Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Water on 20/11/2011 17:36:18
-
The Doppler effect: here is the complete explanation... www.pragtec.com/physique/
In 1911, Einstein demonstrated that a gravitational field could make light slow down by the increase of the index of refraction in vacuum. On this basis, we formulate the hypothesis that the expansion of the universe could diminish the influence of gravitational fields on light, allowing therefore a slight acceleration of it. According to our estimations, this speed of light (299 792 458 m/s) would increase by 1 m/s every 35.4 years.
In 1972 and 1973, NASA sent the Pioneer 10/11 probes in space and noticed a few years later that the probes were slowing down in an unexplained way. The Doppler Effect, used to measure the speed of the probes, was taking for granted that the speed of light was constant. This presupposition would have led us to believe, mistakenly according to us, that the probes were slowing down.
Referring to well-known constants c, G, and H0, our work proposes 4 equations which will allow us to obtain the ratio b between the speed of expansion of the material universe and the speed of light, the apparent mass of the universe mu, its curving radius ru, and the asymptotical speed of light k.. These parameters allow the calculation of the acceleration of light aL» 8.95×10‑10 m/s2 and the one for the Pioneer probes ap=‑aL (similar to ap»‑8.74×10‑10 m/s2 from Brownstein and Moffat ).
-
Hello there! This forum is not just somewhere to advertise your site. Could you post a quick summary of you ideas
-
The idea is quite simple, but mathematically it is less...
With the expansion of the universe, the attraction (of the universe mass) on the light molecules decreases. So light goes faster and faster,function of the time. Here is the complete explanations: www.pragtec.com/physique/
In 1911, Einstein demonstrated that a gravitational field could make light slow down by the increase of the index of refraction in vacuum. On this basis, we formulate the hypothesis that the expansion of the universe could diminish the influence of gravitational fields on light, allowing therefore a slight acceleration of it. According to our estimations, this speed of light (299 792 458 m/s) would increase by 1 m/s every 35.4 years.
In 1972 and 1973, NASA sent the Pioneer 10/11 probes in space and noticed a few years later that the probes were slowing down in an unexplained way. The Doppler Effect, used to measure the speed of the probes, was taking for granted that the speed of light was constant. This presupposition would have led us to believe, mistakenly according to us, that the probes were slowing down.
Referring to well-known constants c, G, and H0, our work proposes 4 equations which will allow us to obtain the ratio b between the speed of expansion of the material universe and the speed of light, the apparent mass of the universe mu, its curving radius ru, and the asymptotical speed of light k.. These parameters allow the calculation of the acceleration of light aL» 8.95×10‑10 m/s2 and the one for the Pioneer probes ap=‑aL (similar to ap»‑8.74×10‑10 m/s2 from Brownstein and Moffat ).
I would appreciate commentaries?!
-
ok, I see the idea... :)
-
Well, it's a new one. You're suggesting that lights speed in a vacuum adapts to a expansion? Wouldn't that make your 'local' measures of 'c' different, depending on distances?
And you better avoid the word 'light molecules', it makes people wonder.
==
If you were right then pulsars should speed up, not down, relative us measuring, that is if I understand you right? And they are rather precise, millisecond pulsars.
Nature's Most Precise Clocks May Make "Galactic GPS" Possible. (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/galactic-gps.html)
=
What is more here is that you disqualify all One-Way Tests of Light Speeds Isotropy. And there are some. Take a look here A new limit on the light speed isotropy from the GRAAL experiment at the ESRF. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2867)
And also look in What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? (http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)
The fact is that it's not enough with a new hypothesis, you also need to explain all of those results, so that they will fit your new idea. If you can't explain those from your hypothesis, it's probably a flawed proposition.
-
Tks for sharing your view point, it gives clues to confirm-or not the truth. Yes, a new hypothesis needs to explain all the suggested results, if not, the proposition stay only what it is, a proposition. And for this one, I think that you gave path (not demonstration) to explore how deep it is, and I appreciate you gave concrete links to study the question.
I would still appreciate equations, numbers or people to contact?
tks Yor_on!
-
Well, are you asking for a good mathematical theoretician, involved in Relativity? I don't know if we have any one like that here? A good test would be to look at the speed isotropy of light, and see if you can find a way to relate it to your equations.
If you succeed, I would present it to arXiv.org. They will most probably either allow it, or not, hopefully also define wherefrom they do not agree if so. I never liked refusing without explanation, so I hope they will give one if they do.
But do it here too. :)
-
I'm not sure how you define it actually? First of all, are you questioning 'c' as a 'constant'? Or is it that you expect it to be a constant only under Special relativity, varying as soon as we incorporate gravity (General Relativity) in it? Because, as far as I know you will never find light to vary locally?
When it comes to gravity and the two way definition of 'lights speed in a vacuum'. If we assume that I have a source / detector combined with a 'clock', embedded in that exact 'Plank sized' spot from where I send out the light pulse, to then receive it back. Then the speed measured by me should be 'c' as long as the measurement is done locally. And that should be correct as far as I know.
You can define it differently though. But only by introducing another 'frame of reference', to find 'c' slow down relative your local clock. Although you never will find light to speed up, propagating faster than 'c', except under special circumstances, as in 'propagating' in a medium of higher refractive property as Cherenkov radiation in water for example.
==
If you were measuring incoming light locally, you being at the event horizon, it should still be 'c' to you. But if you measured the energy instead, you would now find it extremely blue shifted. That blue shift is the only way 'light' defines itself 'speeding up' relative you as far as I know.
Why I refer to it as 'speeding up' is because the 'time' I expect you to find objects (as planets, suns, etc) to have, outside the Event Horizon indeed should be 'speeded up' relative your clock. If compared to what you defined them as having, before arriving to that Event Horizon. Even though light doesn't change its speed, the distance between two light quanta arriving should be contracted relative you, as your 'gravity' is equivalent to a 'constant uniform acceleration' according to Einsteins Equivalence principle, this is how I see it though.
==
The same way as you, if observing someone free-falling into a gravity well relative your local clock, you measuring outside that gravity well, then can find their 'time' and 'speed' to give you a different value relative your local 'time'.
The difference here being, measuring 'c' locally relative measuring 'light' between 'frames of reference', using 'any local clock' in fact, and it doesn't matter which 'frame of references' clock you use there, you still will find time, and so 'c', to differ between the two frames of reference.
But a 'frame of reference' can be directly related to 'c' using clocks, as I see it. Then represented by the smallest 'propagation of light' we make sense of, which is one Planck length in one Plank time. Also perfectly possible to define as different 'gravitational potentials' relative the observer (measuring). As in the latest NIST experiments with clocks on Earth.
And as your local 'frame of reference' can't be 'stretched out' covering both frames of reference simultaneously, the correct way to define 'c' should be locally, and doing so you will find it to be a 'constant'.
The refractive index of Space, as in a 'perfect vacuum', should unerringly be 'one' (c/c equals 1), as far as I know? When gravity distorts 'light paths' it doesn't change this index, it just bends lights 'path of propagation'. But if you're treating 'gravity' as a perturbation, with the speed of light varying as a function of the Space(s) 'density'. Then you can, ignoring 'gravity' as warping/distorting the vacuum, also assuming all light-paths to be Euclidean straight paths, indeed find light to be of varying 'speeds'.
The index of refraction of a material, as propagating inside glass, is the proportionality between 'c' and the speed of light inside that glass. Using space as our 'refractive medium' we now, not only define a aether instead of a classical space. We also redefine 'c' as a variable 'speed' questioning it as a constant. Therefore also invalidating that 'index of refraction' we used as a measurement.
Hope this made sense :)