Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: McQueen on 16/05/2021 19:11:14
-
Towards the end of the Nineteenth Century, efforts were made to create a world clock that would be able to give the correct time anywhere in the world, a kind of Universal clock. In order to do this, electromagnetic (radio) signals were used. It was realized that because light (radio-waves) had a finite speed, this would have to be accommodated for in the calculations. However, in order for this method of using radio signals to record the time in different places to work, it had to be assumed that the speed of light was constant in all directions. It should be noted that this issue of the speed of light being constant in all directions could have been treated as more of a philosophical problem than as a practical one, but this would have meant that the principles of physics were no longer true, since the solutions that were arrived at would be inaccurate.
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/34da/mlsg1d7fibzwrl44g.jpg)
For instance, for a radio-signal to travel from New York to Chicago (1178 km) has been measured as taking exactly 3.93 milliseconds. If, the time taken for a radio-signal to travel in the opposite direction, from Chicago to New York also takes exactly the same time, it should be assumed that the measurement is correct. By making repeated measurements of this sort in all directions it should be possible to come to know if the speed of light is constant in all directions. In the same way it should also be possible to very accurately measure the physical distances between any two points that were being measured by radio signals, this should have given fairly conclusive evidence that the speed of light was constant in all directions.
The problem arises when one considers that the earth is not at rest. So the measurements that are made from New York to Chicago, and vice versa, assume that they are both, (the timekeeper in Chicago and the time Keeper in New York), at rest. This is not the case, the earth is moving around the sun and the sun itself is moving through the solar system and so on; in addition to that the earth is itself spinning on its axis. So in reality nothing is at rest and it cannot be assumed that either the distances or the times are accurate. Therefore, although the measurements made are accurate for all practical purposes, if the truth be told nothing is certain.
The only way in which it could be thought that the speed of light was constant is if a universal aether existed, that permeated the whole of the Universe and remained absolutely at rest with respect to it. This would mean that the position of anything that moved within the Universe could be calculated according to its position and time with respect to the aether. So, in theory, if the position at which an object was at a given time was known, it is possible, given the trajectory, velocity and direction in which it was travelling, to extrapolate its position at a future time and vice-versa. Although difficult to implement in practice; in theory it is foolproof, so that the velocity of light can be taken as constant in all frames of reference. The presence of Dark Matter which makes up 85% or more of all matter in the Universe, and possesses similar properties to that of the aether: low interaction with matter, non-tactile, odourless, undetectable, leaves room for thought. In this scenario, the Newtonian plotting of courses through space is possible.
The problem with this scenario is that the Michelson & Morley experiment at the turn of the nineteenth Century all but ruled out the existence of an aether. However, it should be noted that the Michelson & Morley experiment was based on the idea that the earth would drag the aether around with it and is completely contrary to the observed properties of the aether, namely that it possessed very low interaction with matter and could not therefore be dragged around by anything. Keep in mind that the aether could still be detected at any time, a modern aether that has different properties, for instance a modern aether would have very low interaction with matter, it would be very similar to dark matter if not synonymous with it.
The other solution in which the speed of light is constant, is that the speed of light is a Universal Constant and that both time and space change to enable it to remain constant in all inertial frames of reference. In this perspective the speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference but time dilates and distances contract in order for it to be true. According to this theory, which we know of as special relativity; space and time are not independent of one another but can be mixed into each other and therefore must be considered as the same object, called the space-time continuum. The consequences of mixing space and time result in: time dilation and length contraction. Using special relativity to plot courses would be difficult since neither time nor space are fixed, making the plotting of exact times and positions impossible. Although, some are of the view that special relativity raises the possibility wormholes exist, through which it is possible to be instantly transported to another location in space that is maybe billions of light years distant from the present location.
However, another lesser known property of special relativity is that it chops and dices space and time until the possibility of any sentient life forms is reduced almost to zero.
-
For instance, for a radio-signal to travel from New York to Chicago (1178 km) has been measured as taking exactly 3.93 milliseconds. If, the time taken for a radio-signal to travel in the opposite direction, from Chicago to New York also takes exactly the same time, it should be assumed that the measurement is correct.
No
And we now have clocks that are good enough to prove that you can't have a universal clock.
A clock on a hill will run at a different rate from an identical clock at sea level.
-
However, it should be noted that the Michelson & Morley experiment was based on the idea that the earth would drag the aether around with it
Not really.
-
Towards the end of the Nineteenth Century, efforts were made to create a world clock that would be able to give the correct time anywhere in the world, a kind of Universal clock.
A clock that would tell time anywhere would need to be everywhere.
It should be noted that this issue of the speed of light being constant in all directions could have been treated as more of a philosophical problem than as a practical one but this would have meant that the principles of physics were no longer true, since the solutions that were arrived at would be inaccurate.
As it is treated today. Einstein was always careful to assign isotropic light speed by convention (practical philosophy) rather than suggesting that there was a test for it, which would make it physics.
a radio-signal to travel from New York to Chicago (1178 km) has been measured as taking exactly 3.93 milliseconds. If, the time taken for a radio-signal to travel in the opposite direction, from Chicago to New York also takes exactly the same time
All depends on how the clocks at either end are synchronized, so you can make it take as much or little time as you want, so any physical conclusion you draw on this is actually just your arbitrary choice, not "conclusive evidence that the speed of light was constant in all directions". Again, Einstein never assumed this nor concluded this. His premises are all physical (what one can measure), and not metaphysical (what something actually is), which is philosophy.
The only way in which it could be thought that the speed of light was constant is if a universal aether existed, that permeated the whole of the Universe and remained absolutely at rest with respect to it.
The universe isn't a rigid object that has a position or a speed relative to anything, so this cannot work. You seem to suggest a Minkowskian inertial frame which foliates the entire universe, but the universe cannot be thus foliated, so the aether cannot be inertial and thus 'at absolute rest' with respect to anything.
There are valid aether models, but not this naive one.
This would mean that the position of anything that moved within the Universe could be calculated according to its position and time with respect to the aether.
This implies that say Earth has an absolute coordinate relative to the aether. I defy you to specify such a coordinate in a meaningful way, that is not relative to another object, but only relative to the origin of the aether. Any location (of that origin in particular) specified relative to another object would be relative, not absolute.
Absolute location without a reference is even more meaningless than absolute velocity. Physics even has a term "peculiar velocity" which is as good as any choice of absolute velocity, but has no concept whatsoever of absolute position.
The presence of Dark Matter which makes up 85% or more of all matter in the Universe, and possesses similar properties to that of the aether: [ ... ] undetectable
It wouldn't be posited if it was not detectable. So given this absurd assertion, why should this topic not be moved to new-theories? The aether evangelizing should be enough already.
The problem with this scenario is that the Michelson & Morley experiment at the turn of the nineteenth Century all but ruled out the existence of an aether.
The experiment ruled out the anisotropic nature of light, which was presumed up until then. This was a physical test with a physical conclusion. Assumption of the aether is a metaphysical assumption.
However, it should be noted that the Michelson & Morley experiment was based on the idea that the earth would drag the aether
Nonsense, as has already been pointed out.
The other solution in which the speed of light is constant, is that the speed of light is a Universal Constant and that both time and space change to enable it to remain constant in all inertial frames of reference.
But the universe is not described by an inertial frame, so you're essentially saying that it is merely a local constant, not a universal one at all. Seems pretty wrong for something that's supposed to be universal. I shine a laser to a reflector on the moon at it gets there and back faster than c. Does this falsify your assertion of it being a universal constant?
Although, some are of the view that special relativity raises the possibility wormholes exist
SR allows no such thing.
However, another lesser known property of special relativity is that it chops and dices space and time until the possibility of any sentient life forms is reduced almost to zero.
Ditto for that nonsense.
Since you are making countless assertions and ask no actual questions, this topic doesn't belong here. Please stop post your own ideas in the new-theories section.
-
why should this topic not be moved to new-theories?
Hwy not the bin?
There's nothing new here.
-
Towards the end of the Nineteenth Century, efforts were made to create a world clock that would be able to give the correct time anywhere in the world, a kind of Universal clock
It came to be known as UTC
- If it were named by English-speakers, it would be called Universal Coordinated Time, or UCT
- Similar words exist in French. But if it were named by French speakers, it would be named something like TCU
- So in the spirit of international cooperation, it was named UTC, to make everyone equally unhappy....
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time
In the 1790s, there was an attempt to introduce metric time, as part of the meter/kilogram/second metric system.
- But it was abandoned, partly due to labour complaints that they had lost part of their weekend...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar#Decimal_time
In 1998, there was the somewhat more commercialized (and somewhat less successful) attempt to produce global metric time by dividing the day into 1000 "beats".
- This was promoted by a then highly-successful Swiss watch company.
- Their market was subsequently decimated by successive waves of smartphone, the fitness watch and the smart watch
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
-
Halc: This implies that say Earth has an absolute coordinate relative to the aether. I defy you to specify such a coordinate in a meaningful way, that is not relative to another object, but only relative to the origin of the aether. Any location (of that origin in particular) specified relative to another object would be relative, not absolute. Absolute location without a reference is even more meaningless than absolute velocity. Physics even has a term "peculiar velocity" which is as good as any choice of absolute velocity, but has no concept whatsoever of absolute position.
What exactly is a Universal frame of reference and what purpose does it serve? Here is a brief explanation:
"I can say for instance that an object is 50 yards north of the twentieth milestone on the Great North Road. If I tie my handkerchief to an object at this spot, take a walk, and come back to find my handkerchief still attached to the same object, I can say I have come back to the spot from which I started. On the other hand if I drop my handkerchief overboard at sea, row about, and come back to my handkerchief, I am not entitled to say I have come back to the same spot, since currents and winds are likely to have moved my handkerchief. I can only fix a position at sea by taking bearings, directly or indirectly, from the land. If space is occupied by an ether we can locate a spot in space by the former method.... If there is no ether, we can only locate a spot in space by its bearings from fixed landmarks, but where are such landmarks to be found? Not in the planets for these are moving round the sun at speeds which range from 3 to 30 miles a second. Not in the sun and stars which move past one another even more rapidly.... Nowhere in the whole of space can we find fixed landmarks from which to take our bearings, with the result that it is impossible to fix a position in space." Sir James Jeans: The New Background of Science.
Sir James Jeans states that the presence of an aether would provide a Universal frame of reference. May I suggest that he had probably thought about this problem as deeply as anyone else?
The experiment ruled out the anisotropic nature of light, which was presumed up until then. This was a physical test with a physical conclusion. Assumption of the aether is a metaphysical assumption.
All I can say that anyone who thought that light might be anisotropic must have been as dumb as a door post, because at the end of the nineteenth Century, when all these arguments took place, scientists were as familiar with waves and their properties as the scientists of today are familiar with relativity; therefore everyone was aware that the speed of a wave is isotropic it is the same in all directions and is dependent solely on the properties of the medium, it is traveling through. Why would anyone want to prove it is isotropic?
As it is treated today. Einstein was always careful to assign isotropic light speed by convention (practical philosophy) rather than suggesting that there was a test for it, which would make it physics.
What about the Sagnac effect.
-
And we now have clocks that are good enough to prove that you can't have a universal clock.
A clock on a hill will run at a different rate from an identical clock at sea level.
Clocks get slowed down or speed up depending on the effect of gravity on them, it doesn't prove anything at all. The agency that runs the GPS system does not use or refer to special relativity, because they are more honest than most. Or, more probably, because they have found that there are just too many variables to make special relativity reliable. However, it should be noted that the Michelson & Morley experiment was based on the idea that the earth would drag the aether around with it
Not really.
The aether drag hypothesis dealt with the question of whether or not the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. (wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis)
-
The agency that runs the GPS system does not use or refer to special relativity
Yes.
They used General relativity.
SR wouldn't be applicable.
They made sure that the clocks in the satellites ran at the wrong rate before launch in order that they would run at the correct rate when in orbit.
-
This would mean that the position of anything that moved within the Universe could be calculated according to its position and time with respect to the aether.
This implies that say Earth has an absolute coordinate relative to the aether.
What exactly is a Universal frame of reference and what purpose does it serve?
Sir James Jeans states that the presence of an aether would provide a Universal frame of reference. May I suggest that he had probably thought about this problem as deeply as anyone else?
Sir James seems not to have mentioned absolute position/location at all, so you’ve only skirted the question. If the aether is supposedly everywhere, how can it be meaningful to talk about your position relative to it? No matter where you are, the aether is ‘here’. Sounds pretty useless to describe the location of anything if each thing is always described as 'at the aether'.
I’m just pointing out that ‘position relative to the aether’ is no more meaningful than saying that Earth is one parsec north of 'space'.
All I can say that anyone who thought that light might be anisotropic must have been as dumb as a door post, because at the end of the nineteenth Century, when all these arguments took place, scientists were as familiar with waves and their properties as the scientists of today are familiar with relativity; therefore everyone was aware that the speed of a wave is isotropic it is the same in all directions and is dependent solely on the properties of the medium, it is traveling through.
You contradict yourself. A wave in a medium appears isotropic only if you are stationary relative to the medium. I drop a pebble off a bridge into moving water, and the waves move downstream far faster than upstream. It isn’t isotropic at all. Light was thought to be like that as well until the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated otherwise, forcing a rethinking of the old intuitions.
And no, light is not a wave. It merely has some wave-light properties in some situations.
What about the Sagnac effect.
Sagnac is an empirical effect and is predicted by SR regardless of any additional metaphysical assumptions about aether or actual one-way speed of light. Of course even Newtonian mechanics predicts it, so it doesn’t much act as a falsification test between those theories.
What does any of this have to do with a universal time clock? Even if there was a detectable aether, you'd still not get that.
-
Sir James seems not to have mentioned absolute position/location at all, so you’ve only skirted the question. If the aether is supposedly everywhere, how can it be meaningful to talk about your position relative to it? No matter where you are, the aether is ‘here’. Sounds pretty useless to describe the location of anything if each thing is always described as 'at the aether'.
I’m just pointing out that ‘position relative to the aether’ is no more meaningful than saying that Earth is one parsec north of 'space'.
If I may say so, something that occupies 85% of the mass of the Universe, if you add to this the 5% of baryonic matter, making for a total of 90% of all matter in the Universe (if not more) and that has exactly the same properties as the aether was supposed to have, for instance light and electromagnetic radiation, propagate through it with no detectable interference, dark matter has very low interaction with matter, if it was possible to collect some dark matter (which is unlikely) it would not be possible to weigh it because it would pass right through the weighing machine. This is very reminiscent of the concept that used to be called the aether,. If such a substance exists ( it does) and it, together with baryonic matter constitutes 90% of all matter in the Universe. Surely, this is something that exists and can’t be ignored. Unless the choice is made to deliberately choose to ignore the similarities between dark matter and what was once called the aether..
The way in which this links up with Sir James Jeans, is that if you have something that makes up 90% of the Universe, and it is at rest with respect to the Universe, (i.e., the Universe passes through it (and vice versa) without any interaction, then in theory what Sir James Jeans says is true.
You contradict yourself. A wave in a medium appears isotropic only if you are stationary relative to the medium. I drop a pebble off a bridge into moving water, and the waves move downstream far faster than upstream. It isn’t isotropic at all. Light was thought to be like that as well until the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated otherwise, forcing a rethinking of the old intuitions.
And no, light is not a wave. It merely has some wave-light properties in some situations.
I think that the medium dependency of wave speed is so well established that there is little point in arguing about it. So if any aether (i.e., a medium) is present through which light can propagate, its speed would be constant for all observers:
The wave speed, v, is how fast the wave travels and is determined by the properties of the medium in which the wave is moving. If the medium is uniform (does not change) then the wave speed will be constant. The speed of sound in dry air at 20 C is 344 m/s but this speed can change if the temperature changes. https://www.compadre.org/osp/EJSS/4473/258.htm
The speed of a wave is a property of the medium - changing the speed actually requires a change in the medium itself. If the medium does not change as a wave travels, the wave speed is constant. http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester1/c20_wave_speed.html
Sagnac is an empirical effect and is predicted by SR regardless of any additional metaphysical assumptions about aether or actual one-way speed of light. Of course even Newtonian mechanics predicts it, so it doesn’t much act as a falsification test between those theories.
The Sagnac effect is an experiment with an interferometer that is similar to the Michelson & Morley experiment, only in the Sagnac effect, a moving interferometer is used, the experiment showed that light was asymmetric, i.e., took longer in one direction than the other. This is a proof against Einstein’s special relativity.
What does any of this have to do with a universal time clock? Even if there was a detectable aether, you'd still not get that.
This is where the whole argument about frames of reference started: with the quest for a Universal Clock.
-
and that has exactly the same properties as the aether was supposed to have
As I have pointed out before, it doesn't.
-
As I have pointed out before, it doesn't.
I had alread answered this question in another thread, so I am just quoting that answer here.
Well this is a fairly, how should I put it, (dense?), statement. Has any thought been given to the size of the Universe? I don’t suppose it has, or such a statement would not have been possible. As a matter of fact my own calculations for the individual components of dark matter is that each ‘virtual’ photon that makes up dark matter has an energy of about 10-40 joules. This gels beautifully with the fact that Dark matter is thought to constitute 85% of the matter in the Universe.
My theory “Gestalt Aether Theory” outlines the physical structure of photon. It states that since electrons are charged particles that are known to radiate energy, that they probably mediate their energy by emitting and absorbing ‘electric’ energy. The way in which they do this is to emit short pulses of electric energy:
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/918e/05hw5injoj8wx4n4g.jpg) (https://www.mediafire.com/view/05hw5injoj8wx4n/photonemission1.jpg/file)
The emitted pulses of energy are polarized, with the initial pulses of electric energy being stronger than subsequent pulses of electric energy. This gives rise to a solenoid formation. The definition of a solenoid is that there no open loops of energy, all loops are closed loops. This gives the photon structure, because this is what these pulses of energy emitted by the electron form into. The gaps between the pulses of energy give the photon structure a capacitor type of construction that enables the initial energy it is emitted with to be conserved. The photon after emission is in a stable configuration:
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/0d0f/tk3au3xq63p39px4g.jpg) (https://www.mediafire.com/view/tk3au3xq63p39px/photonemission.jpg/file)
The truly significant point of such a photon construction, is that it enables the electron to emit all frequencies and wavelengths of photons, absolutely naturally and to mediate its energy very precisely and efficiently. Also, the question of how can an atom that is only 10-10m is diameter absorb a photon that has a wavelength of 5.65x 10-9m. becomes immaterial. Such questions become immaterial because the emitted photon maintains exactly the same shape and energy as that with which it was emitted. At present there are weird theories that all the atoms in a surface co-operate when a photon is absorbed, ina kind of co-operative movement!
The theory is that the whole of the Universe is permeated by such photons that were formed at the time of the Big Bang. After all there is almost a consensus that if there had been a Big Bang, there must have been light also. The photons that were emitted at the time of the Big Bang possess exactly the same structure as that of the photon described above but possess such low energy, on the order of 10-40 Joules, that they for all purposes can evade the conservation laws and have life times compared to that of the proton or electron.
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/918e/05hw5injoj8wx4n4g.jpg) (https://www.mediafire.com/view/05hw5injoj8wx4n/photonemission1.jpg/file)
Therefore, according to this theory the whole of the Universe is permeated by these infinitesimal electric dipoles that are more or less fixed in place but enjoy 360 degrees of freedom. They are oriented at random until an electron emits a ‘real’ photon at which time the ‘virtual’ photons of the virtual photon field, line up in the direction of the emitted real photon and the energy of the emitted real photon travels along this line of aligned virtual photons, whose ends rest on infinity.
The existence of this ‘virtual’ photon aether, not only accounts for dark matter but also explains how light can spread out in keeping with the inverse square law, but also explains how each individual photon is able to maintain the energy with which it originally emitted. So that using monochromatic light it is possible to see the colour of light even after it has travelled great distances.
And yes there are experiments that could quite easily identify this 'aether'. The aether in the form of what we hitherto bellieved to be electromagnetic fields are all around one even as one works at the computer. It is fairly certain that precise experiments could be devised.
-
I had alread answered this question in another thread, so I am just quoting that answer here.
It wasn't a good answer there either.
In particular, you need to solve the thermalisation problem.
-
I had alread answered this question in another thread, so I am just quoting that answer here.
It wasn't a good answer there either.
In particular, you need to solve the thermalisation problem.
Since you are so insistent that I answer your question about why I think thermalisation doesn’t take place. I would have to ask you in return. “What is your definition of thermalisation?” My understanding is that it is the process of reaching thermal equilibrium, similar to what happens with black body radiation. Here is the wikipedia quote on thermalisation:
“In physics, thermalization (in Commonwealth English "thermalisation") is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction. In general the natural tendency of a system is towards a state of equipartition of energy and uniform temperature that maximizes the system's entropy. Wikipedia article on thermalisation.
I have already explained to you why ‘virtual’ photons of the all pervasive ‘virtual photon aether’ have extremely low interaction with matter because of their low energies 10-40 J or 6.2 x 10-22 eV , so thermalisation doesn’t take place, any local energy exchange is just a drop in the ocean that is the Universe, and soon (immediately) gets normalised.
Does this answer satisfy? Or shouldn’t I ask?
-
If you have lots of photons, all with the same energy " about 10-40 joules"
And you let them bounce around where there's matter, they will have their energies shifted until they more or less resemble a black body spectrum.
And, of course, if there's already a BBR spectrum, they will get churned into that.
So, why are they still here (even though the CMBR has been thermalised- so it can't be a matter of "they haven't had time")?
-
If you have lots of photons, all with the same energy " about 10-40 joules"
And you let them bounce around where there's matter, they will have their energies shifted until they more or less resemble a black body spectrum.
And, of course, if there's already a BBR spectrum, they will get churned into that.
So, why are they still here (even though the CMBR has been thermalised- so it can't be a matter of "they haven't had time")?
If you have lots of photons, all with the same energy " about 10-40 joules"
And you let them bounce around where there's matter, they will have their energies shifted until they more or less resemble a black body spectrum.
And, of course, if there's already a BBR spectrum, they will get churned into that.
So, why are they still here (even though the CMBR has been thermalised- so it can't be a matter of "they haven't had time")?
Not enough attention is being paid to the data. The CMBR has an average frequency of about 1.5 GHz, this means that it has an energy of about 9.5 x 10-25 which is about a quadrillion times more than the energy of the ’virtual’ photon aether. There is absolutely no correspondence between the two. The CMBR will just travel through the ‘virtual’ photon aether, without affecting it.
In any case last year I had submitted a paper to Academia on the subject of the CMBR, I will take it up in a new thread.
Here is a link to the new therad:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82328.new#new
-
Not enough attention is being paid to the data.
Quite.
You should learn what the data is, then you won't ask stupid questions like this.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82328.0
And also you would realise that "The Quest For A Universal Time Clock" is futile.
We know that time runs at different rates in different places.
-
Quite.
You should learn what the data is, then you won't ask stupid questions like this.
Maybe that's because you are such a bonehead, you can't seem to see anything other than what you want to see. In any case, your question about why thermalisation did not take place, makes no sense. It didn’t take place and Dark Matter is the proof of that, since light can travel through dark matter with seemingly no interaction at all.
-
Maybe that's because you are such a bonehead
Don't insult other members.
It didn’t take place and Dark Matter is the proof of that, since light can travel through dark matter with seemingly no interaction at all.
Dark matter only seems to interact via gravity, so it's not a fair comparison.
-
Maybe that's because you are such a bonehead,
It's not me who is refusing to learn.
In any case, your question about why thermalisation did not take place, makes no sense.
Just because you can't answer it doesn't mean it's a bad question (If anything, it probably indicates that it is a good question)/
The question makes sense; your lack of an answer also makes sense- if we assume that it's because you are wrong (and there's other supporting evidence for that suggestion).
It didn’t take place and Dark Matter is the proof of that,
That's no proof at all.
At best you are begging the question.