[General] Black holes
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 05:52:27 PST 2015
Hi All
Regarding the photon exchange conjecture.
I have taken some time to read, understand the concept, and run the math.
Let's do a thought experiment to try to establish what is possible.
If we are instantly accelerated to the speed of light, what can we see?
With the proper equipment to compensate for redshift, if we are just below
the speed of light, we could see our past.
We could see back to the point of acceleration, and we would view it as
principally being now. But the rest of the universe does not see it this
way.
However when we reach the speed of light we could not see our past any
longer. This is simply because there is no energy available for us to see
our past when we are at the speed of light. All information has been
redshifted to oblivion. Zero frequency is zero energy. At this point all
"fields" from our past have become static. Due to our velocity we are
inhibited from sensing what the rest of the universe can sense.
Time has become infinitely slow. So that time is not changing for us. But
for an observer that is of course not the case. An observer could sense our
velocity and measure it in his time frame. The fact that time has stopped
for us does not mean we can see everything at once from the observer's point
of view. Nor does it mean that we can sense the future and choose our
destination from the start of our journey. Even though time has stopped for
us, it has not stopped for the rest of the universe.
If we view a photon, as an observer, we can therefore understand that the
photon is incapable of "looking into its future". We can also see, from
discussion like the above, that the photon cannot "see its past". At the
speed of light there is no longer any energy to sense from its past.
I feel we have "toyed" with the math of relativity, to try to extract from
it a reason for the observable, experimental results, we have obtained. But
we have not really uncovered the reason for the phenomena. I have now run
the math and, when viewed in its entirety, cannot find a viable solution
using the current photon exchange thinking. In my view, it is warping and
misapplying the math, which even makes it seem to be a possible explanation,
under the current approach.
Velocity limits our perception of time and of other fields in the universe,
as viewed from a "stationary" observer.
I am thinking that there is an answer which actually and accurately
describes these experiments, running the math on that one now. It will take
some time.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:56 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
Hello everyone,
In relativity BOTH space and time change. Look at the equations! One man's
time transforms to anothers space and vice versa. Now (special) relativity
may not be the complete theory of everything (and I do not think it is) ...
but, whatever it is, it is simply not so that space is constant in it where
time varies. You want relativity ... you have space changing to time and
time to space (with the speed of light being the point (for tachyonic
matter) where time crosses completely into space and vice-versa. At least
that is what the maths tells you - but that is mere maths of course.
In fact the problem (of the hypnotic box and the two glasses of wine (good
idea by the way!) is even worse that you think it is. The diagram shows two
boxes of the same length , but with different velocities. This is not what
particles do. The (energy) frequency goes up, the size goes down. The upper
box has not been transformed - but the effect for what you have drawn is
anyway is the wrong way - it should be smaller ... making the frequency
discrepancy even bigger if you allow the velocity variation. The clocks
would only agree if you made the top box bigger. This is the point. It is
far more complicated that just velocity and frequency. What it means is that
the clock thing is not fixed by ONLY changing the speed of light- as in the
two boxes picture.
The problem is anyway that this isn' t really the problem. Even if we were
to agree on whether the speed of light is constant or not or whether time is
motion the real problem will remain: what is light and what are particles
and how do we make up a theory to describe them and understand them? If I
throw out time in the differential equations I use to describe the dynamics
of nature (in the Maxwell or Schroedinger equations for example) .. the d/dt
part - what, practically, do I replace it with? In fact, is not most people
simple concept of dynamics that which changes in time. Have a go- just try
thinking of dynamics without any notion of time .... Take out time and what
does it gain you. One is left with nothing more to say. With, as the dutch
would say, a mouthful of teeth.
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "motion" here. Lets call it m anyway
and try to write a theory for d/dm. While something like this is possible -
one can formulate quantum mechanics in either the set of space and time or
energy and momentum d/dt d/dx d/dy and d/dz OR d/DE d/dpx d/dpy d/dpz --
those p thingys are momentum - not "motion". We need to define just what it
is we are talking about. Otherwise (at Wittgenstein, Godels mentor would
have said) its not worth talking about.
Also E and t and p and x have the little quantum problem of not being
simultaneosly measureable. Now there lies the real underlying problem... and
that is what I should be looking at not arguing about the speed of light!
I am not saying myself that motion is not fundamental - it is!
What I am saying (and have been saying all along) is precisely that it is
fundamental. Things that do not have (at least internal) motion do not
exist. It is a John-Martin module that what you see is the less fundamental
stuff... that which is left over after whatever is strong has satisfied
itself. This is why you do not see magnetic monopoles. What I am saying is
that, to a good first approximation, one can take this motion to be
constant. If you do. That is exactly what a non-variable speed of light
means. Light is motion. The motion is constant.
Where that gets you is, at least somewhere. Let m = c - some universal
constant (the speed of light say). Now one could write (allowing time to
exist for a moment just for the sake of argument) dc/dt = 0 and dc/ds = 0.
At this point we are at the simple point I have been talking about all
along. If you like we have set dm = 0. We have a speed of light, constant in
any frame in which it is measured locally. As is measured experimentally.
Extend this (therefore!) to be true in each and every Lorentz frame with
local measure of space s and measure of time t. One has a theory which has
some measures in common now with relativity. To make it exactly match
relativity one need only put in a proper, invariant, measure of length
-agreed upon by all observers of each others frames. This is
ct^2-x^2-y^2-z^2. There you go. Bob is your uncle.
Comments below ... (in Red)
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:57 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Black holes
John:
I think this speed of light thing is crucial because one thing leads onto
another. Ideally I would like a weekend with you to hammer this out, because
it is so very important. But here we are, with email. And this is a big one.
You are blue. Bear with me:
I would like us to agree to make the simple postulate that time is what
clocks measure.
This is where it goes wrong, right at the very beginning. This is what A
World Without Time
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942
> is all about. Take a look inside a clock. Can you see time flowing
through it like it's some kind of chronological gas meter? No. You see
springs and rockers and cogs, moving. And/or a vibrating crystal. And/or a
pendulum*. And so on. It's always something moving, usually in some regular
cyclical fashion. Hence the inner mechanism of a clock is called a movement.
What clocks do, is "clock up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and show
you some cumulative result that you call the time**. Clocks don't measure
time, they measure motion. When some guy in some SciFi movie has a gizmo
that stops time, what it actually stops is motion. Really they equally
display length : how far the little wheely things have gone round. If they
displayed motion the motion would just be a constant. Clocks are designed
precisely to maintain a constant motion. Then the length the hands have
moved is proportional to the time that has passed (presuming motion =
distance/time) Anyway clocks do not matter.. what matters are elemetary
particles. These go round an sound (constituting a kind of clock) and have a
certain size (constituting a kind of ruler. These are the ruler-clocks (the
rocks) that Martin mentioned.
You are kind of assuming that there is an absolute clock reference - and
that is not what relativity is about.
I'm not. I'm pointing to the empirical evidence, and to what Einstein said.
Good enough -- an absolute ruler then
You are ascribing changes in the velocity to (quite proper) changes in the
clock. One can do this but it has consequences and can lead to confusion in
thinking - as we observe here.
Nope - motion constant - clock and ruler variable.
There is no confusion. But there is a consequence, and it is this: when the
clock goes slower, it's because that motion goes slower. There is no time
flowing through the clock. There is motion occurring in the clock. Even when
it's an optical clock.
I think we need to look at proper changes in ruler as well.
We define the second using the motion of light. When the light goes slower
the second is bigger. When we then use the slower light and the bigger
second to define the metre, they cancel each other out.
Within the narrow context here we have an equation relating space, time and
velocity. We can choose to keep any one fixed , and allow the variation the
other two to match experiment -for this set of 3. This would be ok if it did
not have consequences elsewhere - in such things as the definition of Energy
and momentum for example - whose definition in a wave-function is with
respect to time and space. We could fix this by developing a (pre) canonical
quantisation with respect to velocity - and people (Im thinking about
Kanatchikow) have tried this. We have to look at the whole of physics - all
at once - and get something self-consistent.
Indeed -experimentally -clocks slow down as you enter a gravitational
potential
That they do. And there is no time flowing through any of them. Whether it's
a mechanical clock or a quartz wristwatch or an atomic clock, they all go
slower when you're lower. Because the motion inside them goes slower.
Everything goes slower, and we say time goes slower. But that's just a
figure of speech. There is no actual thing called time going anywhere.
Equivalently, light reduces its frequency (in step) as one goes up, to
overcome the work done against gravity.
Cross my heart and hope to die: this is a fallacy. Your clock goes faster
when you go up, so you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though it
hasn't changed a jot. In similar vein if you move fast through space away
from the light source, you measure the frequency to be reduced, even though
it hasn't changed a jot. Conservation of energy applies.
That is the point. Light energy must go down, otherwise light energy in a
box would not make it heavier (see Martin paper).
Conversely if one climbs a hill one has to do work.
True. You do work on a brick if you throw it up in the air. The kinetic
energy you give it is converted into potential energy, the brick reaches its
maximum height, and then it falls back down. This doesn't happen to a
photon, because a photon is all kinetic energy. It doesn't slow down. And
nor does the descending photon speed up.
The work done goes into winding all the little oscillators inside your body
up
Agreed.
if I use an absolute standard clock at some level of gravitational potential
as "the" absolute clock, then clocks lower go slower
Agreed. But let's make them light clocks. They go slower because the light
goes slower.
However this is not what the initial postulate relating to the speed of
light says or means. It says that the speed of light, experimentally in
vacuo, is a constant.
When you measure a change, it's either because the thing you measured
changed, or because you changed, along with your measuring devices. When you
don't measure a change, it might be because nothing changed. But it might be
because the thing you measured changed and you changed too.
That is the point. Your measure of space AND your measure of time have
changed. ... gota go
Now if time is what clocks measure, then what is space.
Space is empirical. Hold your hands up a foot apart. See that gap between
them? That's a space. That's what space is. Now waggle your hands. That's
motion. That's empirical too. I can show you space and motion. Now you try
showing me time.
Let's make a further postulate - that rulers are what measure space.
We use the motion of light through space in light clocks to measure time,
and then we use radar, the motion of light through space, along with those
light clocks, to measure space. Motion is king. And electrons are made of
it. And rulers are made of electrons. And other things too, but you get the
gist.
That means taking a standard ruler, dividing it by a standard time IN THAT
FRAME gives a standard velocity. It is indeed a tautology that the speed of
light is then a constant - in vacuo.
It's a tautology because we use the motion of light to define the second and
the metre, and then use them to measure the motion of light.
I believe that that is the current status of all of experiment. Am I wrong?
No. You aren't wrong. But the clockwork man using his clockwork clock to
measure the speed of clockwork will say the same.
Now. What a velocity (or speed) is- its distance divided by time. Time is
not motion, space is not motion. Motion is motion.
Motion is motion, but without motion there is no time. Imagine I sit you at
a desk with a big red button. I tell you that if you press the button, all
motion in the universe will cease. Then I tell you that if you press it a
second time, motion resumes. Do you press the button?
Motion is space divided by time. OK?
No. Motion is empirical. So is space. Time isn't.
Can we agree that speed = ds/dt and velocity is dv/dt? A little bit of space
divided by a little bit of time. Do that, with light, in vacuo, anywhere,
any time, you get the same number. Experimentally. Lets call it c. The speed
of light.
You get the same number because the second is the duration of 9192631770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And because
the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1/299792458th of a second. If the light goes slower, the
second is bigger, they cancel each other out, and you still say the speed of
light is 299792458 m/s.
Something is, indeed, changing. Something is, indeed, missing. But just what
that change or missing thing is depends on how we choose to split up our
thinking. What we choose to be primary, and what do we choose to be derived.
Do we take space as primary?
Yes.
Do we take the constancy of the speed of light as primary?
No. Einstein didn't. Nor does Shapiro, nor Magueijo and Moffat, nor Wright,
nor Koks, nor me.
Is something else primary?
Motion. We live in a world of space and motion. Clocks clock up motion. The
little hand moves. The big hand moves. And we say they tell the time. But
they just moved.
However, there is one thing I know about that is missing - that most other
people do not know that is missing. Luckily some clever people have
discovered it independently over the years. One of them was Martin, Another,
(quite) a bit before was Louis de Broglie. It is the Harmony of phases.
I'm guessing that
<http://www.bougainvilleaclinic.com/Dr-Andrew-Worsley.php> Andrew Worsley
discovered it too.
Also I love and respect and idolise Einstein as much as the next man. As
someone who has read some of his stuff, in German, and found mistakes and
mis-directed steps in his work, I cannot take him as an absolute authority.
The evidence and experiment is the authority. And the evidence says this:
when you open up a clock, you don't see time flowing through it.
The quote from Einstein is correct - but both he (and you) can choose
whether you see it as a change in velocity or a change in speed
I've read the original German. It's a change in speed. That's why he
referred to the SR postulate. If you try to insist on the vector-quantity,
you leave Einstein saying light curves because it curves.
In Martin and my 1997 model the photon curves (changing velocity) but the
speed remains that of the speed of light everywhere (c), for example.
You can make a car go round in circles by deflating the tyres on the left a
little. But a much better way is to turn the steering wheel. Your second
email:
In the narrow context of space, time and light-speed (defined as =
space/time at the rest-massless limit) there are two valid viewpoints
(consistent with experiment) and six invalid viewpoints. Viz:
space time speed valid
1 fixed fixed fixed no
2 fixed fixed varies yes
3 fixed varies varies no
4 fixed varies fixed no
5 varies fixed fixed no
6 varies fixed varies no
7 varies varies varies no
8 varies varies fixed yes
Now you can have case 2 or case 8 but not both
Case3 is valid. When the light goes slower the second is bigger but the
metre stays the same. So space is fixed, time varies, and speed varies. Only
I didn't mention radial length contraction.
The lab on earth is not good as it is effectively (according to the
postulate of equivalence) accelerating at g.
I root for relativity, but I will tell you this: the principle of
equivalence only applies to an infinitesimal region. It doesn't apply to the
room you're in. In truth, it was merely an enabling principle, a way
forward. Accelerating through homogeneous space, it's not the same as
standing still in inhomogeneous space. In the former situation, light
appears to curve, but actually, it doesn't. In the latter situation, it
does. Your third email:
For any particle-as-a-clock both (energy) frequency goes up and (clock )
frequency goes down.
Imagine an electron in front of you. It has an energy and a frequency. When
you drop it, gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic
energy. Then when you catch it, you dissipate that kinetic energy, and the
electron now has a mass deficit. Its mass is lower. And all it really is, is
an E=hf photon going round and round. Its energy is lower. So its frequency
is lower too.
The main point of the harmony of phases is that the phase of both of these
oscillations, is in harmony for all space and all time and in any Lorentz
frame.
You must read Friedwardt Winterberg's paper. When you drop an electron into
a black hole, its downward speed relates to the difference in the
"coordinate" speed of light at two elevations, which you can gauge with
optical clocks. When the electron has fallen to a place where the coordinate
speed of light is halved, I don't think things are harmonious any more.
it does indeed make no sense to say the speed of light varies.
But the experiment says it does. If it didn't vary, optical clocks wouldn't
go slower when they're lower.
What this means mathematically is that the speed of light is fundamentally,
in fact, infinite.
But experiment says it isn't. You and I shine a laser at the moon, and it's
circa two seconds before we see the reflection. The speed of light is not
infinite. It is indefinite.
If we could just throw a switch and double the speed of light we would then
not notice.
True. Because we are made of light. The speed of everything would be
doubled.
This is why it can, and should, become common knowledge that photon events
always take place at a single space-time point ( the concept you were having
trouble with before).
If the speed of light was infinite, everything would happen at once. There
would be no time. Just as there would be no time if the speed of light was
zero.
I have talked (and written) about this before for photons (the first time
was in 2008 at Cybcon)- but have not yet managed to get it peer-reviewed
published or even found any individual with whom the idea had any
significant traction - outside of Martin of course.
Sorry to be an awkward sod. But I feel driven to get across this
inhomogeneous space so that the road is clear for curved space.
I think it is the single most important thing we should be communicating to
everyone in the year of light. IMHO.
I wish we agreed on everything. But there again, if we did, whatever would
we talk about?
I think i need to find a new job or just give this one up though as the
present one is giving me 50 hour weeks of teaching...
Maybe somebody is trying to keep you busy.
Regards
John D
* the pendulum clock is the odd man out, in that the clock rate depends on
the first derivative of gravitational potential rather than gravitational
potential. The "force of gravity".
** Just keep gazing at the image below. Have a glass of wine or two. Keep
looking at it. There's some weird psychological barrier to all this, wherein
people insist that clocks go slower when they're lower because time goes
slower, when the time is just the number of reflections, or oscillations, or
turns of a cog.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150227/a364f2df/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 27799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150227/a364f2df/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list