Alternative to Special Relativity

Sorry to backtrack but what is the difference between the 'speed of reactions' and the 'speed of time'?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Canute,

If you have two charges, one next to the other, and they are moving forward at a constant speed, the speed of the exchange of virtual photons between the two particles will decrease because the virtual photons have a larger distance to travel in order to reach the neighboring charge as a result of the motion of the charges(Relativity claims that time dilation and length contraction negate this effect). Since the speed of the virtual photons decrease, relative to the charges, the force between the two charges decrease as well. This decrease in the force between the charges results in a decreased acceleration, and therefore a decreased speed resulting from the attractive, or repulsive, forces of the charges. According to my theory, if those charges are moving through a gravitational field, then the speed of the virtual photons relative to the gravitational field remains constant (c). However, relative to the charges, the speed of the virtual photons have decreased since the charges do not experience the forward motion of the virtual photons. So, as you can see, time did not slow down because the speed of the virtual photons relative to the local gravitational field remained constant, but the reactions slowed down because the speed of the virtual photons relative to the charges has decreased.

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prosooth,

But surely 'time' here is still measured simply by speed of reactions, say as judged by someone sitting precariously on one of these photons. Would not a clock's speed still be detirmined only by local speed of reactions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Canute,

Yes, clocks do not measure time, they measure the speed of reactions. So technically, time dilation from SR is an unmeasurable property. If time dilation and length contraction exist, then an atomic clock moving at high speeds won't tick any slower than a stationairy clock because time dilation and length contraction assure that the reactions in the clock occur at the same rate regardless of it's speed. Kind of ironic, isn't it? I brought this topic up in the "Unmeasurable Time Dilation 2" thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17610

Tom

 

Ok - I take your comment that:" So, as you can see, time did not slow down because the speed of the virtual photons relative to the local gravitational field remained constant, but the reactions slowed down" as a slip of the pen.

Anyway I'm out of my depth here so will shut up and go check your other thread.

 

1100f,

Let's look at this logically. It is known that aether detection experiments, like the Michelson-Morley experiment, performed on the surface of the Earth all showed that the speed of light remains c, or very close to c, regardless of the Earth's motion around the Sun, around the galaxy, etc. There are only three explanations for these experimental results.

1) Gravitational fields drag a dynamic aether around, and the speed of light always remains c relative to this dynamic aether.

2) Gravitational fields influence light directly, so the speed of light is equal to c relative to the gravitational fields.

3) Time dilates and length contracts for all inertial observers. All inertial observers will always measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) to be equal to c.


Which explanation is the simplist? Explanation 1 requires a dynamic aether while explanation 2 does not. Explanation three requires two new quasi-physical phenomena (time dilation and length contraction), while explanation two does not.

Now if you assume explanation two as being correct because of it's simplicity, you would have to explain why photons travel at c, and how do gravitational fields control the speed of light. There is only one explanation: Photons are gravitational dipoles. They have a positive gravitational field in the front and a negative gravitational field in the back. A photon in a external uniform positive gravitational field will be pulled in the front (because like fields attract) and pushed from the back. This pushing/pulling will cause the photon to accelerate in the gravitational field until it's speed reaches c (which is the speed of the gravitational field).

As you can see, this theory not only explains the results of aether detection experiments, but also explains why photons "tend" to travel at c.

Now as for showing the math, I really don't know what you want. I think that it's easy enough to understand without the math.

 

I disagree (that light speed is not relative to anything), light speed is carrier dependent.
what's the speed in vacuum? c
what's the speed in water? less according to the refractive index
what's the speed in diamond? less according to the refractive index
Now, EM theorists will say it is due to the EM characteristics of the diamonds, etc.
I disagree, I believe it is due to the nature of the carrier.
And as you suggested, this carrier is universal and therefore makes up our atmosphere which moves with the planet which makes the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment a given before the test is even done IF done on the surface of the earth which it was.
deweyb

 

I don't know where did you get this simplicity of assumption 2.
Since when dynamics assumptions are simpler than kinematic assumptions?
You say that saying that the world is symmetric is not good enough, so you want to add dynamics to make it simpler? You just don't understand what you are talking about.

If you want we can compare.
SR states that ds^2 = dt^2-dr^2 = const.
Please write your interraction between gravitation and electromagnetism which you claim is simpler.

 

1100f,

Of course assumption two is simpler, just because it doesn't require any new phenomena to explain why light was measured to travel at c on the surface of the Earth. No matter how "cute" SR appears to be, it requires the introduction of two new phenomena in physics (time dilation and length contraction), while my idea doesn't. Once you accept SR, and believe that time dilation and length contraction do exist, you're stuck with explaining how they exist, and how they are possible at all. It becomes far more complicated than just assuming that photons are gravitational dipoles.

It is known that gravity has an effect on light. If you don't assume that space is warped around mass (which would require some kind of aether), you can easily come to the conclusion that photons have gravitational fields. If you were to assume that the gravitational fields of photons are poisitive and uniform, there would be no way of explaining why they travel at c (which SR doesn't bother to explain either). If photons however had an unsymmetrical gravitational field, this would not only explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but also the non-null results of Dayton Miller's experiments. It would also explain why clocks travelling through a gravitational field tick slower than clocks at rest in a gravitational field, and why muons, and other particles, decay at a slower rate while moving through a gravitational field.

As for the exact interaction between gravity and electromagnetism, I don't have the details. I would need to know the strength of the gravitational dipoles of photons, and the inertial mass of photons in order to calculate their accelerations and decelerations in gravitational fields. I would also need to know how photons react in overlapping gravitational fields that are of different strengths and moving at different speeds. Unfortunately, I don't see how I can calculate these values. It appears that these values will have to be uncovered through the process of experimentation.

 

Please write your interraction between gravitation and electromagnetism which you claim is simpler.

 

Wrong, those two phenomena are a consequence of SR. The basics of Relativity are:
1. Our Space-Time has a metric structure with ds^2 invariant (this means that c is constant)
2. In all reference frames, the laws of physics are the same.

Your idea of EM interacting with gravity (not in the framework of GR since you don't use relativity) is new. I have allready asked: Please show me the lagrangian of this interraction. Since you argue that it is not a new idea, show me how do you get this lagrangian from classical (non relativistic) physics.
Please, show something.

I am not stuck in explaining them, but I believe that you are stuck with understanding them. I sugest that you learn SR before criticize it.

Again, as I told you, there are no gravitational dipoles.
However, if this is so simple, to show that EM waves are gravitational dipoles, please show it.

 

1100f,

I've got a better idea, why don't you show me that all inertial observers, everywhere in the universe, will measure the speed of light to be constant. Show me an experiment that proves that an observer that is moving through a gravitational field will also measure the speed of light to be equal to c. The fact is you can't. Why? Because no experiments where ever done that actually measured the speed of light in an object that is travelling through a gravitational field. All of the aether detection experiments that were ever done, from Michelson-Morley, to Miller, to Brillet-Hall, were all done in a stationairy location on the surface of the Earth (stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field). And somehow, you're asking me to accept that since the speed of light is constant for an observer that is stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field, that it must also be constant for all inertial observers everywhere in the universe. Don't make me laugh. If I suggested such a thing I would be labeled a crackpot, and unscientific. But I guess since it wasn't me, but Einstein, I guess it's OK then.

I expected that kind of response.

If you say so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What kind of proof do you require? What would happen if you placed a gravitational dipole in a uniform positive gravitational field? Do you have another possible explanation of why photons "tend" to travel at c? If you do, and your idea is simpler, or more likely, than mine, I'll be glad to drop my "gravitational dipole" idea.

 

Show me your gravitational fields equations, and how they reduce to Maxwell's equation for a gravitational dipole. Since this is what you say is happening

 

Yes, as I told you, the structure of space-time is such that ds^2 is an invariant.
Since for photon ds^2 = 0, then in all reference frames it is equal to 0 (this means that the photon velocity is c in all frames)

 

Why do you keep saying this? You have been shown to be in error on this many, many times. It seems that you are having trouble understanding basic logic here.

If you treat the development of SR as a logical argument, it has only 2 premises, namely the covariance of the laws of physics and the invariance of the speed of light. It is not necessary to introduce any new premises (specifically, time dilation and length contraction) to develop SR. Indeed, those are conclusions of the argument.

Of course your idea involves more assumptions that SR, because it is not possible to derive any interaction between light and gravity using classical physics. As 1100f said, you have to develop the dynamical field equations for that interaction, and that would involve a completely new theory.

Not only that, but just looking at your explanation of what a "gravitational dipole" is, it is manifest that you have to postulate the existence of a heretofore unobserved quantity: a negative gravitational pole.

The explanation comes from the premises at the start of the SR "argument": Time dilation and length contraction must exist in a universe in which lightspeed is invariant and the laws of physics are covariant.

We won't know that until you actually present a theory.

From the next post:

Obviously, that cannot be done as it would require an infinite number of experiments to be performed.

To the contrary, all experiments measuring the speed of light are performed while moving through a gravitational field. The most dominant contributions of the gravitational field are those of the sun and moon.

He says that because no one has ever observed a negative gravitational monopole.

There are gravitational dipoles, but they are not what you think they are. A gravitational dipole is nothing more than two masses separated by a distance, and the photon is certainly not that.

Finally, regarding the mathematics behind this idea:

What is required here is an equation from which the field dynamics can be calculated. The theory must reduce to Maxwell's equations, which are well tested. It also must provide a system for leaving Maxwell's equations unchanged under a velocity transformation, since you are disallowing special relativity. That alone should require more assumptions than SR.

It is easy to understand. It's just impossible to test!

Well, you could write down the field equation(s) for the interaction, leaving the coupling strength (the strength of the dipole) as an unknown. Then, by showing that your theory reduces to the Maxwell theory, you could deduce the coupling constant from known EM constants (provided your coupling constant does not drop out of the calculation).

It's the standard strategy of determining the unknown by making reference to the known.

 

i m new to this forum
although my relativity experience isnt long (5 years)
i would describe my knowledge in it as fair

and this thread made me laugh
its a thread about people talking to walls
no body listens to nobody
and ive seen Prosoothus cnange his so called theory time after time to evade facing the answer
relativity works
all these works by all the people to prove it is wrong
is the same reason scientests opesed it at its time
fear
fear of loosing what they belive in
that time is unified for all observers
the felt lost and unstable
like they cant stand on thier feet

what Prosoothus has iven us
is a theory that has the so called aether in it
with nothing to prove its existance
no mathimatical model
no observations that couldnt be explained by recent theories that his explain
nothing

 

For most people, the biggest benefit from posting is to themselves.
When you need to articulate your ideas, you are forced to do some significant synthesis and analysis.

If someone listens and learns from what you say (although it might not be what you expect them to learn!), that's a bonus, but it's not the main benefit.

 

i agree
although my expierience with relativity is somehwat different from the former disscucions of the sr and gr were on an arabic forum
most of the people were not fammilier with these topics
the disscusin went in 2 directions
the first is like a school me and a couple of other members explained concepts of relativity and quantum to other members

the second is relegious i meet a lot of people that either think that modern physics prooves relegious issues
or contradict with it in the first case most of thier threads used the method of bending logic and physics to fit it in religion

in the second they used dumb explinations either to prove that the theory is wrong or that we prieceve it wronglylike in the case of quantum mechanicsi guy was so pist off saying it contadicts with relegion
saying that the uncirtainity pricipal sais that the value isnt fixed (or it doesnt have a certian value) until the experiment is made by an observer
he sais that this implies that before the exp even god doesnt know the value
we tried to explain to him that god is above our rules and limitations
he wouldnt buy it
he sais that he agrees to the theory and disagrees with the copenhagen interpretion

i know that there are some ppl here that dont believe in god
i have no problem with that
but to those who do i think its best to keep science and relegion only lightly intersected
whats scientific can only be proven scientificaly
beliefs are of the heart and if some science proves relegion
no problem
but please dont go over board to fit science on relegion

okay sorry for posting outside the thread theme
just a couple of words that were stuck in my throat and wanted to get them out

 

In fat, you can see that there is a third kind of people here. Those who believe in aether as if it was a religion. They do not have any proven evidence of the aether. They do not have any mathematics, but they still claim that aether is the truth.

Btw, I saw on your profile that we are kind of neighbours, so welcome to this forum.

 

Tom2,

Whether you wan't to call time dilation and length contraction causes, effects, or conclusions, the fact is that they are two new phenomena, and SR doesn't work without them.

I completely disagree. The only difference between classical physics and my theory is that I added a bipolar gravitational field to all light-speed particles. This single little addition not only explains the results of the numerous aether-detection experiments done over the years, but also explains why light travels at c, and why clocks that are travelling through a gravitational field will tick slower. In other words, my entire theory rests on one assuption: photons have a non-uniform gravitational field.

I can't argue with you about that.

First of all, I use the term "gravitational dipole" for simplicity. The only thing that is truly necessary for a particle to accelerate in a uniform positive gravitational field would be for its gravitational field to be non-uniform. That means if a photon had two positive gravitional poles, but one was weaker than the other, it would accelerate to c as well (only it might take a little longer).

And second, I just wanted to say that due to the nature of the gravitational interaction, if you assume that like poles attract and opposite poles repel, it's likely that we won't find any negative gravitational poles on this side of the universe. Unlike in ineractions where opposite poles attract, which create a mixed universe (with poles evenly distributed), interactions where like poles attract will create a bipolar universe (all positive poles on one side of the universe, and all negative poles on the other side). The only place to actually witness negative gravitational poles would be in particle accelerators, but particle accelerators aren't set up to detect them.

You're absolutely correct. However, don't forget that the strength of the Sun's gravitational on the surface of the Earth is 1650 times weaker than the the strength of the Earth's gravitational field on the surface of the Earth. The Moon's gravitational field has a larger effect on the surface of the Earth, but it travels much slower than the Sun's gravitational field relative to the Earth. This means that the Sun and the Moon will influence the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, but only to a small degree (according to my calculations, less than +- 30 m/s). As you probably know, all the aether detection experiments that were performed over the years were not set up to measure this small of a change in the speed of light. Although Dayton Miller did measure a correlation between his results and sidereal time in his experiments, all other experimenters that measured these small variances accepted them within the margin of error.

No, not really. All you have to do is place an inferometer in fast moving spacecraft (the Mars probe would have been nice), and then measure for a change in the speed of light.

Easier said than done.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I probably don't have to remind you, I'm not a college educated physicist. Physics is only a hobby of mine, and not a profession. The math needed to calculate the field equations is over my head for now, but i might delve into the math of my theory later if I have little more time on my hands.

The basis of my theory states that all light-speed particles only travel at c relative to the local gravitational field, or fields, that they are passing through at any given moment. I introduced the concept that photons have dipolar, or non-uniform, gravitational fields because that is the only logical explanation for why the speed of light would be linked to gravitational fields. My model of dipolar photons may be wrong, but I'm pretty convinced that my general theory is correct.