Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Harry Veeder wrote: The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. Yes, for sure, aether theory is totally different from Newton's particle theory. Aether theory was, if I understand this correctly, conceived to explain the wave nature of light, which was known at that time -- diffraction and interference are hard to explain with particles. QM does it, but QM came much later, of course. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. It's hard to come up with a one-way lightspeed measurement which doesn't require TWLS=OWLS to get its result. The problem is that for OWLS you need to have spatially separated synchronized clocks; how do you sync them up to start with? The approach I'm aware of which should work is slow transport -- you colocate the clocks and sync them, and then you move them *slowly* apart, preferably moving them simultaneously in opposite directions. This should work if you're either in an inertial frame (which is to say, somewhere out in space, not in orbit around anything) or if you start on the equator and move one clock directly north and the other directly south. If either clock moves on a line which carries it forward or backward relative to the Earth's rotation, then the Sagnac effect (which has been experimentally verified) is going to cause trouble with the syncing, and slow transport doesn't help much with that. Ultimately, as you say, Einstein chose to chuck the common understanding of space and time. Our intuition says that in order to have a wave, someTHING must wave. Einstein chucked that overboard, which was a significant change. And people have been objecting ever since. The only reason special relativity is accepted is that its predictions agree with experimental results. The bind most other theories got caught in was that they needed to agree with the outcomes of both the Michelson-Morley experiment (with its null result) and the Sagnac experiment (with its non-null result). The former is inconsistent with most aether theories, and the latter is inconsistent with emission theory. What is the emission theory? The particle theory of light? Emission theory holds that light is particles, and travels at C relative to the *emitter*; it takes the analogy of rifle bullets and carries it to its conclusion. The two big problems with it are ** It conflicts with the Sagnac experiment ** When the emitter is in motion, emission theory predicts a longitudinal /frequency/ redshift which is (nearly) identical to the values predicted by SR, but it predicts *no* /wavelength/ redshift. This results from the fact that the propagation velocity of the light varies with the emitter's velocity, which negates the wavelength shift. Since spectroscopes using diffraction gratings measure the wavelength, rather than the frequency, it requires some rather inelegant hackery to get the theory to produce answers which agree with observation here.
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
on 14/9/08 8:25 am, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. Yes, for sure, aether theory is totally different from Newton's particle theory. Aether theory was, if I understand this correctly, conceived to explain the wave nature of light, which was known at that time -- diffraction and interference are hard to explain with particles. It is hard to explain with particles possessing the property of inertia, which was considered mandatory for all particles to possess in the late 19th century. However, if inertia is some sort of electromagnetic effect rather than a fundamental property it becomes easier to see how such particles could produce wave-like effects. What I am suggesting is that classical electromagentic waves could be reimagined as being roughly analoguous to Debrogile's pilot waves. QM does it, but QM came much later, of course. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. It's hard to come up with a one-way lightspeed measurement which doesn't require TWLS=OWLS to get its result. The problem is that for OWLS you need to have spatially separated synchronized clocks; how do you sync them up to start with? You don't have to. The problem of synchronsization arises only when one assumes that special relativity is correct *before* the experiment is performed. A one-way test of absolute of motion should begin with the assumption that absolute time is correct. Even if c is found to be constant then you might conclude that absolute space is invalid, but the result does necessarily invalidate absolute time. The approach I'm aware of which should work is slow transport -- you colocate the clocks and sync them, and then you move them *slowly* apart, preferably moving them simultaneously in opposite directions. This should work if you're either in an inertial frame (which is to say, somewhere out in space, not in orbit around anything) or if you start on the equator and move one clock directly north and the other directly south. I am thinking of something even more straightforward. Imagine you are standing x feet from a highway sign with a laser pointer. Your friend is in car moving past you at v feet/sec also with a laser pointer. At the moment he passes you, you both fire your laser at the sign. He aims for the left side of the sign and you aim for the right side. Will his laser reach the sign first or will they both arrive at the same time? Surely such fine time measurements are now technically possible. If either clock moves on a line which carries it forward or backward relative to the Earth's rotation, then the Sagnac effect (which has been experimentally verified) is going to cause trouble with the syncing, and slow transport doesn't help much with that. Ultimately, as you say, Einstein chose to chuck the common understanding of space and time. Our intuition says that in order to have a wave, someTHING must wave. Einstein chucked that overboard, which was a significant change. And people have been objecting ever since. The only reason special relativity is accepted is that its predictions agree with experimental results. The bind most other theories got caught in was that they needed to agree with the outcomes of both the Michelson-Morley experiment (with its null result) and the Sagnac experiment (with its non-null result). The former is inconsistent with most aether theories, and the latter is inconsistent with emission
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Harry Veeder wrote: on 14/9/08 8:25 am, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. Yes, for sure, aether theory is totally different from Newton's particle theory. Aether theory was, if I understand this correctly, conceived to explain the wave nature of light, which was known at that time -- diffraction and interference are hard to explain with particles. It is hard to explain with particles possessing the property of inertia, which was considered mandatory for all particles to possess in the late 19th century. However, if inertia is some sort of electromagnetic effect rather than a fundamental property it becomes easier to see how such particles could produce wave-like effects. What I am suggesting is that classical electromagentic waves could be reimagined as being roughly analoguous to Debrogile's pilot waves. QM does it, but QM came much later, of course. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. It's hard to come up with a one-way lightspeed measurement which doesn't require TWLS=OWLS to get its result. The problem is that for OWLS you need to have spatially separated synchronized clocks; how do you sync them up to start with? You don't have to. I think you do; otherwise how can you know how long the pulse took to arrive at the target? You know when it started, according to A; you know when it arrived, according to B. But A and B have two different clocks -- they must, because they're not in the same place, and one clock can only be in one location at a time. You may argue that it's trivial to synchronize their clocks, but I don't think you can really argue that it's completely unnecessary. The problem of synchronsization arises only when one assumes that special relativity is correct *before* the experiment is performed. A one-way test of absolute of motion should begin with the assumption that absolute time is correct. But even if it is correct, how do you set all clocks to the absolute standard? What do you use for a time distribution network? Remember, you're trying to *measure* OWLS here, so you can't assume anything about the reversibility of paths before the experiment. You can start with colocated synchronized clocks and then separate them, but if you're not careful you'll find that you're *assuming* SR is invalid before the experiment, which is just as bad as *assuming* it's valid! Even if c is found to be constant then you might conclude that absolute space is invalid, but the result does necessarily invalidate absolute time. The approach I'm aware of which should work is slow transport -- you colocate the clocks and sync them, and then you move them *slowly* apart, preferably moving them simultaneously in opposite directions. This should work if you're either in an inertial frame (which is to say, somewhere out in space, not in orbit around anything) or if you start on the equator and move one clock directly north and the other directly south. I am thinking of something even more straightforward. Imagine you are standing x feet from a highway sign with a laser pointer. Your friend is in car moving past you at v feet/sec also with a laser pointer. At the moment he passes you, you both fire your laser at the sign. He aims for the left side of the sign and you aim for the right side. Will his laser reach the sign first or will they both arrive at the same time? Surely such fine time measurements are now technically
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
on 14/9/08 4:19 pm, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: on 14/9/08 8:25 am, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. Yes, for sure, aether theory is totally different from Newton's particle theory. Aether theory was, if I understand this correctly, conceived to explain the wave nature of light, which was known at that time -- diffraction and interference are hard to explain with particles. It is hard to explain with particles possessing the property of inertia, which was considered mandatory for all particles to possess in the late 19th century. However, if inertia is some sort of electromagnetic effect rather than a fundamental property it becomes easier to see how such particles could produce wave-like effects. What I am suggesting is that classical electromagentic waves could be reimagined as being roughly analoguous to Debrogile's pilot waves. QM does it, but QM came much later, of course. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. It's hard to come up with a one-way lightspeed measurement which doesn't require TWLS=OWLS to get its result. The problem is that for OWLS you need to have spatially separated synchronized clocks; how do you sync them up to start with? You don't have to. I think you do; otherwise how can you know how long the pulse took to arrive at the target? You know when it started, according to A; you know when it arrived, according to B. But A and B have two different clocks -- they must, because they're not in the same place, and one clock can only be in one location at a time. You may argue that it's trivial to synchronize their clocks, but I don't think you can really argue that it's completely unnecessary. The problem of synchronsization arises only when one assumes that special relativity is correct *before* the experiment is performed. A one-way test of absolute of motion should begin with the assumption that absolute time is correct. But even if it is correct, how do you set all clocks to the absolute standard? What do you use for a time distribution network? Remember, you're trying to *measure* OWLS here, so you can't assume anything about the reversibility of paths before the experiment. You can start with colocated synchronized clocks and then separate them, but if you're not careful you'll find that you're *assuming* SR is invalid before the experiment, which is just as bad as *assuming* it's valid! You only have to know that the pulses depart at the same time and travel the same distance and to note the difference (if any) in their arrival times. Synchronization of clocks is necessary only if you wanted to know the total travel time of each pulse. Even if c is found to be constant then you might conclude that absolute space is invalid, but the result does necessarily invalidate absolute time. The approach I'm aware of which should work is slow transport -- you colocate the clocks and sync them, and then you move them *slowly* apart, preferably moving them simultaneously in opposite directions. This should work if you're either in an inertial frame (which is to say, somewhere out in space, not in orbit around anything) or if you start on the equator and move one clock directly north and the other directly south. I am thinking of something even more straightforward. Imagine you are standing x feet from a highway sign with a laser pointer.
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/abs/nature07121.html It's dawning on the mainstream gradually. This is what I meant by fundamental science (and useful, truthful science) being done on a shoestring on a bench top.
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
on 6/9/08 10:16 pm, Stephen A. Lawrence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a frame of reference movingat C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell'sequations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. For something to travel through space in no time, doesn't that require infinite speed? As measured by a particle with a stopped clock, yes, speed could be viewed as infinite ... but, in fact, there's length contraction to take into account also. Fitzgerald contraction goes as 1/gamma and as far as the photon is concerned, the universe is 0 units across, so a photon's perceived speed doesn't have to be infinite after all. So, infinite distance, like infinite speed, is in the eye -- and clock, and ruler -- of the beholder. Anyway did it ever occur to anyone that Maxwell's equations are wrong and need reform because they don't provide a solution at c. Evidently Einstein preferred to regard the equations as right, and instead reform our understanding of time and space. Yes, people thought of that. The problem they were facing is that Maxwell's equations appeared to match reality, based on experiment, and yet there was no natural preferred rest frame in the equations. If the equations were valid in some special rest frame, what did that say about any other frame? Either the equations were wrong for all other (moving) observers, or something very strange was going on. As I'm sure you're aware, the speed of an EM wave can be *calculated* from Maxwell's equations. That means either (a) the equations can't be right for an observer who is in motion relative to the preferred rest frame, or (b) an observer in motion and another observer who was stationary would each see a given EM wave as traveling at the *same* *speed* relative to themselves, which appears to be a contradiction. The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. Since the aether is not identical with Newton's notion of absolute of space, the failure to detect an aether does not invalidate the notion of absolute space. The difference between an aether and absolute space is very apparent when light is concieved as a particle, although the preference for the wave theory of light by the latter half of the 19th century resulted in a tendency to disregard this important conceptual difference. Even without quantum theory, one could still argue that light is a particle and that Maxwell's equations simply provide a mathemtical *formalism* for predicting how light particles interact with matter. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. I'm still waiting for a one-way light speed measurement. As far as I know all experiments todate use the absence of interference to infer the constancy of the speed of light over different frames of reference. Ultimately, as you say, Einstein chose to chuck the common understanding of space and time. Our intuition says that in order to have a wave, someTHING must wave. Einstein chucked that overboard, which was a significant change. And people have been objecting ever since. The only reason special relativity is accepted is that its predictions agree with experimental results. The bind most other theories got caught in was that they needed to agree with the outcomes of both the Michelson-Morley experiment (with its null result) and the Sagnac experiment (with its non-null result). The former is inconsistent with most aether theories, and the latter is inconsistent with emission theory. What is the emission theory? The particle theory of light?
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:45:47 +1000: Hi, Don't bother answering this, I get it. [snip] In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? Well ... Looking at it classically, the same description applies to circular polarization. If you freeze time, and look at the E field of a traveling circularly polarized wave, you'll find that the E vector forms a spiral in space. Unfreezing time again and letting the wave move along, as this corkscrew shape travels through space, an inertial observer will see the E vector rotating. However, if you could travel with the photon, at C, you'd see a static corkscrew pattern spread out through space; once again, the E field of the photon doesn't change with time, as seen from the photon's viewpoint. It's the changing position of the photon relative to an inertial observer that makes the E field (and B field) appear to spin. The rifling inside a gun barrel, as viewed from the frame of a bullet, might be a reasonable analogy, where the bullet takes the place of the inertial observer. The bullet sees the lands in the barrel rotating around it, and the *apparently* rotating lands are what impart the spin to the bullet. The soldier holding the rifle, on the other hand, sees the lands in the barrel as a stationary spiral, and sees the bullet moving past them. In this analogy, the rifle barrel with its spiral pattern is the photon, and the bullet is the inertial observer. As to the particle view ... AFAIK the photon itself is circularly polarized with either clockwise or counterclockwise polarization. The thing that always bothered me about this is that a so-called circular polarizer isn't that at all; it's a linear polarizer and a quarter-wave plate, which always seemed to me like cheating. It's like we're playing with linear polarization and pretending there's some new property here. Yet, for a circular polarizer to work with single photons, the photons must actually know which way they're polarized. [snip] This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008 8:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crestis moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference movingat C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell'sequations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. For something to travel through space in no time, doesn't that require infinite speed? Anyway did it ever occur to anyone that Maxwell's equations are wrong and need reform because they don't provide a solution at c. Evidently Einstein preferred to regard the equations as right, and instead reform our understanding of time and space. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; ratherit's a fixed pattern which travels through space. Harry
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a frame of reference movingat C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell'sequations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. For something to travel through space in no time, doesn't that require infinite speed? As measured by a particle with a stopped clock, yes, speed could be viewed as infinite ... but, in fact, there's length contraction to take into account also. Fitzgerald contraction goes as 1/gamma and as far as the photon is concerned, the universe is 0 units across, so a photon's perceived speed doesn't have to be infinite after all. So, infinite distance, like infinite speed, is in the eye -- and clock, and ruler -- of the beholder. Anyway did it ever occur to anyone that Maxwell's equations are wrong and need reform because they don't provide a solution at c. Evidently Einstein preferred to regard the equations as right, and instead reform our understanding of time and space. Yes, people thought of that. The problem they were facing is that Maxwell's equations appeared to match reality, based on experiment, and yet there was no natural preferred rest frame in the equations. If the equations were valid in some special rest frame, what did that say about any other frame? Either the equations were wrong for all other (moving) observers, or something very strange was going on. As I'm sure you're aware, the speed of an EM wave can be *calculated* from Maxwell's equations. That means either (a) the equations can't be right for an observer who is in motion relative to the preferred rest frame, or (b) an observer in motion and another observer who was stationary would each see a given EM wave as traveling at the *same* *speed* relative to themselves, which appears to be a contradiction. The most common approach to the problem was to postulate an aether which carried the EM waves, and then try to patch things up so that Maxwell's equations would still work. This approach had the large advantage that it did *not* require reforming the common view of space and time -- aether was a simple extension of a familiar concept, albeit with some peculiar new properties. The trouble was that it's very hard to come up with an aether theory in which Maxwell's equations are correct at all speeds. If they're *not* correct at all speeds, then experiments should show differences depending on the observer's speed. And experiment has never turned up such a difference. Ultimately, as you say, Einstein chose to chuck the common understanding of space and time. Our intuition says that in order to have a wave, someTHING must wave. Einstein chucked that overboard, which was a significant change. And people have been objecting ever since. The only reason special relativity is accepted is that its predictions agree with experimental results. The bind most other theories got caught in was that they needed to agree with the outcomes of both the Michelson-Morley experiment (with its null result) and the Sagnac experiment (with its non-null result). The former is inconsistent with most aether theories, and the latter is inconsistent with emission theory. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; ratherit's a fixed pattern which travels through space. Harry
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:45 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks That's pretty easy. Field forces are manifested through, i.e. carried by, messenger particle exchanges. The messenger particle for gravity is the graviton. Gravitons do not exchange gravitons with other gravitons, thus they are free to escape black holes and to move through any type of gravitational field unencumbered. That's the vanilla theory. In my theory of gravimagnetics, the virtual photon in the electromagnetic universe corresponds to the graviton in the gravitational universe, as a similar correspondence exists for the photon to the graviphoton. In EM theory electrostatic charge is the source and sink of virtual photon messengers. In gravimagnetics, gravitational charge is the source and sink of gravitons. The answer to your question in gravimagnetics terms is that gravitons carry no gravitational charge, thus they are free to escape black holes. Unlike conventional theory, however, in gravimagnetics we see that virtual photons do not carry gravitational charge either, and thus black holes are free to exhibit electrostatic charge, and vastly more importantly, magnetic fields. Light, however, being carried by photons, which have gravitational charge, is not free to escape black holes. Photons carry gravitational charge, thus can not escape black holes, and their path is bent by gravity. Similarly, graviphotons carry gravitational charge, and thus can not escape black holes. It is also true that graviphotons carry a weak coupling to the virtual photon, corresponding to the weak coupling of the photon to the graviton. This means that it is theoretically feasible to build a graviphoton telescope through use of a powerful electrostatic field used as a lense and through use of a very sensitive detector. Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to virtual photons, it is reasonable to suspect the possibility that neutrinos are comprised of graviphotons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:12:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] I posted a message, then went shopping. I just got back, and discovered this post from Horace. :) [snip] Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to virtual photons, it is reasonable to suspect the possibility that neutrinos are comprised of graviphotons. [snip] Is it possible that they are in fact one and the same thing? IOW the gravity waves that various experiments are looking for, may have been here all along, in the form of neutrinos. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? I had the impression that their velocity was an open question, but that current evidence points to it being less than C. They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. More sophisticated people than I have claimed that neutrino oscillations imply they have a nonzero rest mass, which in turn also seems to indicate they're subluminal (else they'd be MDH (Might Darn Heavy) when they got revved up to C). (Unlike the naive time passes for them argument I don't see the connection between oscillations and rest mass, but whatever...) See, for example: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation Entering neutrino/oscillations in Google got 195,000 hits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? I think it is reasonably certain that neutrinos are not graviphotons, because graviphotons have a spin 1 and neutrinos are spin 1/2. This is purely under my gravimagnetics theory. I don't know of any other theory that predicts graviphotons, though some may exist. The thing about gravimagnetics in this case is it involves separate dimensions, the imaginary dimensions, for gravitational forces and values, and real dimensions for EM forces and values. However, there are weak couplings that are cross dimension, so this leaves an open question as to just how a spin in one set of dimensions is viewed in interactions with the other. It also leaves open the possibility of a purely gravitational equivalent to a quark, and thus the possibility of heavy particles in one set of dimensions manifesting as weekly coupling ultra-light particles in the other - a perfect duality. Also feasible is a cross dimensional spin, which varies through time the particle characteristics as observed in both dimensions. This is all highly speculative and just food for thought. Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] AFIK all particles have a wave-particle duality. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:gravity = pdf
For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast)
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
Howdy Jones, Black holes?? How does one address the bi-directional flow represented by the orifice of the vortex.. ?? Studying the pictures taken of a sonofusion bubble in a collapse mode,we see a spiral vortex form and suck the sphere into itself.. Hard to explain but I can search for the pics. Richard - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf OrionWorks wrote How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Simple my dear Watson, the influence of gravity itself IS superluminal (according to some) -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 6:57 AM
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
OrionWorks wrote How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Simple my dear Watson, the influence of gravity itself IS superluminal (according to some)
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
OrionWorks wrote: Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. The gravitational field doesn't get out, it just is out -- it doesn't propagate, it just is. And in fact it predates the formation of the black hole -- the far field *does* *not* *change* when a black hole forms. Micro black holes, for instance, have exactly the same gravitational field the (small amount of) matter which went into their formation had, as long as we're farther away than the original radius of the pre-hole blob; the only difference is the radius of a black hole is vastly smaller than the radius of the original blob of pre-black-hole matter which formed it. Similarly, the field of an electron doesn't propagate, it just exists. Watch a stationary electron; how fast is its field propagating? Answer: It's not, just like the gravitational field of the Earth isn't propagating, nor is the field of a black hole. (Quantum gravity may put a different spin on the picture, of course; anything I say about it comes from the classical GR picture.) Radiation propagates, but radiation results from a *change* in a field, typically due to acceleration of the object producing it. Gravitational radiation propagates at C (according to the standard theory -- nobody's detected it, and that includes Van Flandern, so its velocity certainly hasn't been measured). EMR propagates at C also, and that has been measured, of course. Since a static gravitational field doesn't propagate, it shows no aberration either. Similarly, the static field of an electron doesn't propagate, and it also shows no aberration. People occasionally point to the lack of aberration of the Sun's gravity as evidence for a high gravitational propagation speed, which really makes little sense. It's like pointing to the lack of aberration of an electron's field as evidence that an EM field propagates infinitely fast -- really, in both cases there's no propagation involved. Here's a classic gedanken experiment which illustrates what I'm talking about: Imagine two spaceships sitting a few light hours apart, stationary relative to each other. Their clocks are synchronized (they're stationary relative to each other, so that's easy enough to do). Now, someone a very very long distance away fires a negatively charged particle at one of the ships. The particle, traveling at constant velocity, moves along a line perpendicular to the line connecting the ships. The particle arrives at spaceship B at 3:00 sharp. Now, over on spaceship A, there is a sensitive electric field detector, which senses the field of the charged particle; an indicator points at the (moving!) location of the particle, by pointing in the direction its electric field *currently* points (*no* compensation for its being a moving target). At some point, the detector will point directly toward spaceship B; that's the moment when the folks on A detect the arrival of the particle at ship B. WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN? Answer: 3:00 sharp, according to relativity theory. There is *NO* propagation delay. That's what is meant by lack of aberration -- the field constantly points toward the CURRENT location of the particle (as long as it moves uniformly). Similarly, the gravitational field of the Sun always points directly at the Sun, rather than to a point where it was recently (as long as the Sun is moving uniformly). If anyone's curious I can go into more detail on this. Note particularly that we assumed the particle was traveling at uniform velocity -- if it accelerates, it radiates, and the picture gets more complicated. Don't ask me about virtual photons, tho, 'cause I don't know diddly about them. This is just classic field theory I'm talking about here (which matches experiment nicely AFAIK, until you get into the quantum realm). * * * I've encountered Van Flandern before in the physics news groups, and I wouldn't tend to spend a lot of time on his writing. Anyhow the blurb on Wiki pretty much sums it up: Van Flandern is best known for his contention that certain features on the surface of Mars are artificial sculptures of faces created by extraterrestrial beings, that Mercury may be a former moon of Venus, and that planets sometimes spontaneously explode. He's not an amateur; he's a professional (retired?) astronomer who worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 20 years, for whatever that's worth.
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf Jonse sez: For those who haven't seen it: The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)] http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp hint: this is not a pdf file but gavity is pdf (pretty damn fast) From the report: How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? Always wondered about that conundrum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks My answer without reference to general relativity: I begin by questioning the law of inertia from a naive or experiential perspective. Obviously inertia manifests itself during collision/contact between material bodies, However since a thrown ball travels in a arc contrary to the law of inertia AND since there is apparently no material action on the ball working to overcome the inertia of the ball, I contend the law of inertia simply does not apply to bodies moving freely, i.e. without material interaction. Instead material bodies have a natural propensity to accelerate towards each other. They contain, if you please, a spark of acceleration, whose magnitude and direction is affected (rather than effected) by the mere presence and relative proximity of other bodies. harry
