The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why is the speed of light independent from all other frames of reference?  (Read 3745 times)

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
So I understand the Michelson–Morley experiment and its result. I do not question the results of the experiment. I have no problem with Special Relativity. The result of this discovery on its surface does seem to defy common sense. It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation. I would like to see what everyone here has to say about this question. I have my own ideas but will not say them as I do not want to violate the rules of the forum. If it is permitted and desired I will give my idea otherwise I would really like to hear from experts as to what the currently excepted explanation is.


 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
So I understand the Michelson–Morley experiment and its result. I do not question the results of the experiment. I have no problem with Special Relativity. The result of this discovery on its surface does seem to defy common sense. It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation. I would like to see what everyone here has to say about this question. I have my own ideas but will not say them as I do not want to violate the rules of the forum. If it is permitted and desired I will give my idea otherwise I would really like to hear from experts as to what the currently excepted explanation is.

Am I correct in assuming that your intention is to then use the experts ideas or parts from them as things you can then rebut or challenge with your own idea that you are planning to post in the new theories section of the forum?  My apologies if a wrong assumption.  Just was the impression I was getting.  Or are you rather wanting to hear their opinions to make sure your idea wasn't already something that was established, prior to posting it in the new theory forum? 


As far as the 'why' is concerned, if I had that answer for you, I would be sitting in a much nicer office...

Best I can give is simply because it is.  Because the theory works.  Because everything we've ever deduced has shown it to be so.
« Last Edit: 30/06/2016 16:43:52 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Actually I am interested in both angles. The important thing is that I do not want to violate any rules for this forum. Primarily I am interested in the currently accepted explanation. I do not believe that my explanation will be one that already exists if it does exist that would be a pleasant surprise. It would be fun to discuss my idea but this is not the new theories section. So my primary interest is to simply see what the best current explanation is right now. Therefore I do not intend to argue or rebut the explanation in this section as I do not believe that this is the proper thing to do here in this section. The only thing I would do in this section is ask for greater detail or ask someone to provide an example for better understanding. I want to fully understand the current thinking and interpretation of constancy of the speed of light. The best answer may be as you said above nobody knows. That is perfectly acceptable answer as it is honest and it is good to know that it is still a mystery.
« Last Edit: 30/06/2016 17:03:37 by mmfiore »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
In a vacuum like outer space light always travels at exactly at 299,792,458 m/s, it does not accelerate to get up to that speed it is always at that speed and cannot go slower in a vacuum.

I do not think that light c is always independent on your frame of reference, although no object containing mass can move through the fabric of space-time at greater than c.

When you switch on a torch the photons are immediately moving at 299,792, 458 miles per second .

Your frame of reference as a separate observer can make it seem that object are approaching each other at greater than c , when it is the gap between them that is closing faster than c .

Alan

« Last Edit: 01/07/2016 00:15:20 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Alan
As I understand it the speed of light will always be measured as 299792458 m / s no matter what speed you are moving at. To help things along I think that two avenues could be used. One avenue would be explore in detail how Maxwell discovered that light speed has to do with the permittivity and permeability of space. Another avenue maybe something to due with the geometry of space. Although I am not sure how we could get to the specific value and constancy of light using a geometric explanation.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Alan
As I understand it the speed of light will always be measured as 299792458 m / s no matter what speed you are moving at. 

You are correct, and your thread premise was as well.  It's a good question. But I wish I could be more help in answering it.  We do have some VERY expert people on this site though and I'm looking forward to some of their replies.

And btw, welcome to the forums!
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Welcome to the forum

One avenue would be explore in detail how Maxwell discovered that light speed has to do with the permittivity and permeability of space.
If you are aware of this then you are aware that this is well documented and described elsewhere on the net.

It won't really help however.
Maxwell's equations are derived from 4 observed laws, 2 of Gauss, 1 of Faraday and 1 of Ampere and the result describes how electric and magnetic fields are not only generated but are altered by each other. The speed of em radiation, including light, is a result of those interactions. There is no mechanical explanation other than that contained within those observed laws.
However, Maxwell's equations might only be valid for one reference frame and might change if we are moving. It was this problem which Einstein addressed in his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. The problem he was addressing is that there is an asymmetry in the case of a magnet moving past a stationary wire and a wire moving past a stationary magnet. This problem can only be resolved if the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and if, therefore, the speed of light is constant in all such frames.It's worth reading this if you haven't already. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I don't think anyone here is going to go through the laborious process of discussing the detail of Gauss's, Faraday's and Ampere's laws.

If you have an explanation it would be worth you putting it in our new theories section.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
IAMReality thank you for your input. It is much appreciated.

Colin2B thanks for the your comments. I have tried reading as much as I can about Maxwell and I am always looking for new ways to do searches that may lead to greater insights. Your introducing the 4 observed laws gives me new ways to do searches based on those terms and Maxwell. I am sure that you are correct that there will not be a mechanical explanation as well but there may be additional ways to think about the problem. As you now realize I am after the foundational mechanics. The questions that always contain a "why" or "how" in them. In the days of Gauss, Maxwell and Faraday it was really all about the mechanics back then. They were always thinking in the classical way. They tried to deal and explain forces, actions, stresses in terms of mechanics. They did have a lot of success working in that context. Unfortunately they had the very same problem then that we have today. They and we cannot actually see a particle or a field like a magnetic field. Without this ability to observe the raw material of reality directly, and see what the stuff of the Universe looks like we are forced to use our imaginations in order to explore what cannot be seen directly.

I read the Special Relativity paper again as you suggested. It is funny that I never payed attention to the part at the beginning concerning the magnets and the conductor. I shall read it some more and think about it. Thanks.

I will read the link you sent thanks...

I may place a post for my explanation when I finish writing it down. I do have an explanation that is completely mechanical and very complete. I have been working on my Reality Model for over 40 years.  I am trying to put it on paper at this moment. If you are telling me that people here are interested in such an idea I would be happy to share that particular detail. I just do not want to upset anyone with such ideas as I know some physics forums usually have strict rules about sharing such ideas. I am a natural philosopher and that does not always mesh to well with the current physics paradigm. I can probably give an explanation in a paragraph or two. The problem will be it will naturally trigger a set of other questions. I can answer those questions but in that process things are going to get very involved because there are a great deal of dependencies and interconnections involved. They all can be tied together for a complete picture. I usually have these kinds of discussions on philosophy websites.
« Last Edit: 30/06/2016 20:43:05 by mmfiore »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I just do not want to upset anyone with such ideas as I know some physics forums usually have strict rules about sharing such ideas.
That's why we have our New Theories section. It gives somewhere for new ideas or alternatives to existing ones. It also keeps this section free for questions about current theories.
Most of physics isn't about providing a mechanism, it is more about describing observations and the implications of those descriptions. Even Newton and Faraday were not really providing a mechanism, Newton's laws of motion and gravity are very much descriptive, rather than providing a mechanism.

You are welcome to post a new theory in any form you like, eg an overview or a detailed paper eg PDF.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This is a question that first needs to be considered at the Planck scale. The speed of light is one Planck length over one Planck time. The coordinate speed of light and length contraction are intimately related. This means that the Planck scale cannot be absolute. If the Planck scale is not absolute then gravitation will affect light via a contraction at this scale. Since the volume of mass relates to this fundamental scale everything is relative to it. At the macroscopic scale this is seen via the Lorentz transformations.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4101
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: mmfiore
In a vacuum like outer space light always travels at exactly at 299,792,458 m/s
I am no expert, but I understand that this applies only when you measure the speed of light in your laboratory, in your frame of reference.

If you observe someone who is measuring the speed of light in their laboratory, they will get the same answer. But if they are deeper in a gravitational well than yourself, you will notice that the clock they are using to measure the speed of light is ticking slower than your clock; so you will calculate a different speed if you use your clock.

So if you measure the speed of light in a different frame of reference, it may not be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.

But I'm happy to be corrected by those who know far more than I do! 
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH, timey

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I thank everyone for their input. So far I am not seeing what I had hoped to see and that is one definitive answer in which most people agree as the correct interpretation. I am seeing many good points that are being brought up about different aspects of light's behavior. I have read the comments over several times each in order to better understand what people are saying. One point in general that I am pleased to see added was the aspect that light speed in certain situations is really not constant. For example when light enters a different medium such as a gravitational field within space or when it enters air or water. It slows down in these cases. This is a whole other topic which should be discussed. My question was just describing the "Special Case" as in Special Relativity. There are other cases where something different is happening. Those cases make me wonder if light speed is really a Universal constant as it "speed appears to change" in those instances.

Since some have introduced ideas that are some what speculative I would like to introduce a fact of nature about light that may help us arrive at an answer to the question.

I think that in the context of the special case that my question involves the simple answer to this question maybe this fact. The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference because its velocity or to say its origin of motion is generated by its own accord. To put it another way the cause of the motion of the photon is completely independent of all other frames of motion. The cause of the motion of the photon is somehow being generated by its geometric construction relative to the space it resides within. So a standard for an addition of velocities of other things such as rockets in motion or planets moving through space do not apply to light. Their motions do not add or subtract to the motion of the photon.

The basic point I am trying to bring out is that the photon moves independently from all other frames of reference and it does this in a perpetual manner. This state of the perpetual motion of the photon appears to me to be completely ignored. Okay so there it is. So I am thinking at this point that since I have introduced a a line of thought that is outside the current paradigm that we move the discussion to the New Theories area of the forum so that we can continue discussing this strange fact of nature in more detail or we can continue it here. I will leave that up to the moderator to decide.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
The basic point I am trying to bring out is that the photon moves independently from all other frames of reference and it does this in a perpetual manner. This state of the perpetual motion of the photon appears to me to be completely ignored.
The perpetual nature of the photon is a fundamental assumption of physics. It is not often mentioned explicitly as it is assumed as general knowledge.
It follows Newton's laws that a body will continue in motion if not acted upon by any forces. A pendulum in a vacuum, with frictionless bearings, would oscillate forever. The photon does the same - as far as we know.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The only point at which a photon's velocity does not exceed the escape velocity of a celestial object is at the event horizon of a black hole. This is the very reason why general relativity is correct about inertial frames.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
This is good information Collin2B I like to hear about what physicists agree upon. Thanks for that. There is really so little information about this topic of photon motion as it is in the perpetual state. As jeffreyH said this has to be taken down to the level of the very small and looked at. I am a bit surprised about how this fundamental assumption of physics today would have such a deep logical flaw in its model of photon motion. I am surprised no one has noticed it. Let us take the example you gave concerning the pendulum and Newton's law. In order for this model to be correct the photon would have to be placed in motion by some external force just as a pendulum has to have an initial starting force to start it swinging. Then the photon would then move through friction less space unimpeded forever.
There are several problems with this model.
1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.
4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.

The only reasonable mechanical explanation that can explain every instance above is that photons are moving by their own accord completely independent of all other moving objects or external forces. For this to be possible then the photon must be moving through a medium that it is consubstantial with. It appears to me that mankind made a big mistake in 1905. I mean no disrespect to anyone but these facts of nature trouble me. They need to be explained. I do not believe that photons are being ejected from electrons like a pitcher throws a hardball.

 
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
mmfiore : it has been explained. There's no mystery to it. The photon has an E=hf wave nature. The speed of a wave depends on the medium. If the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different, the wave slows down or speeds up. Mankind did not make a big mistake in 1905. 
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
To answer your questions fully would require the equivalent of a substantial physics book, but I will try to give you a summary. Please bear in mind that these are summaries/simplifications and folks here might not have the time to post the complete lengthy explanations so these can only be seen as guide to aid your own research into these topics.

1. Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?
It comes from the energy stored by the electron as it changes level. It is best not to think of it as a force but as a trigger for the oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields.
Also, it is best to think of the momentum of the photon. You may have heard of the solar sail where light hitting the sail transfers momentum to the sail and it moves. Similarly, when a photon leaves an atom there is a a conservation of momentum, as the photon moves away there is a reaction and the momentum of the atom changes.

2. How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?
Think of a pendulum. The physical characteristics eg length and g, determine its frequency. Similarly with the oscillation of the em fields as described by Maxwell, faraday etc.

3. If this motion was governed by Newton's law then the photon would be slowed down if the photon encountered an external force that opposes its motion. This has never happened that I know of. For example when photons collide with other particles they continue to move at the speed of light after the collision.
Newton's Laws as we generally encounter them involve elastic collisions. Photons, and remember, although we are not talking about little billiard balls they do behave as if they were inelastic, again momentum is conserved. This is too big a subject to discuss in a short post, but there is quite a bit on the web about particle collisions.

4. Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.
If you were to roll a ball down a hill where the other side of the valley is an exact reflection then the ball would exchange potential energy for kinetic going down and vise versa going up the other side. If there is no friction, at the top of its motion on the other side of the valley the ball will have the same potential energy as it started with,  energy is conserved and the ball will continue forever.

Again remember these are very brief and incomplete responses, but I hope you can use them as a springboard for further study.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The electric constant ε0 and the magnetic constant μ0 determine the speed of light since they are both related to properties of the electromagnetic field. These have just the right values to ensure that the speed of light remains constant in vacuum. Which is just one of nature's properties. As to why this should be I personally have no opinion.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
This discussion is becoming very very interesting and I am enjoying the free exchange of ideas.

First to John
There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking. Where. as I do not disagree entirely with what you say where the ether is concerned, just saying that it has to do with the medium is insufficient, this of course assuming that ether assumption is correct.

Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information. To be honest with you I am already somewhat familiar with your work. As I also believe in studying not only traditional classical physics but Quantum physics and the theoretical ideas of people outside the mainstream. I believe that I must keep an open mind to all ideas. The only way to get to truth is too examine all the evidence and as many approaches as possible and then make a decision based on the scientific facts and using logical arguments to form a working mechanical model that describes what the truth is. This method puts me in the classification of a natural philosopher. I have been in this process for over 40 years. With that said, I find that perhaps your weakest aspect in your arguments is that you must try and represent what is the established point of view is and then contrast your point of view to that. That way people can make up their own minds in what they believe to be true.

What I am trying to do here is to completely understand the point of view and logic behind the most current conventional point of view. I commend all people who are engaged in this line of study because it is very important and very difficult. So all people here are welcome in this conversation as far as I am concerned.

Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more. I appreciate the fact that the people here have agreed to leave this context of the discussion within the realm of classical physics. If Quantum Physics were introduced into this conversation it would rapidly become impossible to drill down to the very foundation of reality because everything becomes abstracted when we apply the QM paradigm.

You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large. One must go to the core essence. No one has made it yet to that level. The old masters of the last century were the closest. QM has went in an entirely different direction but it does not provide the why and how answers. Classical theory does not supply them either.

Finally there was a mistake made in 1905 and the origin of the mistake has already been mentioned in this discussion and there is a link in this discussion pointing to the paper. The embedding of the error is subtle but it is there in that paper. Can you find the error and the motivation behind it? Its is all there if you are willing to dig for it.

To jefferyh

I very much appreciate your comment as it is I believe it is a part of the solution. Maxwell was the man that discovered this fact of nature. Maxwell is one of my heroes he was an incredibly brilliant man and in my opinion was on the right track. Permittivity and permeability do play the main role in determining the absolute maximum velocity in free space. By introducing this fact that is an undeniable truth you have now exposed yet another problem in physics. As I am sure you already know the dominate idea about space is that it is made of nothing and it does not exist as a physically independent existing object. Yet space has measurable properties such as the two you just introduced. Logically speaking a thing that does not physically exist should not have any measurable properties. Yet space does have measurable properties. This certainly does seem to suggest that space is a something. This does support the idea of an ether. Thank you for bringing it up and I appreciate that you admit that you do not know why this should be. Know one really knows why because we do not understand the foundation mechanics under lying this fact of nature. I believe that this knowledge is obtainable and I believe it is at hand. There is just one layer that lies just beneath Maxwell's discovery of nature. It is a purely mechanical and I am writing the solution for this as well.

Ah, but this piece of information only concerns the speed limit. This discussion is about the cause of motion. Sensibly enough I believe they are both related.

For Colin2b
You said in response to my question: Where is this initial force that puts the photon in motion coming from?

It comes from the energy stored by the electron as it changes level. It is best not to think of it as a force but as a trigger for the oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields.
Also, it is best to think of the momentum of the photon. You may have heard of the solar sail where light hitting the sail transfers momentum to the sail and it moves. Similarly, when a photon leaves an atom there is a a conservation of momentum, as the photon moves away there is a reaction and the momentum of the atom changes.

This is a great explanation. I read several times and each time it made more and more sense. There is a nifty logic to it. Unfortunately it opens up a real sticky wicket and does not undo my chief complaint. So as I understand it the photon obtains its momentum from the action of the electron changing levels. I do agree fully with the concept that it is the action of the electron moving to a different level that causes the emission of a photon. That is far as I can go for agreement. There is ample evidence that this is true. But now we have a new problem where did the electron obtain its initial momentum? It seems to me that the electron is also in perpetual motion and never at rest. Why doesn't the electron slow down and lose momentum. In fact all particles that we know of are in constant motion. If we are going to accept that they all obtained their motion from something else external we still have the problem as to why they do not slow down when they collide with other particles. Scientisits have correctly observed that momentum is in fact conserved. If this is true then we cannot invoke Newtons law for the explanation for the conservation of momentum. Why is this so? Because particle collisions in which two particles collide when going toward each other from opposite directions would and do violate Newton's law of motion. Particles should lose momentum when they collide head on. So technically speaking they violate Newton's law because they do not lose their momentum as a result of this collision. Now I suppose that you can attempt to make the claim based on in-elasticity of the particles but I do not for one believe that particles are in-elastic but even if they were a direct collision of equal an opposite force would render both objects motionless under the laws of Newton.

 Imagine your example of the pendulum. Now imagine a second pendulum colliding with the first from the opposite direction. The result of this collision will always result in a loss of momentum for both pendulums. This collision obeys Newton's laws. The question is why are particles continually able to conserve their momentum. Classical physics does not explain this nor does QM its just another law of nature. The only reasonable explanation for this is that all particles move independently of any external cause. In this way the law of conservation is now explained. So now the infection of the question I have asked has spread to all particles.

Okay moving on to the next explanation that you provided for my question: How does it put every photon in motion with the exact same speed?

Before I start my reply. I will say that perhaps I have misunderstood your answer if so I apologize ahead of time and I am sure you or someone else will straighten me out.

Your explanation using the pendulum is not logically consistent. It is not logically consistent because the speed of the pendulum changes when ever you change the length of the pendulum which directly corresponds to the wave length of the pendulum. All photons no matter what their wave length travel at the exact same speed. This means that the speed of light is completely independent of frequency (in free space). You seem to be saying that it is somehow dependent on frequency. Now what is different is the time it takes for a wavelength to be completed as a photon passes by.  So with the pendulum we can make clocks with different lengths of pendulums and make them keep the same time because the speed at which the pendulum moves is faster for longer pendulum lengths versus shorter pendulum lengths.

Your next response about particle collision and the conservation of momentum is the real mystery and I already covered what I think above. The conservation of momentum is not explained down to the mechanical level by anyone that I know of. Its just a law of nature at this point. It needs to be explained.

Your final response to my question: Here is the real clincher that breaks the generally assumed model of motion. When a photon enters a gravitational field it slows down and when it exits the gravitational field it then speeds up. The general assumption can not explain any of these actions.

Thank you for representing what the mainstream establishment believes. I realize that you are conveying the accepted explanation and that is what I am examining very closely. I am seeing for my self if the logic is consistent and explains the facts of nature. It is then up to each and every individual to decide for themselves what to believe.

I am once again going to use the example that you provided. Unfortunately once again I find inconsistencies in the logic that is supposed to explain the above stated phenomenon.

You said:  If you were to roll a ball down a hill where the other side of the valley is an exact reflection then the ball would exchange potential energy for kinetic going down and vise versa going up the other side. If there is no friction, at the top of its motion on the other side of the valley the ball will have the same potential energy as it started with,  energy is conserved and the ball will continue forever.

Now the speed of light and its momentum have been tied to the geometry of space. Seems like a safe and reasonable path at first glance. The first exception I find with the modern day explanation is that the photon does the exact opposite of what should happen if we use the example you provide. If in fact the photon were traveling through space and the geometry of a gravitational field was effecting the photon as described then the shape of space where the gravitational field is concerned would have to be a convex shape meaning that having an outline or surface curved like the exterior of a circle or sphere. This would then match your example and would impede the photon speed. Unfortunately we know the opposite is true in so far as the shape of space is concerned. Every drawing I have ever seen represents the shape of space in a gravitational field as being a concave collapsing inward shape. This shape has been proven by the fact that the photon is deflected toward the source of the gravitational field. This then means that the speed of a photon should increase as it proceeds toward the gravitational source. This does not happen in the case of the photon. The velocity changes the speed of the photon slows down and deflects toward the gravitational source. Now lets repeat the experiment but this time use something with mass. Lets use a proton and see what will happen. Once again the speed of the proton changes but it speeds up and it to is deflected toward the gravitational source. So there is a distinct difference in the first case the photon slows down which implies that it is going up hill but it is deflects toward the gravitational source which implies that the shape of space is downhill. On the other hand the the proton speeds up when and falls toward the gravitational source. When the proton then leaves the gravitational field it is slowed down as it leaves. In this example the exact opposite result is experience by the proton compared to the photon.

So why is gravity having such different affect on two very similar objects both are entirely composed of electromagnetic fields shouldn't they behave the same when they experience the same force or the same geometry? The difference is the proton has mass and the photon does not. Once again we cannot use a macroscopic law to describe this situation. Speed wise the photon is acting like it is going up hill when entering the gravitational field but direction wise it is acting like it is going downhill. The proton on the other hand is acting completely sensibly it is acting like it is going downhill when entering the gravitational field and acting like it is going up hill when leaving the gravitational field. So tallying up the score we have 3 votes for down hill concave shape for gravity and one vote for the reverse.

Speed wise the photon is acting exactly opposite of the downhill uphill example.

Lets drill completely into this problem the massless photon also is effected in another way it's frequency is compressed when it enters the gravitational field and it expands when it exits. This is good so we have a nice mechanical explanation for the conservation of the energy of the photon. Everybody is happy about that. Its sensible for everyone. I am happy for a moment and then that pesky brain of mine then asks why does the photon behave this way in a gravitational field? The only reasonable rational fully complete explanation must have something to do with the fact that the photon is interacting with something. Where is the photon located? Its located in the vacuum of space outside of the earth's atmosphere. The only thing that is out there is the gravitational field located within space. So I am forced to conclude that space is a real thing that has real effects on particle like objects.

With all this said we still have not explained why a photon maintains its momentum when it leaves the gravitational field. The external force that has effected it is diminishing and the photon has already been slowed down. Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed. Newton's law states that in order for there to be an increase in speed an external force has to be applied to that object. Where is the external force? We already have proven that the gravitational field is diminishing that can't be it and that the shape of the space as it leaves space is uphill not downhill that can't be it. What should be happening is that the photon should be slowing down not speeding up. That is what the proton does and that is what every other particle other than the photon does except for maybe the neutrino but that is a whole other can of worms. I say something else is going on that is not explained by the current laws and theories of physics. It is my intention to get to the bottom of this mystery.



 







 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I say something else is going on that is not explained by the current laws and theories of physics. It is my intention to get to the bottom of this mystery.
I wish you all the best in your quest.
When you have completed it and have it documented I hope you will post it here in our New Theories section.
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Thanks Colin2B,

This study of physics has been a hobby for many years since I was 9 and then it turned more serious when I became older. I do not like to write but I am forcing myself to do so because this story is not going to write itself. LOL I may at some point post a brief foundational question as I did here and then have everyone put their ideas out for discussion. That will be fun to do.  I will not post info about the details of my model until the entire set of ideas has been documented. It looks like it will take about 400 + pages or so to completely describe the Model its components and ramifications some of which may be patentable. It is a lot of fun exchanging ideas in an open friendly format like you have here at this site. You guys have definitely answered my question and now I have a better understanding of how traditional science views this problem. Thank you.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
There is nothing in your reply that goes deep enough to answer the question to a complete understanding mechanically speaking.
A complete understanding is available in continuum mechanics.

Your next statement:″ if the wave propagates to a place where the medium is different" What we are discussing and what I am digging for is the mechanical means or method of the particle motion process. Your theory does not supply this detailed information.
It isn't my theory. The speed of light is related to the permittivity and permeability of space via the expression:

6f5ca076bd3e4dbd42871e18d724f425.gif

See Wikipedia. There's a somewhat similar expression for shear wave velocity in mechanics:

c95ee147e2c06e961b2c2a4a32057f82.gif

Again see Wikipedia. G is the shear modulus of rigidity and ρ is the density. When these vary, the wave speed varies. It's similar for light. Note that there's a shear-stress term in the stress-energy-momentum tensor:

 

Now back to what you are saying. I agree with you that the speed of light depends on the medium but this is not what mainstream physics really thinks any more.
Relativists do. See for example Don Koks saying it here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

But their voice is drowned out by popscience quacks and misinformation from particle physicists who have never read the Einstein digital papers. People who would censor the Einstein digital papers because they contradict what they've told you.

You and I both somewhat agree on the ether concept. Simply imagining that this concept is behind everything is not enough to convince the world at large.
See this  and this. It is difficult to convince people who thinks the popscience woo they believe in is mainstream science, and that anything else is some new theory.

Yet strangely as the photon leaves the diminishing gravitational field the photon increases speed.
The photon has an E=hf wave nature. There is nothing strange about a wave changing speed when the medium changes. What's strange is that nobody has read the Einstein digital papers
 

Offline mmfiore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Thanks John,
I'll check out your links especially the Einstein digital papers. Maybe there is something in those papers I have not seen before.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
When you actually read them, and then read Kip "time travel" Thorne saying "Einstein said x" when actually he said the opposite, it comes as quite a surprise. Also see the Shapiro delay: "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path..." And professor Ned Wright's deflection and delay article: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light."

« Last Edit: 07/07/2016 21:53:37 by JohnDuffield »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The wikipedia article on the Shapiro delay states the following important points.

"Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses c as the speed of light and calculated the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein field equations."

The coordinate speed of light along a path depends upon the position of the observer. If we placed observers all along this path at regular intervals none of them would record the speed of light as anything other than c in vacuum. Wouldn't you agree John? For the sake of clarity.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums