[yor_on]

I wrote "so, what made that traveling twin to age less relative me. From my frame he 'slowed down' as per 'light clocks'.
From his frame he did not, but what about that acceleration he found to exist 'intrinsically'?" I'm still trying to melt that one and keep coming back to it.

There is a very weird phenomena here. Think of the elevator becoming a light clock of sorts as it move uniformly through space. Then consider the way that light will 'bend' and also take a longer time to hit that opposite wall from the far observers point of view, equivalent to a 'slower beat/time', as per the twin experiment.

From the far observers point of view the traveler age 'slower', from the travelers point of view time is 'as always', neither faster nor slower. How can both perceptions describe a same happening? Going out from geometry it seem to become a statement of what I said before, doesn't it? That you can't part the arrow from the other degrees of freedom and treat it isolated. Also it becomes a statement of locality as the only way to define a reality first handedly, 'experimenting'.

This way the arrow is existent, no illusion, but also a expression of changed geometries. And then we have the twin experiment in where we rejoin the traveler with his twin, and origin. There we get a (theoretical) proof of what? Not only observer dependence, as it then would be enough with finding what we already discussed. But also a proof of some 'objective reality' in where the observer dependence finally creates actual physical changes. How can 'relative motion' slow time? And if you think of it, also reconstruct the geometry the traveler perceived traveling.

Both of those are proofs of that 'dimensions' is a joined phenomena to me.

[yor_on]

And furthermore, it questions accelerations importance for explaining a time dilation/contraction. Because you can assume this time dilation to exist in all uniformly moving objects relative yourself, using the light clocks examples.

[yor_on]

If you define this primal 'block' to some scale, like I use Plank scaled 'block' of four degrees of freedom, then that also must become your ground for defining 'yourself' relative any other frame of reference, mustn't it? And here we meet presumptions again Because when I define myself relative other frames of reference I don't think this way, normally.

It's 'me' relative everything else, isn't it? And 'me' is definitely not Planck scaled, but to be correct I think we need it to be. And all those 'blocks' creating 'me' must then find the same effects as we do macroscopically. But it's also matters coherence that plays a big part here. The way matter take a place, and its constituents, particles, keeps their place in a acceleration. And now I discuss accelerations primary, not uniform motions. Because maybe I can imagine all uniform motions to be 'at rest'? And if I choose to do so I fail to see external 'forces' at play there, but in a acceleration I see something 'resisting'? If that word now can be used. And it 'resist' you on a particle level as I think of it.

[yor_on]

There are two things communicating, light and gravity. Where the gravity defines the geodesics for light propagating. This is assuming that mass and gravity is what goes together naturally, as well as propagation of light. Still, if we assume that 'gravity' is a result of bosons then what are bosons? Quantified radiation?

[zordim]

Hi yor_on,
What follows is an excerpt from: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46034.msg400132#msg400132
It is about how "the light and gravity communicate".
If you do not like it, I will remove it. I would appreciate your comments, anyway.
Regards,
zordim

So, here is an easy and accurate derivation of the true relativity equations, which could (should) had been done as soon as Einstein predicted the gravitational red shift of a photon.
Actually, the first scientists who were in position to derive the true relativity equations, in the year 1900, were both Max Planck and Henry Poencare. Because, for that derivation, one needs only the following:
-   Newton’s gravitation law
-   Planck’s equation for elementary EM-radiation energy ,
-   Poencare’s derivation of (on the basis of Maxwell’s and Poynting’s works (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608289.pdf, page 2))

Moving of the mass radially away from a gravitation source for some infinitesimal distance , would require an infinitesimal work, which – according to the Newton’s gravitation law – is

.

In the case of a photon, would be the photon’s non-inertial mass. Or, we can put instead . From the energy conservation principle, follows that when a photon moves radially away from a source of gravitation, energy of the photon has to reduce for the amount .  Hence:

 
And this equation gives the theoretical explanation of the Pound-Rebka experiment:
, where ,

Follows the energy equation of a photon:
,
where is the photon’s energy very, very far away from the gravitation-source.

From follows . Namely, since the EM-oscillation frequency is then the period of that oscillation is
From , and from follows .
At some fixed radius, an infinitesimal part of the time period will be .

Now, the velocity of a photon can be derived:






So, obviously, it cannot be like this. The only explanation is that we made wrong starting assumption. Namely, according to the equation for time period, the time period of a photon increases as the photon moves radially away. We know that acceleration is negative for a body which moves away, that is, the change of its velocity is negative. But, that is the case for inertial-mass bodies. The velocity change of a photon which moves radially away is positive. The key point is to realize that and are the properties of space, and that matter affects the space in the way that it causes the and to increase within the space occupied by matter. Outside matter, and further away, and decrease. Therefore, according to the Maxwell’s equation , the allowed velocity, that is, the velocity of our photon, would increase.
Hence, in the previous velocity-equation derivation, the starting equation should be
,
and we would then get that the velocity of the photon which moves radially away from the source of gravitations is



And, the length of a photon would change as:


Shapiro time delay

[yor_on]

Don't know what to make of it actually. Saw that you have posted your ideas in your own thread here at 'New Theories' though? Why not try to submit it to arXiv.org instead and see how they respond? They might give you a better response to why, and what, they think, any which way it goes?
=

Ah well
Had to correct my wording here.
=

Ok, reading your link I think your ideas clash with my interpretation of the physics I know? I seriously suggest that you try to avoid too many new 'labels' (as they only becomes confusing when trying to remember) instead concentrating on the math, to then present your work to arXiv.org. They have good access to mathematicians & physicists there. Hopefully they will give your work their attention, and before all explain where they differ from your interpretations.

[yor_on]

The Aether?

First check out this experiment.  Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit. then think about it

The idea originally came from one mirror accelerating, as I get it.

"The energy-momentum tensor is calculated in the two dimensional quantum theory of a massless scalar field influenced by the motion of a perfectly reflecting boundary (mirror). This simple model system evidently can provide insight into more sophisticated processes, such as particle production in cosmological models and exploding black holes. In spite of the conformally static nature of the problem, the vacuum expectation value of the tensor for an arbitrary mirror trajectory exhibits a non-vanishing radiation flux (which may be readily computed).

The expectation value of the instantaneous energy flux is negative when the proper acceleration of the mirror is increasing, but the total energy radiated during a bounded mirror motion is positive. A uniformly accelerating mirror does not radiate; however, our quantization does not coincide with the treatment of that system as a 'static universe'. The calculation of the expectation value requires a regularization procedure of covariant separation of points (in products of field operators) along time-like geodesics; more naive methods do not yield the same answers. A striking example involving two mirrors clarifies the significance of the conformal anomaly. "

You can also read First Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect. For a more 'non technical', sort of, explanation of the effect.

So what has this to do with a 'aether'? Nuthin or sumthin?

It's about if a uniform motion matter, ahem? And, it doesn't, not for the static, neither for the dynamical, Casimir effect.

What does it tell you? Where is the energy in a 'uniform motion', according to your measurements of some other object, you finding it close to 'lights speed in a vacuum'? And if measuring your own uniform 'speed' then, relative very distant stars blue shift in front of your motion? Where is the energy?

[yor_on]

So, does mass as in matter 'accelerate'? Imagine yourself on a neutron star watching distant star light. Would that light become blue shifted to you? If it does, what type of 'acceleration' is it? A uniform acceleration (for example at a million G) or a 'jerky' non uniform acceleration? If we use the Casimir effect we find that in a uniform acceleration you will not see this 'energy' created out of the vacuum, in form of light/radiation. So?

Here's a nice lecture on GR, although I withhold on the notion that Einstein wanted/expected it all to become a geometry. To me it seems as if the geometry of it was a later approach to GR, by many, making it possible to visualize the ideas better.

And what the he* has all this to do with an 'aether'?

Well, if you use frames of reference, then a acceleration is the only 'thing' being measurable 'intrinsically/very locally'. But what about on very small scales? If I assume that there are 'SpaceTime corns' (so corny) that together create what we call our universe, each one representing a smallest 'something/block/point'. Would they too 'feel' a acceleration 'intrinsically'? And if they do, how do they differ between uniform/non uniform accelerations?

But it's not what I'm wondering about firstly, what I'm wondering about is how the stress energy tensor define uniformly moving objects 'energy', and where it would 'place it'? Also how it would differ between 'real proper mass/matter', relative a uniform acceleration, relative a non-uniform acceleration?

And that is about a 'modern aether' I think, if it exist.

[yor_on]

Sorry, forgot to post the link on GR.. The General Theory Of Relativity.

[yor_on]

The point is that in a uniform motion, no matter your speed, as measured relative some other frame of reference, it doesn't seem to matter at all what 'energy' you define your 'motion' to have. It will always be relative another frame of reference, and only measurable in a collision. Locally it is non existent.
==

To me this is a important point supporting a idea of each frame of reference locally creating its own interpretation of a 'universe', contrasting that from the idea of a same 'indivisibly same, common universe, for us all'. And it is important, because that is the ground from where you need to start, as it seems to me.

[yor_on]

Expressed other wise you may state that all objects have one constant 'energy', from a photon to a particle of 'rest mass'. The rest, as they say, is all about relations. But, does this statement break down in accelerations?
==

Once more leaning on the Casimir effect, how do the universe know that the acceleration is non uniform. It must know, or else, whatever is accelerating must 'know' a difference. To be able to produce those 'photons' in one case, but not if uniform accelerating. And so the question comes back to what those possible smallest 'points/blocks/whatever' would mean in such a reasoning?

You might put that question as 'can there exist effects that is truly only intrinsically measurable? Or is it all about relations?'
==

And by the way That one could also be seen as about a 'modern aether'. Because if it is a relation, then to what? And where? And why does it differ?

[yor_on]

As always, this is thoughts, nothing more. But the idea of lights speed being traceable to the arrow, and the arrow to lights speed (constant) in a vacuum is getting really stuck in me head, and bothers me in some weird way. I've started to wonder why it is that way? If it now is

Both are locally equivalent as I think. Your arrow and lights speed.
Why?

[yor_on]

It's about this weird plasticity relativity describes. The one in where all your measurements of a room time 'geometry' adapt to mass, relative motion, accelerations and 'energy'. And the arrow of time?

Locally the same in all environments the arrow. All dimensions go together, some change locally though as your  'distances' measured but your time and the light constant both stays locally 'the same', giving you a locally exact same 'life span', There are no longer hours due to relativistic speeds. All of that is related to you measuring other frames of reference but has no effect on your lifespan locally.

Why does the arrow tick to radiations constant?
=

Maybe the question should be.
Why are they the same?

[yor_on]

If it is so that we can prove photons being 'created' in a vacuum due to the dynamical Casimir effect then we also should be able to settle the question if the original Casimir effect is due to the material or due to the 'zero point energy', right? Then the idea of 'energy' becomes something in its own right, and should be present in all 'space', shouldn't it? The same way as a expansion, to make sense (to me that is), should be present inside galaxies too, but unmeasurable there due to gravity keeping matters relations/orbits stable, well as I think of it?

And then those photons created is a 'symmetry break' of sorts, isn't it? The idea is that you have a pair production of 'virtual photons' in where you one way or another stop them from annihilating each other, and that seems to be breaking a symmetry to me?

[yor_on]

Let us assume that every point of a universe has the same 'energy'. To that energy you then can add matter, relative motion (as in when uniformly moving aka 'unmovable', and accelerations.

So when that squid mirror moves forth and back it is in motion, and it should be a accelerating one at each turn at least. That means to whatever points it pass in those turns it also should transfer a added energy, due to that acceleration, am I thinking right there? I have no idea if you can find it to be uniformly accelerating and subsequently, possibly, also uniformly moving at some instant, but each turns is guaranteed representing a non uniform acceleration. And that added 'energy' should then be what is transfered into the one photon that survives, if we want the conservation laws to stand, all as i get it.

If that is right then there is one 'layer' of energy, one 'layer' of non uniform acceleration, and matter. The 'layer' of energy should then be whatever exist in those SpaceTime points making a universe. Those points must then be in relation to accelerations and matter, all accelerations? or just non-uniform? Could a 'photon' bouncing in a cavity create new photons? If it bounce it can't be described as propagating uniformly any more, as long as we assume a 'elastic' bounce, right?

[yor_on]

You have to remember that this is my views, and I'm no scientist
But...

Anyway, for what it's worth. Locality is like a carpet. Imagine that carpet consisting of searchlights, each one finding a different representation of 'a universe'. Then consider that all searchlights, when in the 'same frame of reference', will find themselves 'identical', meaning that their 'frames' are equivalent.

Consider that.

Then ask yourself what is needed for a identical 'carpet', to create a 'observer dependency'`?

And a hopefully happy new year to us all.

[yor_on]

Then we have the question about predestination contra free will. Imagine a moving sheet. That sheet light up its own plane, maybe limited to some Planck size. What it light up as it 'passes through' is a static reality, non moving. But the sheet, and what we perceive as happening 'consciously' in that planar field, as the sheet move might then represent a interpretation of 'time passing', and with it our description of 'motion'. This is a purely predestined field though as what it light up isn't really moving at all, except to us living, constantly existing on and in that surface.

But then you have free will, the possibility of making choices. If that exist, and I think it does as I do such daily, then that idea does not capture 'time'.

[yor_on]

Ok, this one is confusing too me. Imagine a photon propagating at 'c'. What does it see? Flr, a guy writing here asked that one first I think? Then I thought of it as creating contradictions and therefore impossible to answer. But I just meet a guy suggesting that what a photon might see could be a two dimensional universe, me assuming he is thinking of a Lorentz contraction in the motion of the propagation. and so maybe Flr is right?

But I though like this.

1. photons are timeless (as far as physics know experimentally)

2. Lorentz contraction as observed in the direction of motion should in the case of a photon reach? Infinite contraction, or is there a limit where you can assume a point (plane) like existence?

3. What would happen to a signal from a relativistically moving object, sent in the opposite direction from its motion? It would redshift (waves), and in the case of a photon? Would it warp?

And the redshift itself then, is there a limit to how red shifted something can become relative the moving observer?

I could assume that there must be a limit, as I can imagine a stationary (inertial) observer able to watch that ships signal, but I’m not sure, although it seems a contradiction in terms.

If there are no limits to a redshift, what would that imply in the case of those two observers?

And that one is a crucial point to me, what would that mean? You have two observers who both agree on that there is no 'photon' propagating, and no measurement that can prove it otherwise. But you still have the recoil from the moving object as it let the 'photon' go which can be considered a indirect proof.

Then again.

The redshift produced by the motion as observed from the moving object must still be at ‘c’.

And the stationary observer should see it redshifted too, and at ‘c’ from his point of view too.
(This is assuming a reciprocal effect relative ‘c’ (motion), different coordinate systems, and energy.)

Think of it a rope undulating, it doesn't matter which of the ends of the rope is traveling/stretched relative the other (in a uniform motion) The view from both ends will show the same (wave) picture as the rope gets stretched out

But then you have the light quanta itself, that won’t change intrinsically?

Will that light quanta cease to exist? Can it?
And what the he* is motion?

[yor_on]

Defining it from a principle of measurements defining your reality and 'locality', it seems to me as the lightquanta is gone. so is there a frame of reference from where you would be able to see it? Of course there is, coexisting frames I think they're called? Or slightly displaced frames like when traveling at a slightly less speed behind the object sending out the light quanta, they must see it.

But, from a 'globally same universe' then? How would you define that? Locally what you measure is what you get, and it is what will define your experiments, and life, but from a theoretically 'same indivisible' universe?

Assume that what you see is your representation of a fractured/splintered universe, each representation of that universe coming from a 'local center' of some sort? Is that feasible? Where would that center be, and how does it become one?

Quantum physics see a difference between quantum effects and macroscopic expressions/effects, and puts it to the amount, many particles together interacting, becoming matter. If there now was a center of some sort, would that be due to a similar effect? Then you have those relativistic effects due to mass, relative motion, accelerations and spin, gravitational time dilations etc. where do they stop? Do they stop? Is all particles also members of those effects?

How can they interact if they are?
The force carriers are photons, right?

[yor_on]

So assuming such a universe you get a place consisting of a possibly (?) infinite amount of centers, just as you by changing your 'limits/definitions' for a equation can find different effects, as light becoming 'mass'. Change what you define as making up that 'center' and you get a different 'local' interpretation of your universe. Would that make sense? Is light a constant? Can you disprove it? You can argue that it will take different time in a acceleration and so have a different speed, but a acceleration is a gravity according to the equivalence principle, and gravity 'bends warps' SpaceTime.

I don't know what speed 'c' is, but I'm pretty sure it must be a constant.
The clock of the universe. on, off, on, off.

And the definition of a arrow.
And the force carrier.
=

There must be more degrees of freedom than those we can measure, to make this work.
At least I think there must be.
=

And no, if we go by measurements then there is always only one 'center', redefining what makes it won't change your measurements. But what measures? The observer right? And when particles interact then, do they 'measure' each other? And doesn't that make them 'observers' too?