A paper showing additional ways the equtions of quantum mechanics must change at relativistic velocities:

Proofs of the Axial & Gravitational Doppler Shifts Changes Observed Time, Distance and Constants

By Samuel Lewis Reich, 12/10/2023

Abstract:

Proofs that ALL Doppler shifts (NOT just the transverse) change observed time and distance is given by link. It is a fixable big omission in relativity.

That result leads to (for things with rest mass) some basic constants of equations being variables of velocity and angle (at relativistic velocities). Proofs of this given in a different link.

The final link shows a common omission in the analysis of relativistic beams.

Key words: Doppler, relativity, constants, gravitational fields, electric fields, Schrodinger’s equation, uncertainty equations, Planks constant, high energy beams

Proofs:

There is an omission in relativity. The links to proofs of that omission: the axial and gravitational axial shifts change observed time and distance, not only transverse does.-----------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_EuaRUutBrtMkRnMEZ2SmNVQ0FETWpOV29yaWo3bWs3aXN3/view?usp=drive_link&resourcekey=0-igyEAMLGwSdYUNybHyBdlQ

If Ra is axial shift frequency (f’/f) ratio and Rt the transverse shift frequency ratio it will assumed the total shift is Rs=RaRt. Because the equations of each is well known experimentally proven and independent, and always above or equal to one. Ra=1+{(v/c) cos q] and Rt=[1-(v/c)2 ]1/2 . Where q is the angle between v and a line from the source to the observer.

A less mathematical proof that that the axial Doppler shift affects observed time and is a property of distance and time not any medium:

Take a small source producing waves on a water’s surface with some encoded signal. Have a stationary balloon above it with a laser range finder pointing down above it and near by a airplane with identical range finder set up moving at some velocity v less than that of the waves.

For the case of the airplane moving toward the source: The airplane will observe more of the in encoded signal in a time t than the balloon. Time is passing faster in airplane. For the case of the airplane moving away from the source: The airplane will observe less of the in encoded signal in a time t than the balloon. Time is passing slower in airplane. If c is taken as the velocity the waves (not light) and v the velocity of the airplane, fa/fo=1+(v/c) and ta/to=1/[1+v/c)] where fa and ta are the frequency and time in airplane and to and fo that in the ballon. Note they same form as that of Doppler shifts of light although different physically.

Therefore, the formulas for axial shifts are properties of distance and time not mediums. Also, axial Doppler shift changes observed time.

The proofs should be considered an addition to relativity and not a disproof. The axial shift effect is gone at transverse windows of acceptance of instruments and averages to zero at random angles of acceptance, Therefore, experiments to prove the results of the above or following must be non-transverse and limited range angle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to the effect of high velocities on flux of beams:---------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SJ3adTk9XmBWAV-6RoLE3UNV0hz5keGG/view?usp=sharing------------------------------------

A link to a proof that most important constants of physics change at relativistic velocities----------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkCm84ucV6l0E4putJZ8S-uFbnrxpoS8/view?usp=drive_link---------------------------------

In theory h could be replace by a variable of velocity and orientation found by curve fitting the equation in question at 4 or 5 points between 0.2 and 0.8 time the speed of light. But a particle moving at such velocities generates noise. The noise is made by the particle giving energy to standing waves and reflections its moving fields (which can be nonlinear). In the Schrodinger equation one is solving for the wave function which is a probability. The uncertainty equations also probability functions which require many trails for curve fitting.

Results:

All Doppler shifts change observed time and distance (not just the transverse shift). At least some of the constants of well-known equations become variables of velocity and orientation at relativistic velocities of things with rest mass.

Thank you for your time.

Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

Write a paper and publish....this is a forum to help people solve problems, not to have general discussions.

Rodney, I watched the short video that you linked to, but I don't see how it applies to what you wrote. The video is making a very simple point, that the subatomic world of quantum physics is very different from the macroscopic world of classical physics. Are you writing your ideas as a way to disagree with, or to counter the claims made in the video?

Without seeing how your comments relate to the video makes it hard to respond.

You start off by saying this: "Using the Holographic Principle’s idea that the universe is a computer simulation, I’d suggest that, in reality, there is no separation at all between anything in space or anything in time."

I have seen the term "Holographic Principle" used to refer to many different things. It would be helpful to know what you mean by this. The way this term is used most often in physics is in relation to the way the information contained in black holes can be directly related to a two-dimensional surface that surrounds the outside perimeter of the black hole. This has no direct connection with whether the universe is a computer simulation. Remember, this applies to the information contained in black holes, not to all the matter and energy in the universe that we see all around us.

Also, when you say that there is no separation at all between anything in space or time, it would be helpful if you explained what you mean by "separation." It sounds like you are referring to the effects of entanglement, when particles are entangled in such a way that they share quantum states. Is that what you are referring to? If it is, then are you saying that everything in space or time is entangled with everything else? If you are, then it might be helpful to know that when two particles share an entangled state, it is only that one state that is shared.

For example, two electrons can share a "spin state." This does not mean those two particles are also sharing an "energy state" or a "momentum state" or a "position state."

And the reason entangled states are so remarkable is because they are not everywhere and they are not entangling all states or all particles with every other particle. These are rare cases.

I don't completely agree with everything that was said in the video mainly because it leaves out some important details. His main point, as a general point, is fine. However, he states it with such conviction that he makes it sound like there should be no consideration given to anyone proposing that, for example, two people could be entangled. The problem is that physicists do not have a good, clear, explanation for why there is a transition from the world of quantum mechanics to the world of classical physics. And, even worse, when just looking at the quantum world, why is there such a difference between pure, coherent quantum states, and measured quantum states, such that completely different rules apply?

This means that the reality of our universe is actually the result of three distinctly different sets of laws. Until we know and can explain how these three are related to each other, and why they each exist, we cannot with confidence make such statements as he was making.

He is right that quantum principles should not be treated like paint that can be applied to anything, and I squirm just as much as he does when I see it, which is quite often. But he goes too far in making it sound as if he knows, or that physicists know for a fact, that it must always be wrong to say that quantum principles might apply to things at macroscopic levels. We don't know enough to say that.

Physicists do know precisely how the quantum behavior of subatomic particles fades as we move into the interactions of classic objects. But, since we do not know why this strange quantum behavior exists between subatomic particles in the first place, we certainly do not know as a fact that it could not apply at a macroscopic level. This is an issue that is still entertained by seasoned physicists, in speculative discussions.

Doug Marman

Thanks for your thoughtful message. I don't have much time, so I'll just answer the first part of your message today. I do disagree with the video about the subatomic world being very different from the macroscopic world.

As for the weirdness of wave-particle duality - According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."

(Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443)

So, we need to revise Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetism by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. George Yuri Rainich showed in 1925

(Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/.../1925.../S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/) that Einstein’s gravitational equations contain enough information about Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to make it plausible that gravitational waves also possess an advanced component. In addition to electric-magnetic duality not existing, the unification of all things in space and time means wave-particle duality would not exist in all frames of reference. It would only exist for a non-comoving observer: it could be demonstrated “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". If looked at from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (in tune with it), the weirdness of wave-particle duality vanishes and quantum mechanics becomes as understandable as the macroscopic world.

Rodney,

Thanks for explaining your comments in more detail. I now see the logic you were following. Here are some thoughts that might be helpful:

The conclusion you are arriving at does not necessarily derive from the argument you have made. Something more will be needed because the particle-wave duality that is referred to in quantum mechanics is not related to an actual wave that carries energy, like an EM wave.

When Einstein talks about the nature of fields, he says that we should treat them as physical realities because they carry actual energy. However, quantum wave functions do not of themselves carry energy through spacetime.

Most articles that talk about particle-wave duality treat a quantum wave function as if it is a real wave, however, they are only using a non-relativistic model. If we switch to a fully relativistic model, then it becomes clear that the quantum wave function does not actually exist in spacetime until the moment it is measured.

For this reason quantum wave functions are not affected by the effects of relativity, such as time dilation or length contraction. Plus the effects of particle-wave duality are visible to all observers, no matter what their frame of reference, but these effects are only visible statistically after running the experiment over and over again. This is the only way the wave properties, such as interference patterns, are visible. In other words, quantum wave functions themselves are not actually visible to anyone until the moment they are measured, so it is better to think of them as existing outside of spacetime.

Quantum physicists who use fully relativistic models treat quantum wave functions as if they exist in a dimension outside of spacetime until the moment they are measured. When a wave function is measured, it loses its wave-like properties and starts acting more like a particle. And the result of the measurement is a transaction of energy or momentum that is visible to observers in all reference frames.

The wave function itself is therefore not directly visible to any observer, no matter what their reference frame is. However, when we see interference patterns in dual-slit experiments, we can see the results of wave functions.

To make this a little clearer, when physicists say that a single photon passing through a dual-slit acts like two waves that interfere with each other, this is true mathematically, but not physically. There are not two waves carrying energy that are interfering with each other. This is completely different from an EM wave, or any other physical wave that carries real energy.

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics fully incorporates both the normal wave function that moves forward in time and an advanced wave function that acts as if it is moving backwards in time, as you mentioned. However, these forward and backwards moving wave functions do not actually carry any energy. This is well explained by Ruth Kastner's Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

The end result is that there are no dilation of time effects or contraction of space in relation to the quantum wave function until the moment when it is measured and becomes an objective, particle-like state.

I hope this helps.

Nicholas Edward Schlotter

If you click on "Questions" at the top of the page, there are two options - 1) Ask a technical question (help people to solve problems), and 2) Start a discussion (have general discussions). I chose #2.

Okay. First time I have seen a discussion post here. Maybe a new option, or I just missed seeing that. I still think it should be either published or presented at a conference instead, but that is my view.