Newtons laws, relativity & the ether

[Guest 15258]

Working through them now. May take me a while...

I think the maths is wrong, so don't take those threads to seriously. You probably don't even need to read them, I was just pointing them out in case you're interested.

Here's another, much shorter, thread, Questions to the C's - History of Einstein the theory of relativity

I do think that mass and charge will probably resolve to be the same thing experienced through a different space. Figuring out that is my long term aim...

The C's say that light and gravity are intertwined. So I guess if that's true then mass and charge would be intertwined also?

Here's another thread: Great paper on "Subquantum Kinetics" Possible UFT

I read Dr La Violettes book secrets of antigravity propulsion. In it he talks about the Biefeld Brown effect, and says that it's related to gravity. Basically what I took away from it was that a moving/changing electric field creates gravity.

With the maths we would need to be able to generalize wave packet formulations across relativistic boundaries: I've never yet seen a unification of the classical E/M wave model with that of a photon wave packet.

Ok, put that on the list of things to do.

I think maybe the electromagnetic wave is a manifestation of the wave function of a photon.

What kills me today (and did-so 30 years ago) is that I can visualize all these interactions, but do not have a mathematical language that can express them, and explain the origins of the rules that govern them.

No stress.

What he was deriving was equivalent to Galileian Relativity using AEtheric light as a clock. Had Michelson-Morley worked, his spacetime model would have been correct.

In the second video his treatment of the experience of B uses Galileian calculations for x' and t', which would only hold if the waves were passing through a fixed aether. (In his videos, the speed of the clock pulse is always calculated from the reference frame of an observer at rest wrt the medium and watching both A and B).

Right, and he still manages to derive Lorentz transformations. I think this means that Lorentz transformations and the asociated mathematics are correct, they just apply to sound, where there's a fixed medium and not to light, where the speed of light is constant for all observers.

 

[Bluegazer]

A simple question regarding:

Maxwell's equations didn't explicitly define the medium, but they did define something related: the speed of EM waves relative to that medium would always be constant - specified by the electrical and magnetic permittivity of the medium:

In this equation c is the speed, μ is the magnetic permittivity, and ε is the electric permittivity.

Considering that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and that the interstellar medium is plasma (electric universe) and that this plasma varies its state according to the electric charge/potential and that furthermore the plasma can enter a state of coherence, doesn't this prove that the medium is not always constant?

 

[woneill1701]

Right, and he still manages to derive Lorentz transformations. I think this means that Lorentz transformations and the asociated mathematics are correct, they just apply to sound, where there's a fixed medium and not to light, where the speed of light is constant for all observers.

But they weren’t true Lorentz transforms. They looked similar, but they were different and did not induce true non-commutative contraction/dilation.

Using these, a twin would return home to be the same age as the one that stayed home.

What he developed was a generalized Galilean transform without the “relativistic” bit. A Doppler shift transform.

Galilean Relativity looks like what he did. In the scenario he developed, it IS that complicated. Took me years to really get it, and then to separate out the Galileian vs Lorentzian bits.

What this guy did in his videos was what Minkowski, Poincare, and friends were all doing pre-Lorentz.

By postulating that light speed always appears to be c, Einstein changed the game.

The way I internally process SR is that light is really traveling at infinite speed. The “perspective“ part of Lorentz maps that down to appear - to any observer - to be c.

But, unlike a regular perspective transform, the effect can permanently alter the time relationship between observer and observed.

This would also explain why light has no ”components of velocity” - because even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity - which maps to c...

 

[woneill1701]

A simple question regarding:



Considering that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and that the interstellar medium is plasma (electric universe) and that this plasma varies its state according to the electric charge/potential and that furthermore the plasma can enter a state of coherence, doesn't this prove that the medium is not always constant?

The medium is most definitely not always constant!

μ and ε vary based on the medium.

The speed of light is only 3e8m/s in the “vacuum of free space”.

It slows down in other media - such as air, plasma, water, glass, acrylic etc.

The difference in speeds in different media is the basis of refraction and all optics!

 

[woneill1701]

I think maybe the electromagnetic wave is a manifestation of the wave function of a photon.

Yup! Yup! Yup!!!

 

[Bluegazer]

It slows down in other media - such as air, plasma, water, glass, acrylic etc.

Of course, I always knew that. But also, I always heard that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This is always explained by the theory of relativity. Cosmologists always tell you that space is empty (vacuum), but we see that this is not the case. Then I see that these cosmologists seem to either be wrong or deliberately lie (and I am convinced of the latter).

 

[woneill1701]

Of course, I always knew that. But also, I always heard that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This is always explained by the theory of relativity. Cosmologists always tell you that space is empty (vacuum), but we see that this is not the case. Then I see that these cosmologists seem to either be wrong or deliberately lie (and I am convinced of the latter).

Cosmology is one of the most religious disciplines within Physics!

By religious, I mean they are a priesthood defending the orthodoxy.

The EU folks have consistently demonstrated that much/most of current cosmology is bunk. Start with Hubble’s expansion, the Big Bang, dark matter/energy, and then work from there!

I don’t agree with their hypothesis that Gravity is electric, but nobody is perfect...

 

[John G]

But they weren’t true Lorentz transforms. They looked similar, but they were different and did not induce true non-commutative contraction/dilation.

Using these, a twin would return home to be the same age as the one that stayed home.

What he developed was a generalized Galilean transform without the “relativistic” bit. A Doppler shift transform.

Galilean Relativity looks like what he did. In the scenario he developed, it IS that complicated. Took me years to really get it, and then to separate out the Galileian vs Lorentzian bits.

What this guy did in his videos was what Minkowski, Poincare, and friends were all doing pre-Lorentz.

By postulating that light speed always appears to be c, Einstein changed the game.

The way I internally process SR is that light is really traveling at infinite speed. The “perspective“ part of Lorentz maps that down to appear - to any observer - to be c.

But, unlike a regular perspective transform, the effect can permanently alter the time relationship between observer and observed.

This would also explain why light has no ”components of velocity” - because even the tiniest fraction of infinity is infinity - which maps to c...

One thing to keep in mind is that mainstream physicists cheat. Here's the definition of the cheating for special relativity:

Rindler coordinates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since the Rindler chart is a coordinate chart for Minkowski spacetime, we expect to find ten linearly independent Killing vector fields. Indeed, in the Cartesian chart we can readily find ten linearly independent Killing vector fields, generating respectively one parameter subgroups of time translation, three spatials, three rotations and three boosts. Together these generate the (proper isochronous) Poincaré group, the symmetry group of Minkowski spacetime.

However, it is instructive to write down and solve the Killing vector equations directly. We obtain four familiar looking Killing vector fields...

(time translation, spatial translations orthogonal to the direction of acceleration, and spatial rotation orthogonal to the direction of acceleration) plus six more:

...We leave it as an exercise to figure out how these are related to the standard generators; here we wish to point out that we must be able to obtain generators equivalent to

in the Cartesian chart, yet the Rindler wedge is obviously not invariant under this translation. How can this be? The answer is that like anything defined by a system of partial differential equations on a smooth manifold, the Killing equation will in general have locally defined solutions, but these might not exist globally. That is, with suitable restrictions on the group parameter, a Killing flow can always be defined in a suitable local neighborhood, but the flow might not be well-defined globally. This has nothing to do with Lorentzian manifolds per se, since the same issue arises in the study of general smooth manifolds.

Basically mainstream physics cheats a lot by working with local and ignoring global. What we really want is something that handles the global symmetry of GR and situations can symmetry break that to SR. For me, this paper has it in a way that can be handled with geometric algebra 4-vectors:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2159v3.pdf

The 4-vectors (4-potentials) of the Yang-Mills Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) fields would show up as geometric algebra Hodge duals of the GR 4-vectors (This works because in Cl(8), the 4-vectors are self-dual aka the Hodge duals of 4-vectors are also 4-vectors). These GR 4-vectors can handle the math of a compressible aether and the math of the EU longitudinal photons since they include Ark's conformal group (bimetric) gravity

Inertial mass might be a charge-like thing related to using Kerr-Newman equation math on particles less than the Planck mass (produces complex coordinates inside a Compton radius so it's sort of a charge connection to the vacuum).

Light is infinitely fast in the sense that it can "perceive in its reference frame" a complete worldline through a universe state all at once. It would need a quantum transaction to a new universe state to change to a new worldline. We might choose a complete worldline too but our perception is limited to a current location hence we have to change to a new location via changing the universe state which limits us to perceiving a Planck distance location change for light every Planck time (a quantum transaction).

The Heisenberg picture is more classical than the Schrodinger Picture and Feynman's treatment of a Heisenberg picture is still quite classical and also relativistic. Hence I like Feynman Checkerboards; it basically just adds Fadeev Popov ghosts to the classical picture. The ghosts are Hodge duals of the classical bivectors and thus fit nicely in a Cl(8) geometric algebra as 6-vectors (pseudo-bivectors). From a Heisenberg picture point of view, the doubling of the bivectors via ghosts is a creation-annihilation operator thing for each boson.

 

[woneill1701]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2159v3.pdf

The 4-vectors (4-potentials) of the Yang-Mills Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) fields would show up as geometric algebra Hodge duals of the GR 4-vectors (This works because in Cl(8), the 4-vectors are self-dual aka the Hodge duals of 4-vectors are also 4-vectors). These GR 4-vectors can handle the math of a compressible aether and the math of the EU longitudinal photons since they include Ark's conformal group (bimetric) gravity.

Your reference triggered in me the need to check out the original work by Maxwell because I had read references years ago that his theories included longitudinal Electric waves that were removed by Heaviside in his simplification.

A copy of the original work by Maxwell is freely available at the Internet Archive: A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field : Maxwell, James Clerk, 1831-1879 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

After very quickly skimming through it, I didn't spot any obvious references to longitudinal waves, but, I'm glad I found his work!

Forget genius - this guy was an intellectual monster!

His work should be mandatory reading for everyone who aspires to understand our reality.

If you think back to the world he lived in, and what he was able to integrate from the most primitive of experimental data of the day, his work makes Newton look like a child!

The Heisenberg picture is more classical than the Schrodinger Picture and Feynman's treatment of a Heisenberg picture is still quite classical and also relativistic. Hence I like Feynman Checkerboards; it basically just adds Fadeev Popov ghosts to the classical picture. The ghosts are Hodge duals of the classical bivectors and thus fit nicely in a Cl(8) geometric algebra as 6-vectors (pseudo-bivectors). From a Heisenberg picture point of view, the doubling of the bivectors via ghosts is a creation-annihilation operator thing for each boson.

Yes, I'm intentionally focussing on the pre 1925(ish) classical treatment of QM with the intention of learning more about how the semi-measurable quantum wave packet of a photon relates to the classical wave function of QM.

In that early (semi classical) period, the emphasis seems to be on trying to interpret wave particle duality, while later QM seems, to me at least, to be more concerned with trying to figure out how the (by-then accepted) statistical formulation of QM can be used more than trying to figure out how/why it is...

Once I am capable I will explore Feynman!

There are three aspects to all this that have always been gnawing at me:

• Light waves obey both classical E/M and photonic QM. You can generate/absorb photons via quantum state changes and via linear acceleration of charge in an antenna. This is, to me, the boundary between the two parts of Wave-Particle duality. I feel that I need to understand it from both perspectives.
• Pair-production... The regular explanation implies that Photons and matter are interchangeable: Photons can annihilate to produce particles/anti-particles with mass, and matter/anti-matter can annihilate to produce photons. I know that there is the other (Feynman?) interpretation that matter/antimatter annihilation can be viewed as simply changing the direction of a single particle through time, but if that is the case then its significance has been seriously down-played. Either way, there is a profound relationship here between E/M and Quantum waves that seems to have been ignored.
• E = hf = mc^2. Clearly, if a photon has zero mass and all photons travel at the same speed c, there must be something that denotes the photon's energy. Frequency being the case. In Pair Production, the frequencies of annihilating photons define the class of particles that are produced => E=MC^2... So, through Photons, time (frequency), space(wavelength), energy, and mass are directly related. There is, to me, a very simple relationship here just out of my reach... (And I don't believe it is the Standard Model, I think it is much simpler!)

Funnily enough, in Maxwell's paper, he actually tried to unite Gravity and Electricity, but gave up, decrying the fact that only positive energy exists in the universe... Imagine what could have happened if the positron had been known to exist in his day... (I expect even his mind would have been blown, but also that we would, by now, have routine access to time travel!)

His maths is reasonably accessible - at first year physics undergrad level - and his paper, linked above, is recommended reading for even experienced physicists and mathematicians!

 

[woneill1701]

Here's another, much shorter, thread, Questions to the C's - History of Einstein the theory of relativity

If you are still wrestling with the twin paradox (and even if you are not), I have another book suggestion that I believe you will enjoy: it is the one I learned the implications of SR from. (It doesn’t try to derive/justify SR, it just explores its implications using simple Minkowski spacetime diagrams.)

One of its fundamental themes is the twin paradox...

The book is called, “Flat and Curved Space-Times”, by Ellis and Williams.

It explores in great detail all the topics we have discussed so far, and differentiates between the ”Radar” spacetime model that was used by the guy in the videos, and a true Lorentzian relativistic spacetime model.

It has about the same level of maths as the videos referenced above, but REALLY explores the concepts of simultaneity and synchronicity in a universe riddled with time dilation and relativistic limits.

It is the reason I preface all my statements on SR with the qualifier, “if you accept the universality of Lorentz”, because, if you do, then its conclusions are unavoidable.

It is a beautiful exploration of SR that I would recommend to anyone trying to understand the implications/meaning of SR as defined by Einstein. It does not try to defend it, but it does explain its implications, IF you accept the universality of Lorentz...

 

[John G]

Your reference triggered in me the need to check out the original work by Maxwell because I had read references years ago that his theories included longitudinal Electric waves that were removed by Heaviside in his simplification.

A copy of the original work by Maxwell is freely available at the Internet Archive: A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field : Maxwell, James Clerk, 1831-1879 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

After very quickly skimming through it, I didn't spot any obvious references to longitudinal waves, but, I'm glad I found his work!

Tony Smith Used that paper in a what could have been kind of way:

http://tony5m17h.net/QOphys.html

The kind of motion attributed to the medium when transmitting light is that called transverse vibration. An elastic medium capable of such motions must be also capable of a vast variety of other motions, and its elasticity may be called into play in other ways, some of which may be discoverable by their effects. ...

For a later paper, Tony comments:

Since Maxwell then had both the concept of waves in an elastic medium and the concepts of Grad, Div, Curl, and Laplacian, he had everything you need to write the equations for Longitudinal Waves in an elastic medium

Light waves obey both classical E/M and photonic QM. You can generate/absorb photons via quantum state changes and via linear acceleration of charge in an antenna. This is, to me, the boundary between the two parts of Wave-Particle duality. I feel that I need to understand it from both perspectives.

I'm very symmetry-biased so 4-potentials are what I think in a lot (plus the boson/ghost).

Pair-production... The regular explanation implies that Photons and matter are interchangeable: Photons can annihilate to produce particles/anti-particles with mass, and matter/anti-matter can annihilate to produce photons. I know that there is the other (Feynman?) interpretation that matter/antimatter annihilation can be viewed as simply changing the direction of a single particle through time, but if that is the case then its significance has been seriously down-played. Either way, there is a profound relationship here between E/M and Quantum waves that seems to have been ignored.

Feynman Checkerboards have fermions on the vertices and bosons on the links so you do kind of have fermions as boson pairs and bosons as fermion pairs.

E = hf = mc^2. Clearly, if a photon has zero mass and all photons travel at the same speed c, there must be something that denotes the photon's energy. Frequency being the case. In Pair Production, the frequencies of annihilating photons define the class of particles that are produced => E=MC^2... So, through Photons, time (frequency), space(wavelength), energy, and mass are directly related. There is, to me, a very simple relationship here just out of my reach... (And I don't believe it is the Standard Model, I think it is much simpler!)

Feynman propagator or affine one-form might relate.

Funnily enough, in Maxwell's paper, he actually tried to unite Gravity and Electricity, but gave up, decrying the fact that only positive energy exists in the universe... Imagine what could have happened if the positron had been known to exist in his day... (I expect even his mind would have been blown, but also that we would, by now, have routine access to time travel!)

His maths is reasonably accessible - at first year physics undergrad level - and his paper, linked above, is recommended reading for even experienced physicists and mathematicians!

With a longitudinal photon, he was basically at conformal gravity which could get him to Einstein-Rosen bridges and all sorts of fun things.

 

[Vulcan59]

FWIW, an article about errors in Einstein's 1905 paper.

Special Relativity and the Lorentz Equations: errors in Einstein's 1905 paper — Science & Technology — Sott.net