in its own sophistication. I feel strongly that we need to understand what time is and what it means at a deep conceptual level if we are going to make much progress.
Can anybody tell me what a 4 dimensional spacetime quantum would look like? .... Please .....The quanta would be very large in spatial extent (c x τ).
Rasbindu Mehta Please excuse me for not fully (partially) answer!
В рамках теоретической модели физического вакуума как плотной упаковки его упругих частиц конкретная скорость распространения любых его колебаний является только свойством его конкретных частиц в конкретном месте в конкретный момент. Поэтому она постоянна для этих частиц. Но для других мест и моментов она другая. Подтверждение - отклонение лучей света "гравитацией", соответственно этой же модели являющейся только следствием разной плотности вакуумной упаковки в окрестностях "масс"..
In the framework of the theoretical model of the physical vacuum as a dense packing of its elastic particles the specific propagation velocity of any of its oscillations is only a property of its specific particle in a particular place at a particular moment. Therefore, it is constant for these particles. But for other places and other times it is other. Confirmation - the deviation of the rays of light at "gravity", which is only a consequence of different density of vacuum packing in the vicinity of the "masses" respectively at the same model
Anatoly,
The usual question to this model of, the dense packing medium of propagation of light: How to move a body through it without significantly reducing its speed? Do you know what effects accompany this movement? I think that tide K1 is one of these effects.
Alexander,
The photon always has the velocity c, it cannot be brought to rest, so it does not have a rest mass. In a geometry curved by a gravitational field it appears to have a rest mass, but actually it only follows the geodesics, for example in the lensing effect. This is embodied in the Weak Equivalence Principle: an observer in a gravitational field will not experience free fall as a gravitational effect, but as being at rest in a locally accelerated frame.
.
Dear Stephen,
1. The reality is the only and final criterion of reality of a theory!
Mathematics in physics is only a helper, not the head. You should not consider any process in the mathematical theory in a case where it contradicts reality.
2. As you interest is in the Nature of Time then you know about cases when the time in the theory of relativity contradicts reality.. Indeed, clocks on a rotating circle cannot be synchronized according to Einstein's method. This means, in particular, that on the surface of the planet Earth it is impossible to create a unified system time, in which would be fulfilled theory of relativity!!! And it follows that the theory of relativity is not applicable to describe any process in which there is a change of direction of movement. Therefore, to describe such processes need another theory. I have this theory suggested. Within it can be shown that for processes in which there are no turns, this theory is equivalent to the theory of relativity, for other processes of equivalence is not, So the description of these processes in the framework of GR is only approximate . That's from where all the effects that are considered "proof" of GR.
It turns out that to create a new theory, it was enough understand that in theory should not be properties of the relativity of simultaneity. Therefore, it was necessary to take another synchronization's procedure based on independent time of the preferred reference frame. (Consequently, a new theory is compatible with over time.) And the processes in the preferred reference frame only are displayed in our local reference system moving with the Earth.
3. No one can say how it will look like 4-dimensional quantum space-time, because almost everything depends on the job metrics in this space. But the metric is set by mathematician not caring about its physical properties. Please, don't get involved in modern cosmological theories. Reality in them is less than in the question of the number of devils at the tip of the needle.
Dear Matts Roos,
So it will be only within the SRT and GR. In other theories it could be otherwise.
And it is interesting, as it is in reality.
Alexander Chepick
Anatoly,
The usual question to this model of, the dense packing medium of propagation of light: How to move a body through it without significantly reducing its speed? Do you know what effects accompany this movement? I think that tide K1 is one of these effects.
Alexander
Извините меня, пожалуйста. Я не знаю, что Вы имеете ввиду под "tide К1". Но если движение твёрдого тела в твёрдой среде, то к теоретической модели физического вакуума, как плотной упаковки его упругих частиц (упаковочной модели вакуума) это не касается. Ключевое слово "упругих". Упругая среда - не твердая среда.. Подробности в книге "Элементы виртуальной физики или классические решения ‘неклассических’ задач /Обзорно-справочное пособие, часть 1" http://worldphysics.narod.ru/1evf.doc в разделе одноименного сайта http://worldphysics.narod.ru/science.html Есть ещё в других местах, но к сожалению, тоже на русском языке. Извините, пожалуйста.
Excuse me, please. I don't know what You mean by "tide K1". But if the motion of a rigid body in solid environment, the theoretical model of the physical vacuum, as the dense packing of its elastic particles (packaging model vacuum) this does not apply. The key word is "elastic". Elastic environment is not solid environment.. Details in the book "the Elements of virtual physics or classical solutions ‘non-classical’ tasks /Review-Handbook, part 1" http://worldphysics.narod.ru/1evf.doc in the same section of the website http://worldphysics.narod.ru/science.html There are other places, but unfortunately, also in Russian. Sorry, please.
Анатолий,
tide - это прилив.
Прилив К1 второй по величине прилив после лунного, то есть, он создается силой больше солнечного притяжения. Земля ведь тоже не твердре тело, она частично увлекается той средой, через которую движется!
http://redshift0.narod.ru/Rus/Stationary/Absolute/Aether_tide.htm
tide - это прилив.
"Прилив К1 второй по величине прилив после лунного, то есть, он создается силой больше солнечного притяжения. Земля ведь тоже не твердре тело, она частично увлекается той средой, через которую движется!"
Alexander
Я вскользь прошелся по Вашему сайту, зауважал, но остались мелкие замечания.
1. Вы слишком много уделили внимания СТО. Любая ТО - это только преобразование координат и протекающие процессы менять не может в принципе. Может менять только результаты наблюдений и для этого предназначена. Об этом многие почему-то забывают (или не знают) и говорят о "кривых пространствах" и "замедлении времени" вместо используемых искривляющихся линеек и.портящихся от скорости часов. В упаковочной модели вакуума тоже искривляются линейки и отстают часы. Но скорость света постоянна в каждой точке, просто не равна в другой.
2. Вещество в вакуумной модели тоже раздвигает упаковку-эфир, но иначе, чем в старых, поскольку является дефектами вакуумной упаковки, в частности, поэтому есть прецессии планетарных орбит, а также гравитация, ЭМ поля и волны, как деформации упаковки. И скорость света зависит от их величины, и направления движения и поляризации света (расщепление лучей полями).
Alexander
I briefly went through Your site, have to respect me, but remained small comments.
1. You paid too much attention to only the special theory of relativity. Any theory of relativity is simply a transformation of coordinates. Therefore, it can not change any of processes in principle. . It can only change the results of our observations and intended only for that purpose. Many of us forgets about it (or not knows) and talks about "curves spaces" and "time dilation" instead real bads lines and. watches. In the packaging model of vacuum the bad lines and clock are too . And the speed of light is constant in every point, just it is not equal in another points.
2. The substance in the vacuum model extends a packaging-ether also, but differently as in the old theories, because it is the defects of vacuum packaging. As are precessions of planetary orbits, as and gravity, electromagnetic fields and waves are the deformations of the packing. And the speed of light depends on size of particles of vacuum, and the direction and polarization of light (fields splits light rays).
Dear Alexander,
Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, I do not know Russian. Can you send translation.
Dear Stephen Warren,
"Relativity has been proved by Godel and EInstein to be incompatible with a flow of time (see below); "
it is very likely that GRT has issues. Since there are serious problems with experiments with atomic clocks, violating energy conservations if we respect the equivalence principle of Einstein in inertial reference frames.
Einstein did marvellous things but didn't have tools to verfy all what he said. Predictions of the theory were rigtht in most cases, but there is a fact which is the case to point out:
the Schwartschild solutions of EFE (Einstein Field equation) is a linearized weak field solution found in 1916 by Kark S. It is not only a solution for EFE but also FG, field gravitation theory.
The really verified solution in the field of Earth is the Schwartzshild's, predicting: gravitational Redshift & time dilation, light deflection, shapiro delay, mercury perihelion precession also in famous experiments like Pound and Rebka, Vessot levine, lunar laser ranging etc.
The Schwartzhild solution complies the NOETHER's theorem according also to MTW (Misner Thorne Wheeler) and is also a solution of Field gravitation theory (Kalman, Thirring, Feynman et al) which is NOETHER's compliant.
GRT doesn't comply the NOETHER's, since it does not account for the gravitational energy as also pointed out by Feynman in 1970's.
So there is a issue...and the Extention of Einstein of the EP is the problem...
Stefano,
all the really verified solution in the field of Earth that you quote test GR only in the weak field limit. Tests in strong gravitational fields are the gravitational shifts of atomic spectra, the parameters of binary pulsars, and strong lensing observations.
@Steven Warren. I'm glad physics is in agreement with what seems obvious: time is a convenient construct for ordering deterministic events by using ordered, periodic events, nothing more. When we speak of "space-time", we are describing ordered, deterministic events occurring within a volume over which the event spreads. Someone in this thread hit on the crux of the problem, earlier: why should there be a limit on the speed of light? There MUST be a limit on the speed of light or the universe immediately reacts to produce an homogeneous field with no potentials at any scale. What is amazing about inflation theory is not that there was an instant in which the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light but that rather that the speed of light became limited. Without that event, the universe would be indistinguishable from a fundamental particle (size would be meaningless). The question then becomes, how is the speed of light fixed? Since it is obviously sensitive to the electro-magnetic coupling parameters, shouldn't we be asking what fixes those values in the (misnamed) vacuum? Ultimately, this unrecognized phenomena must give rise to the Higgs field, which in turn gives consequence to a limit to the speed of light. What is most important about this limit is that it allows for deterministic reactions by setting a limit on how fast information can move, i.e., how fast any reaction can occur.
To your frustration about physicists ignoring a parameter without which most of their work collapses into a singularity, there are two reasons for this: funding sources don't allow for "out of the box" thinking, very often. Secondly, even when funding isn't the issue, the field is highly technical and complex, leading physicists to push their students to focus on minutia when it comes to research. Few ever look up, again. You are absolutely correct about string theory, it is a powerful math technique but is very, very far from suggesting a testable theory. It sure has gotten a lot of funding, though.
Finally, supersymettry theories seem to be based on an error that lead theorists to believe there is a "Higgs fine-tuning problem". Check out publications by Bryan Lynn and Glen Starkman which show there is no such problem.
Dear Matt yes,
"all the really verified solution in the field of Earth that you quote test GR only in the weak field limit. Tests in strong gravitational fields are the gravitational shifts of atomic spectra, the parameters of binary pulsars, and strong lensing observations."
that is the problem..and you don't know what is "lost in translation" during the linarisation process..maybe the einstein equivalence principle...
My dear a teska of Alexander Chepick, you to me are very nice, but nevertheless there is such saying: "ignorance not argument".
You, probably from rage wrote to Research Gate against Einstein: "Indeed, clocks on a rotating circle can't be synchronized according to Einstein's method", and doubted then Eynshneyn's correctness. I to you would advise to re-read Albert Einstein once again. In other place he wrote: "Even we define time on hours by space when we look at the watch"
Stefano
I understand the issues with the ToGR but do they invalidate the conclusion that the flow of time is an illusion? If they do then at what speed does time flow (or do we travel through time)? Against what do we measure the rate at which time passes?
(see also comment by Alexander Yurkin above)
@Rasbindu Mehta
You can view the article here at RG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271077636_The_Aetheric_tide_-__?ev=prf_pub.
What is the reason that can cause the tide K1?
Article The Aetheric tide - Эфирный прилив
Anatoly,
Thank you for the positive assessment of the content of my site and for the comments.
If you notice, in my cosmological model I don't elaborate on how the body moved in the absolute space. Here you can use any theory, including yours, if only the preferred frame of reference was Cartesian.
1. I do not oppose SRT and GR, because in some cases their descriptions of the processes are quite accurate. But I urge to clearly distinguish between the cases of these theories when it is better not to use it. I am have to compare these theories with the theory TAS at the request of my readers. But I nowhere say that the coordinate transformation changes the current process. In different systems of reference can change only the description of the process or even the geometry of space, but not the result of the experiment.
2. I looked up your book "The Theory of Everything". It turns out that our views on the space of the Universe are close enough.
But there are also comments to the book:
-There are no sufficient arguments to consider the Euclidean space,
- You say nothing about the construction of a local reference systems moving observer and clock synchronization (but without this it is impossible to make measurements).
- Almost no describing of the experiments whose results do not match the SRT.
- Formulas in bulk, indiscriminately and descriptions of each, it is impossible to check and, moreover, to use.
- I not saw sustainability criteria for objects with complex structures.
(a similar theory of the ether in the 90 years was developed by the founder of magazine Nanoworld Alexander Kushelev. Have you heard that name "Edge-Ring"? For this discovery Kushelev got gold medal at the exhibition of economic achievements.
Dear Alexander Yurkin,
No matter what Einstein said, because the phrase does not refer directly to the synchronization of clocks on the rotating circle. I always say, deliberately say, that any theory that has the property of relative simultaneity, not applicable to processes in which the non-rectilinear motion of objects. Because in such a theory all the clocks MUST show several times at once. It is a physical contradiction that many Mat-physics don't want to know. But this "ignorance is not an argument".
American developers GPS, when faced with this problem, without thinking twice, rejected the theory of relativity. What you advise. If you want, of course.
In my opinion, the desire to save the theory of relativity at any cost has exceeded all reasonable limits. I offer an alternative to supporters GR - to recognize the limitations of using the GR and not to go higher.
Dear Alexander Chepick
Dear Alexander Yurkin,
В порядке разрядки. Когда я был студентом и слушал лекцию о СТОЭ, я попросил лектора (одного из лучших преподавателей, завкафедрой теорфизики) объяснить мне непонятливому, почему Эйнштейн не синхронизировал часы хотя бы методом последовательных приближений. Он согласился со всеми моими рассуждениями, улыбнулся и объяснил свою позицию так: "Я рад, что ты это знаешь. Но на экзамене я ставлю оценку не за то, что ты знаешь вообще, а за то, что ты запомнил из конкретного материала", Я всю жизнь благодарен ему за это объяснение. А на экзамене он поставил мне оценку "отлично" и я получил красный диплом, но до сих пор не знаю, почему Эйнштейн так не сделал.. А у Эйнштейна спросить не могу
Dear Alexander Chepick
Dear Alexander Yurkin,
In order discharging. When I was a student and listened to a lecture about special theory of relativity, I asked to the lecturer (one of the best teachers, head of the Department of theoretical physics) to explain to me (ununderstanding) why Einstein do not synchronization clocks at least by the method of successive approximations. He agreed with all of my thoughts, smiled and explained his position thus: "I am glad you know it. But in the exam I grade not what you know, but for the fact that you remembered from a particular material." All my life I thank him for that explanation. And on the exam he gave me a score of "excellent" and I got the red diploma, but still don't know why Einstein didn't do so. And Einstein can't ask
Dear Stephen,
I understand the issues with the ToGR but do they invalidate the conclusion that the flow of time is an illusion?
There is one fact that everybody agrees with: the sequence of the events in the universe cannot be seen changed by some observer. An interval between two events in any reference frame is fixed ds. What is different is how such interval is perceived in the different reference frames, accelerated, faster etc.
So in presence of "matter" I could already attempt to approach a flow of time in term of the sequence of the events (unless the universe is completely still and nothing happens).
The time flow though needs a sort of absolute reference, which could be the one where, gravitational fields are negligible, but operative-wise this thing is not so easy.
According to the Schwartschild solution, the rate at which clocks run in a reference frame, compared to the one at infinity which is set at 1, is fixed, if we know the speed of the clock and its gravitational potential (position), let's say momentum and position respect to the center of the massive object.
Or rater the clock-rate of any moving clock is very well approximated in a gravitiational potential compared to the unitary clock rate at infinity.
But one thing comes out as not included in the solution but requiring compliance:
according to the Equivalence Principle (intertial reference frames of Einstein) FREE FALLING CLOKS should posess the same clock rate, which is the same as the clock at infinity.
Well this is in open contradiction with the Schwartzhild solution and you can solve it only by claiming an unconvincing impossibility to define a clock-rate for free falling clocks. But falling or not the atomic clock is there and responds to the Schwartshild solution which is tested and the clocks will certainly register a delay at the end if falling in the same instants and syncronised from different positions.
This is one of the serious issues which the Einstein's vision has and requires a solution after 100 years.
Stefano,
The weak equivalence principle (WEP)} states that an observer in a gravitational field will not experience free fall as a gravitational effect, but as being at rest in a locally accelerated frame.
You don't need to know the gravitational potential to observe the free fall of clocks in a local frame. The time recorded by all the clocks will permit you to determine the acceleration of that local frame. The clocks need not be falling in the same instants. If they record different accelerations you may interpret it that the local frame is traversing a variable gravitational field.
From that frame you cannot determine the clock rate at infinity.
I don't see that this is a serious issue General Relativity.
Matt,
"The weak equivalence principle (WEP)} states that an observer in a gravitational field will not experience free fall as a gravitational effect, but as being at rest in a locally accelerated frame."
The WEP states the local equivalence of the gravitational mass as being the same as intertial mass of a body according to the ETOVS experiment dealing with the center of mass of material bodies.
The UFF (universality of free fall) also GALILEAN, states that objects free fall regardless of their internal composition.
"The clocks need not be falling in the same instants. "
Real atomic clocks falling at almost the same instants from different gravitational potentials (heigh) will tick differently in the following instants and will accumulate delay.
If they fall from the same place at different instants, it would be the same. The last one will beat at a faster rate, being higher and possessing a lower speed than the other free falling one.
Dear Alexander
Я тоже не конкретизирую, как тела перемещаются в абсолютном пространстве. Потому что не знаю. . Но думаю, что можно использовать любые координаты и системы отсчёта, ведь они нематериальны и от их выбора зависят только наши ошибки в описаниях событий :-). Поэтому я не против любых "теорий относительности", когда они облегчают жизнь,и против, когда усложняют её без пользы. Обычно можно обойтись без них.
Вы правы, что наш выбор системы отсчета может изменить описание процесса, но я не понимаю как он может "изменить геометрию пространства", И я считаю книгу "Элементы виртуальной физики" не "Теорией всего", а только "теоретической моделью плотной упаковки упругих частиц", пригодной в качестве основы для хорошей теории. Потому что даже для названия "Теория многого" это многое надо ещё описать. А "всё" бесконечно и его описать невозможно. Скорее всего годится название "гипотеза строения всего", только имеющая право называться теорией больше всех предыдущих "теорий".
За комментарии спасибо, если это все. А о координатах, системах отсчёта и часах я не упоминаю потому, что они не имеют никакого отношения к описываемым объектам. Они имеют отношение только к описаниям, поэтому могут быть любыми, как и их настройки-калибровки. Зачем мне еще описывать дефектные линейки и часы?. Достаточно подразумевать бездефектные.
А что нет описания экспериментов, противоречащих СТО, то я знаю только о реальном лазерном гироскопе Саньяка, мысленном парадоксе близнецов и многократной синхронизации часов. Описания остальных не вдохновляют меня тратить время на их проверку..А вот за формулы извините, пожалуйста. Их много, а я один. Я старался, как мог, но уж как получилось. :)
Ну а устойчивость я смог рассмотреть 10 лет назад только для сильно вытянутых и сплюснутых эллипсоидов. Остальное оставил другим. Извините, меня, пожалуйста.
I also don't elaborate on how the body moves in absolute space. Because I don't know. But I think you can use any coordinate and reference systems, because they are intangible and their choice effects only on our mistakes in the descriptions of the events :-). So I'm not against any "theories of relativity" when they make life easier,and against, when they complicate it without benefit. You can usually do without them.
You are right that our choice of the reference system can change the description of the process, but I don't understand how he can "change the geometry of space", And I think the book "the Elements of virtual physics" is not a "Theory of everything", but "a theoretical model of the dense packing of elastic particles" is suitable as the basis for a good theory. Because even for the name "Theory of the moon" is much else to describe. And "all" is infinite and it is impossible to describe. Most likely fit the name "hypothesis of the structure of everything" only entitled to be called a theory more than any previous "theories".
For comments thank you, if it all. And about coordinate reference systems and hours I don't mention because they have no relation to the described objects. They relate only to the descriptions, therefore, can be any, as their settings-calibration. Why do I even describe the defective line and watch?. Enough to imply a defect-free.
But that does not describe experiments that contradict STR, I only know about the real Sagnac laser gyroscope, mental paradox of twins and multiple methods of synchronization of clock . The description of other not inspire me to spend time to checking them..But for formulas sorry, please. A lot of them, but I am one. I tried as best they could, but as it turned out. :)
But the stability I was able to review 10 years ago only for highly elongated and spljusnutyj ellipsoids. The rest is left to others. Excuse me, please.
Alexander Chepick
"Anatoliy,
you mean a method of slow moving clock?"
Нет. С помощью многократной обратной связи между часами, которые могут перемещаться с любой скоростью и сообщать свои показания (фотографию циферблата). Первое сообщение дает начало отсчёта показания обоих часов в первый момент, второе сообщение даёт скорость хода часов, третье и следующие сообщения дают другие соответствующие производные от одного времени по второму времени. Возврат сообщений-фотографий при известной скорости света-сообщения даёт возможность вычислить расстояния между часами и производные от них в соответствующие моменты и общее начало отсчёта времени. Проще простого
No. Using multiple feedbacks between clocks, which can move with any speed, and to inform their indication (the photo of clock face).
The first message gives the indication of both clocks in the first moment, the second message gives the speed of the clock, the third and the following messages provide other relevant derived from time of one clock for time of second clock.
The return message-photos at a known speed of light-messages makes it possible to calculate the distance between the clock and derived from them at appropriate times, as well as a common time reference point. Easier than ever.
Короче, скорость света является параметром конкретной части светонесущей среды-вакуума. И только. В этом смысле она постоянна, поскольку не зависит от любых других причин.
In short, the speed of light is a parameter specific part of the light-carrier environment is a vacuum. And only.In this sense, it is constant because it does not depend on any other reasons.
Anatoly,
1. Just A. Kushelev suggested, as objects can move through a tightly Packed environment. And he discovered a sustainability of such objects .
As example of such sustainable figures and their movements you can watch the play of dolphins creating a water ring vortices. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVgXJ55G6Y
http://vsenovoe.info/?p=9354
2. The importance of reference systems is that they provide an opportunity to describe the processes in terms of link between of the positions of objects and between their movements. Therefore, without reference systems in physics can not do.
3. An example of the impact of the choice of the reference frame on the geometry of space is such: to be able to use one SRT to describe phenomena, you need to have the geometry of Minkowski space-time, and the reference frames are based in this theory only in such geometry . To describe developments in the my theory TAS, enough of Euclidean geometry in absolute space and the Cartesian coordinate system. Here the moving frame of reference has not their own space, it describes the events taking place in absolute space, but with help their own measuring devices and clocks.
4. In your description there is no synchronization, that is no the possibility of establishing simultaneity of phenomena with help of immobile clocks relative to each other, if unknown isotropy and the value of light speed in the environment where you want to synchronize.
---
Анатолий,
1. Как раз А.Кушелев предложил, как неоднородности среды (то есть, объекты) могут перемещаться в плотно упакованной среде. И устойчивостью таких объектов он занимался.
Пример таких устойчивых фигур и их движения – посмотрите, как дельфины играют, создавая кольцевые водяные вихри http://vsenovoe.info/?p=9354
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVgXJ55G6Y
2. Важность систем отсчета состоит в том, что только они дают возможность описывать процессы, в части взаимосвязанности положения объектов и их движений. Поэтому без систем отсчета в физике никак не обойтись.
3. Пример влияния выбора системы отсчета на геометрию пространства: чтобы иметь возможность использовать СТО для описания явлений, необходимо, чтобы была геометрия Минковского пространства времени, и только в такой геометрии строятся системы отсчета в это теории. Чтобы описывать события в теории СЭТ, достаточно геометрии Евклида в абсолютном пространстве, и в нем - декартовой системы координат. Движущиеся системы отсчета здесь не имеют собственного пространства, они описывают события, происходящие в абсолютном пространстве, но по своим часам и по своим линейкам.
4. В этом вашем описании отсутствует именно синхронизация, то есть, возможность установления одновременности явлений по этим часам, неподвижным относительно друг друга, если неизвестна изотропия и величина скорости света в той среде, где проводится синхронизация.
Dear Stephen,
"I don't believe, that this is really my job and I hoped some young physicist would have done it already. I am, however, driven by an intense curiosity to try and work out how to explain our everyday experience in a world without a flow of time although I find it very taxing! Physicists seem to be obsessed with mathematics and models and to have lost touch with concepts."
I fully agree we are called with our curiosity to fill in the gaps...since very few in general repropose to re-examine the principles under the light of new experiences...
The new project on thorium of relativity of this world: "How to reconcile Europeans and Muslims" in protection of Muslims and against French.
Due to the new caricatures on the Prophet Muhammad in the French satirical magazines and criticism old criticism of the Prophet Muhammad the great Englishman Sir F. Bacon and the German writer, the Baron Myunkhgauzen, at first we will understand. Generally the criticism of Europe against the Prophet Muhammad is connected with his statement: "If the mountain doesn't go to Muhammad, Muhammad goes to the mountain".
However. I consider, the Great Prophet Muhammad at which wasn't gained effect that the mountain went to him, ingeniously correctly understood the main essence of a problem, and I can confirm it in mathematical experiment. I live in the small city of Pushchino located in the Moscow region of Russia.
Next week the international mathematical conference which gathers and in other cities of Russia will take place in Pushchino, but this time in will be is carried out to Pushchino.
Thus, "I am (Muhammad), I don't go for conference (mountain), and conference (mountain) came to me".
Proceeding from a political situation in the distant countries and emergence of new circumstances, it is possible to paraphrase words of the Prophet Muhammad in support of all Muslims: "If Muhammad doesn't go to the mountain. that the mountain goes to Muhammad".
Sincerely, Alexander
Alexander
One usually says, with resignation and mock humility, "If the mountain (very important person/large organisation) won't come to Mohammmed (me) then Mohammed (I) will have to go to the Mountain (VIP/VLO)!".
Either alternative is usually understood to be implicitly useless from the point of view of Mohammed.
Nothing is constant in the universe then how come the speed of light. Its relative and concern to surrounding medium whether light passes via Ether or in vacuum, speed of light is never constant.
Dear Stefano,
“…to re-examine the principles under the light of new experiences...”
What are these experiments?
I have already said here:
• Miller (1925), Demyanov (1970) found a shift of the fringes in the experiments on the Michelson-Morley Interferometer in a working medium.
• DeWitte, Marinov, Cahill found the preferred frame of reference.
• On the ground of Earth it is impossible to synchronize clocks to satisfy the theory of relativity, and the synchronization of clocks on Earth under stellar reference system does not satisfy the theory of relativity.
• The earth rotates and flies around the Sun but direction of the plane of the tide wave K1 is always the same in the star frame of reference!
Alexander,
Any references to Michelson-Morley interferometers from 1925 or 1970 are totally worthless, look at the precisions obtained by LISA and eLISA.
Yes, dear Mott, but we have to wait till the mission is completed.
Dear Matts Roos,
If you watch again my text you’ll see “Interferometer in a working medium”, but laser interferometers used by LISA and eLISA are working in vacuum tubes, not in working medium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory#Interferometers
The speed of light is not constant because there is neither real vacuum in the Universe, nor homogeneity of space.
You are right, dear Nikolay Konstantinovich.
I shall also add: the anisotropy of the speed of light in non-inertial frame of reference, as it is proved for rotating frame of reference (Sagnac Effect and Hafele–Keating experiment). By the way, it follows that for inertial frames of reference the speed of light is also anisotropic. Unfortunately for inertial frames of reference the speed of light is anisotropic, there is the possibility of calibration, namely, the shift clock throughout the frame of reference, and speed of light turns out isotropic. But, fortunately, in a rotating frame of reference the speed of light cannot be made isotropic by any calibration (even in absolute vacuum).
I suppose that this question refers to light velocity in vacuum (inertial frame of reference), since according to QED the velocity of light in a medium should be considered like "mean velocity", due to absorption-emission process.
Modern Physics, excepting GR, has been developed assuming that physical space is homogeneous and isotropic and physical time is uniform, properties that belong to Minkowski space. It is important to remember that Minkowski space, SR and Electromagnetism have a particular relationship, such that if one of them is wrong the other two are also wrong. By example, assuming that Maxwell equations don't fit with the real electromagnetic phenomena, we then also should reject the assumed symmetries of physical space-time (Minkowski space) and the SR theory.
SR has only one limit velocity (c).
Proposing that light velocity (modulus) is not constant in any inertial frame of reference requires photons with no null "proper mass", which is an absurd idea.
Everything written above is rigorous and can be extended to the whole of modern physics. If it were true that speed of light is variable then we should review knowledge from Galileo.
I wish to clarify that I have not considered discuss the issue in GR because I believe that curved space is incompatible with Electromagnetic Theory.
Dear Hugo,
1. And since there is not absolutely clean vacuum then we should observe the effects of the dispersion of the velocity of light. And we observe them for pulsars and SNe. That is, in reality, the speed of light does not reach "c". Therefore, nothing prevents us to have a mass of the photons.
2. Let's change the time on all clocks in any inertial frame so that at any point the local clock displays the time not under the Lorentz transformations but Eagle transformation: t'=t/gamma. Then in such reference frames it will be neither relativity nor the relative simultaneity, nor Minkowski space, nor the constant velocity of light . But there will be the preferred reference frame, and explanation of all those effects that are actually observed and allowed in GR or prohibited in GR or are not explained in the theory of relativity.
Alexander, it is my opinion that any proposal, idea, opinion or whatever concerning science (in this site) deserves be attended. The downvote is not mine. It would be much better than the option "downvote" does not exist.
I wish center the discussion about the "proper mass" of photons.
If photons have no null "proper mass" then several unregistered optical and mechanical phenomena might be possible, including (formally) being at rest relative to an observer.
Can anyone think of photons resting on the table?
On the other hand (QED), considering photons with proper mass, several difficulties or inconsistencies appear in pair creation phenomenon.
For example, it would be not necessary the presence of a nucleus to validate the conservation of momentum. So, the pair creation would spontaneously occur in a gamma beam with sufficient energy, a fact that in my knowledge does not take place.
Dear Hugo ,
1. “Can anyone think of photons resting on the table?”
Of course, and the rest mass of a photon is not even needed for that . Now there are mediums in which the speed of light =1 cm/s. So it is sufficiently for this medium has been moved back along the table with such speed and the photon will be resting on your table!
2. «So, the pair creation would spontaneously occur in a gamma beam with sufficient energy,»
But it should be remembered that here the mass and momentum exists - in the gamma-ray. And formulas need to be modified slightly to take into account the mass of the photon. But why do you need a particle near the beam path? I think it is necessary to create conditions for reflection as in the Compton effect, in other words, to create a border environments.
Dear Hugo Alberto Fernández !·
Escuse me, please.
I agree with you in many ways. I have long engaged in the theoretical model of the vacuum as dense packing its elastic particles. This model is the simplest of all, which I know, and it gives all formulas of physics, which are not contradicted by the experiences. But it does not have many theoretical formulas. For Example. There photons have no mass. The energy also has no mass and is the only one of the abstract parameters of movement of the bodies. Negative Michelson-Morley experiment is not due hypothetical reduction of longitudinal and transverse dimensions of the mandatory extension of bodies. Quantization of the emission spectrad of atoms and the precession of planetary orbits are other reasons too. The interference of the particles does not require them to be waves. Stars do not go out and they explode at the end of life. Redshift spectra of distant stars do not need to uninstall, the universe does not need a big bang. In general, the foundation of physics has many metrological errors. More details on http://www.worldphysics.narod.ru/index.html
Kind regards,
Anatoly Danyluk
Alexander
For me it was always exciting to know new ideas on the behavior of nature, but I am afraid that your proposal concerning the light is not so new. As you certainly know, it is a return to Newton’s corpuscular theory of light, which was rejected (could not explain the laws of refraction, interference, diffraction and polarization).
I suppose that you have an alternative explanation, which could mean a new optics theory and a new electromagnetic theory.
Regarding your points:
1) You insist that the speed of light in real medium is the speed of photons.
QED showed that the speed of light in real medium is a mean velocity, lower than the instantaneous speed of photons (between interactions), because there is a delay in the absorption emission process.
It is the same as travel by car, stop for a coffee and then continue, resulting in a mean velocity (speed of light) lower than the instantaneous velocity (speed of photons).
2) Alexander, your answer has not consistency. According with actual knowledge the photon is a particle because it fills these 3 requirements: a) has structure (Fourier integral of fields), b) has linear momentum and c) has energy. Proper mass isn't needed.
Any photon has "inertial" mass, also called relativistic mass, has not proper mass and, this is important, has always linear momentum > 0. The latter condition explains the non existence of spontaneous pair creation.
The pair creation phenomenon also happens between two high energy photons in opposite direction and never in a single gamma beam.
Anatoly Danyluk
I visited your website looking for information, but everything is in russian, a language I do not know unfortunately.
I reviewed your 2 articles in english, but refer to other subject (diodes).
Regards
Ingo,
I have reviewed your theory.
My answer I sent on your address.
Dear Hugo Alberto Fernández
I am sorry. Excuse me, please. It is my language problem. I don't know English. This is similar to dumbness and deafness. But at least you'll know that this is also
Best wishes..
Anatoly Danyluk, Chernivtsi National Universitet, Ukraine
“Is the speed of light constant?”
The unit of length used in physics (one meter) is defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.” That is a choice that physicists have made. (The unit of time, one second, is in turn defined in terms of the frequency of vibration of light emitted by a particular transition in a Cesium atom).
Once the units of length and time have been chosen in that way, then the speed of light is a fixed number of meters per second by definition. We then investigate and describe physics, experimentally and theoretically, on the basis of that choice. To claim that the speed of light in vacuum can vary then doesn’t make any sense logically.
But we must not believe in such postulate, we must experimentally to check real speed of light of different frequences in different directions.
I cannot review all the answers however let me write some remarks. The velocity of light appearing in the special relativity theory is not a one-way velocity but an average velocity over a closed path. This follows from the fact that it is impossible to synchronise instantly two distant clocks to perform a one-way measurement by the time of flight method. The best offer is to use light to synchronise clocks and that results in that the apparently one-way velocity is de facto a harmonic mean in both directions (it is a matter of a few lines of elementary calculations to show this). In summary, even if the velocity of light were direction dependent, we cannot detect this using light for clock synchronisation. The Michelson-Morley experiment tells nothing more than: the average velocity of light over a closed path (loop) is independent of the spatial orientation of the loop. It tells nothing about aether.
Dear Jacek
You are absolutely right - even if in real frame of reference the speed of light is anisotropic, then the selected synchronization method in SRT so initializes the clock, that the speed of light becomes isotropic under such a clock.
But it is only in a vacuum.
If in such a reference frame we are doing experiment on the interferometer of Michelson-Morley in the optical medium, then the anisotropy of the speed of light will appear in reality. This is evident in the experiments of Miller and Demyanov, in which there are shifts of the fringes. Moreover, these shifts of fringes will help us restore the speed of movement of the interferometer in the ether, that is, the absolute speed. This demonstrates that the principles of relativity theory in reality, are not fulfil.
--
Уважаемый Jacek
Вы совершенно правы – даже если в реальной системе отсчета скорость света анизотропная, то выбранный метод синхронизации в SRT так размечает показания часов, что что скорость света по таким часам становится изотропной.
Но это только в вакууме.
Если же в такой системе отсчета эксперимент на интерферометре Майкельсона-Морли делать в среде, то реальная анизотропия скорости света проявится. Именно это видно в экспериментах Миллера и Демьянова, в которых появляются сдвиги полос. Более того, по этим сдвигам полос можно восстановить скорость движения интерферометра в эфире, то есть, абсолютную скорость. Это показывает, что принципы теории относительности в реальности не выполняются.
Alexander, I wrote that comment because I know from experience that a great majority of people are not aware of the fact that c is the average velocity over a closed path and not the one-way velocity.
Dear Jacek, You are somewhat wrong.
The SRT directly asserted in the second postulate, that it is one-sided the speed of light in vacuum is constant.( Albert Einstein published his famous work "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies":
2. Each ray of light moves in the stationary system of coordinates with the determined velocity V regardless of emitted r this ray of light stationary or by a moving body.) For practical use of this postulate it is necessary to build a special system of reference and Einstein proposed a special procedure of clock synchronization. This procedure uses the constancy of the speed of light along a closed path (round-trip) in a vacuum. Thus, in SRT are both of these statements.
Alexander, I agree with your remark, I meant that the velocity c which we measure is not the one-way velocity but over a closed path. Einstein was aware of that fact and assumed that the one-way velocity is independent of observer and direction. This is a particular choice and leads to the Lorentz transformation. But this assumption cannot be verified using light for clock synchronisation. On th other hand it has been shown already decades ago that it is not necessary to assume anything about c; it is sufficient to assume the reciprocity V -V for two observers to obtain transfomation equations involving a constant interpreted as a certain limiting velocity, c. I read a paper of Berzi and Gorini from the 60-ties, but perhaps someone had shown this even earlier, I do not know.
Only one assumption V-V is not sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation, we need in the principle of relativity. In 30-ies made it Russian academician Fock. Other derivations of, the Lorentz Transformations had been made by many physics (See “the History of special relativity” in Wikipedia).
I know that all these assumptions can be verified using light for clock synchronisation! Only we have to do the synchronization in a vacuum, and checking - in optically dense media. Even enough air for a Michelson interferometer-Mordi. Even Miller noticed the randomness of the shear bands and their frequency. Only the calculation formula of the absolute velocity was in the wrong. Demyanov experimentally showed that the amplitude of the shifts of the bands depends on the optical density of the medium, and his calculations showed the absolute velocity of the Earth about 400 km/s. Therefore, it appears that both principles of SRT are refuted
Can you please quote some bibliography of Demyanov (refereed journals)?
Dear Jacek,
I wrote for another trhead (but could be usufull here).
The modern formulation of SRT (Logunov-2002) only requires the following space-time symmetries: homogeneity and isotropy of physical space and uniformity of physical time.
It is no necessary Lorentz transformations, maximum constant velocity, relativity principle, length contraction, time dilation, or whatever in this subject. They all are consequence of such symmetries.
At first view it seems that Galileo's space-time holds such requirements, so it would be possible a Euclidean mathematical space (E4) describing physical space-time, but such assumption is not true because physical time has an extraordinary particular behavior: it only runs in one direction.
In order to understand such characteristic allow me to use the velocity definition.
v=dr/dt, where v and dr are collinear vectors with the same sense and dt is the differential of physical time. Consequently, dt must be >0 (arrow of time).
The only way to have a four dimensional mathematical space with the aforementioned symmetries and the arrow of time is to assign a complex time, resulting the Minkowski space.
Minkowski space has the same symmetries than Galileo space (and time) but space and time are not absolute, which means that scales coordinates could be different in different FR.
This is the reason of the name pseudo-Euclidean geometry (proposed by Hilbert and Klein).
IMPORTANT: SRT should be rejected if, and only if, at least one of alluded symmetries is not present in physical space-time.
Until today experimental results showed that SRT is consistent with Nature behavior.
Dear Hugo,
but Einstein based STR on the Lorentz transformations. The four vector Energy- momentum which is intrinsic of the SRT and defined by Einstein in 1905 in his famous paper is a direct consequence of the Lorentz transformations...
So I see a contradiction..
Hi Stefano
Yes, Einstein's formulation is with 2 postulates, but it is not the unique possible formulation.
Logunov used 1 postulate, which means that it is a deepest formulation.
There are not contradictions.
Regards
Dear Alberto,
when asked the Heron: "A heron, you stand all day on one leg. Why do you second leg?". The heron answered: "Let will be".
Still the chief Russian satirist of the 19th eyelid Kuzma Prutkov, the great-great-grandfather of the rector of MSU Logunov spoke: "The expert is similar to gumboil, his knowledge is unilateral".
On this subject there is also an English saying about that that it is better to put the ship on two anchors, than on one.
So I consider dear Alberto that Alberto Einstein's approach is twice more reliable, than at Logunov.
Dear Hugo, this is what I referred to - a paper by Berzi and Gorini from the 60-ties. I disagree with the statement that this is all you need. Homogeneity and isotropy of space-time is not sufficient. Berzi and Gorini assumed a particular property in addition, called the reciprocity principle, that if observer A sees observer B moving with velocity V than observer B will see observer A moving with velocity - V (minus V). This may seem trivial but it is not. This is true if the velocity is measured using clocks synchronised according to the Einstein's procedure. If however you synchronise clocks differently, this reciprocity relation V -V will not hold in general. This may seem weird but it is not! Velocity comes out accordingly to the clock synchronisation procedure (coordinate time).
Eric, I understood from what Hugo wrote, that these two assumptions are sufficient to derive the Lorentz transformation. I only stress that one needs more than homogeneity and isotropy. This may be the reciprocity principle, this may be a given procedure of clock synchronisation, but something more must be assumed.
Dear Alexander, I know that Logunov was a difficult and controversial person, but he also was a very important theoretical physicist.
I wish you will enjoy my next post about Logunov approach of relativity.
Regards
Dear Jacek, I had not knowledge about the article by Berzi and Gorini but, according with your description, in Logunov treatment the so called "reciprocity principle" would not be a principle, it would be a corollary.
I shall try (next post) a detailed description of alluded approach of SRT, as brief as possible (without calculus, It will not be an easy task).
Dear Christian Baumgarten
Your shared article is very, very interesting and, at first view, excellent.
I will carefully study it and, if you agree, I will send my opinion by mail.
Regards
Dear Eric
The Galileo approach of space-time has two non related metrics, one for absolute space (E3) and the other for absolute time. It is impossible to obtain from geometry properties any dynamical behavior (which involves space and time), unless a relationship between absolute space and absolute time were established (Galileo transformations).
Taking into account the symmetries of physical absolute space and physical absolute time, the corresponding single metric of space-time will be an E4 mathematical space.
As I will show in a next post, E4 is incompatible with the "arrow time" and causality.
So, Galileo/Newton space-time and Minkowski space have the same symmetries for space and time but describe different behaviors.
Regards
.All the" theory" of the constancy of the speed of light is error. Because known curves rays of light.
.Все "теории" о постоянстве скорости света ошибочны. Потому что известны кривые лучи света.
Dear Анатолий.
Speaking about the curvature of the light ray, are you talking about the propagation of light in real conditions, however, the constancy of the speed of light requires the perfect conditions. In addition:
1. The curvature of the light ray says nothing about its speed.
2. In different theories it can be said about the different conditions of light propagation and the means of its measurement and about the constancy of the speed of light in a particular direction.
3. The constancy of the speed of light can mean the statement about ideal limit the velocity of propagation of interactions.
4. The constancy of the speed may be only in the preferred frame of reference or in all reference frames.
Therefore, the argument about the curvature of the light beam does not have a logical conclusion about the falsity of all such theories having the constancy of the speed of light.
---
Уважаемый Анатолий.
Говоря о кривизне луча света, вы говорите о распространении света в реальных условиях, но постоянство скорости света требует идеальных условий. Кроме того:
1. Кривизна луча света ничего не говорит о его скорости.
2. В разных теориях может говориться о разных условиях распространения света и о способах ее измерения, о постоянстве скорости света в конкретном направлении.
3. Постоянство скорости света может означать утверждение о предельной идеальной величине скорости распространения взаимодействий.
4. Постоянство скорости может быть в одной системе отсчета, или во всех системах отсчета.
Следовательно, контраргумент о кривизне луча света не имеет логического вывода о ошибочности всех таких теорий, говорящих о постоянстве скорости света.
Indeed, the speed of light is so great that all the observations about speed that we have ever made, all of the experience upon which our common sense is based, are in a tiny area of physical reality that we could label "extremely low speed" compared with light. It is often the case that one can make approximations that apply over a limited region of reality, but that fail when we examine a larger range. For instance, objects fall at 9.8 metres per second per second in the room, also in the basement or on the roof. But this is not true in high orbits, or at the centre of the Earth.
- Badges
- Science topic