Looking up the Shapiro effect we get the details:
When we follow that link, what we see is this:
"Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path".
Fact Check, debunking obviously false information
-
-
Just out of curiosity, what do these hundreds of posts have to do with the supposed topic of this thread?
-
When we follow that link, what we see is this:
"Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path".
As I pointed out above, it is a matter of interpretation and nomenclature, not physics, whether to view travel with time dilated as being slower, or the same speed with time dilated. The two things mean the same thing in casual speech. However when it comes to having consistent maths c not changing, and time dilating, is 100% compatible with all known observations. Whereas c varying, to the extent that it is not just an equivalent formulation of the same theory, is problematic. if you refer to an equivalent formulation of the commonly accepted maths, with no different predictions, that is fine - who cares?
-
Just out of curiosity, what do these hundreds of posts have to do with the supposed topic of this thread?
Huxley "debunks obviously false information" which isn't false. On page 5 in post 95 he was disparaging about me and about an electron paper by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark. He said this:
"Both papers ignore the electron's interaction with the W and Z particles, and ignore the implications for the muon, tau lepton, and quarks. That's because even in their hand-waving, free-form speculation, they can see that their story explains nothing. Like the Ancient Greeks explaining sunrise and the change of seasons, a separate god has to be created to explain every facet of every particle, and they soon lose the track of their narrative. It is less a physical explanation than a dreary theistic soap opera, but instead of gods per se, it is stocked with airy conceits that the authors can't or won't put into math to be confronted with physical experiment".
He also said this:
"The partial (and mathematically void) links made here are more likely to point in the wrong direction than the right".
It simply isn't true. It's similar for other things he's been saying. For example, Einstein said the speed of light varies with gravitational potential, as does the hard scientific evidence of the NIST optical clocks. However Huxley says it doesn't. See the Einstein quotes below. It's important to get the physics right for this sort of thing.
1907: “These equations too have the same form as the corresponding equations of the nonaccelerated or gravitation-free space; however, c is here replaced by the value c[1 + γξ/c²] = c[1 + Φ/c²]. From this it follows that those light rays that do not propagate along the ξ-axis are bent by the gravitational field”.
1911: If c₀ denotes the velocity of light at the coordinate origin, then the velocity of light c at a point with a gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²). The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light does not hold in this theory in the formulation in which it is normally used as the basis of the ordinary theory of relativity”.
1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.
1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.
1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”
1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.
-
As I pointed out above, it is a matter of interpretation and nomenclature, not physics, whether to view travel with time dilated as being slower, or the same speed with time dilated. The two things mean the same thing in casual speech. However when it comes to having consistent maths c not changing, and time dilating, is 100% compatible with all known observations. Whereas c varying, to the extent that it is not just an equivalent formulation of the same theory, is problematic. if you refer to an equivalent formulation of the commonly accepted maths, with no different predictions, that is fine - who cares?
It isn't a matter of interpretation and nomenclature. It's a matter of understanding. Understand this and you understand that people like Misner Thorne and Wheeler along with Penrose and Hawking got some things badly wrong. Understand this and you understand gamma ray bursters. That's where matter is converted into energy.
-
“Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.
As said the impact of gravity on mass down here on earth is very low and a photon is the last one we will be able to measure an effect, as mass, aka the mass of an atomic clock, reacts much stronger. Even if we reduce the problem to a small collection of rubidium atoms the weight of the measured photon is at least 1015 smaller than the coupled mass that emits it.
If you insist that the atomic clock measures only the "slower light speed" then please explain why all other components of the clock should work as expected and feel no gravity at all....
-
No. I'm saying a group of normal-size scientists would look at the lower optical clock and notice that it was going slower than the upper optical clock.
No one disputes that the proper time of the 2 clocks differ. That isn't the point.
As for your hypothetical tiny scientists living inside the bottom clock, light goes slower when it's lower and so do they, because of the wave nature of matter. So they might think the speed of light is constant, but they'd be wrong.
No, both sets of tiny scientists are correct. They both measure the same speed of light.
My question to you now is this ....
Einstein's field equations contain "c". What is the value of this "c"?
-
Quote
any GR gravitational effect on length of day due to the extra potential from Jupiter is far too small to be so measured
Value of gravitational constant fluctuates with the same period as well. And value of gravitational constant is measured with precision of some five digits only, whereas length of day can be measured with millisecond precision, i.e. by at least eight digits precission. The synoptic Jupiter-Saturn period is thus clearly visible there.
These periods can be seen even by such a seemingly unrelated processes like the speed of uplift of Yellowstone caldera.
-
Just out of curiosity, what do these hundreds of posts have to do with the supposed topic of this thread?
True, this is a sort of wandering thread. But to a great extent what we see on this thread now is displacement activity. There are claimed to be tremendously important physical discoveries with accompanying astounding results out there ... but they are no longer discussed on this site. Possibly they have been banned (although to tell the I can't really figure that out).
The thread that began with the announcement of securely repeatable excess heat and gamma emission from the "Atom-Ecology" system has been closed. The discussion of these results here is now seems forbidden.
The thread that discussed worrisome anomalies in the published Mizuno/Rothwell results has been halted. On this thread, one set of anomalies was eventually explained but discussion of other anomalies was cashiered after Jed complained.
So I guess instead of discussing important topical issues we debunk obviously false information
-
Display More
True, this is a sort of wandering thread. But to a great extent what we see on this thread now is displacement activity. There are claimed to be tremendously important physical discoveries with accompanying astounding results out there ... but they are no longer discussed on this site. Possibly they have been banned (although to tell the I can't really figure that out).
The thread that began with the announcement of securely repeatable excess heat and gamma emission from the "Atom-Ecology" system has been closed. The discussion of these results here is now seems forbidden.
The thread that discussed worrisome anomalies in the published Mizuno/Rothwell results has been halted. On this thread, one set of anomalies was eventually explained but discussion of other anomalies was cashiered after Jed complained.
So I guess instead of discussing important topical issues we debunk obviously false information
To be fair - there is a lot of obviously false info to debunk.
I think there is a kind of PR-based censorship in LENR.
For example, the Mizuno paper got a lot of publicity. That - unusually - spurred many people to replicate. You might expect a sort of running table here of all replications, number of confirmations (=> similar results) number of negatives.
What we get is not that. Any replications have complex non-Mizuno behaviour posted if it cannot simply be worked out what it is. No summary. No count of negative results.
I don't think this is dishonesty. it is that LENR experiments don't usually (with a few honourable exceptions) have negative results. Here is typical replication:
(1) replicate
(2) fail to find the large result expected
(3) repeat many times
(4) still fail to find this result, or anything like
(5) notice some result anomalous but different from the large result expected
(6) abandon interest in original result, and spend whole time looking at new anomaly
Steps (2) and (4) don't get much publicity.
But, actually, working out why apparently strong positive results are completely unreplicable is sort of important, and would help subsequent evaluation of results.
Anyway I trust this jaded view will prove wrong over the many Mizuno replications!
-
No one disputes that the proper time of the 2 clocks differ. That isn't the point.
The point is that the proper time of each clock is based on the local motion of light. It's as if you sit there counting light waves passing you by. When you get to 9,192,631,770, you say a second has elapsed. That's it. There is no thing called proper time inside those clocks. As Einstein said, “g44 = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero". At the event horizon where the "coordinate" speed of light is zero, the clock stops, and there is no proper time.
QuoteNo, both sets of tiny scientists are correct. They both measure the same speed of light.
Only because they use the local motion of light to define their seconds and their meters. Then they use those seconds and meters to measure the local motion of light. Duh! They aren't the smartest of guys these tiny scientists.
QuoteMy question to you now is this ....
Einstein's field equations contain "c". What is the value of this "c"?
It's usually given as 299,792,458 m/s. See Wikipedia. That's because it relates "local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress-energy tensor). See Wikipedia. The key word is local. However it 's sometimes given the value 1, and it's sometimes omitted altogether. OK, now it's my turn. What was Einstein saying here:
1911: If c₀ denotes the velocity of light at the coordinate origin, then the velocity of light c at a point with a gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²). The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light does not hold in this theory in the formulation in which it is normally used as the basis of the ordinary theory of relativity”.
See my post 524 for further examples.
-
As said the impact of gravity on mass down here on earth is very low and a photon is the last one we will be able to measure an effect, as mass, aka the mass of an atomic clock, reacts much stronger. Even if we reduce the problem to a small collection of rubidium atoms the weight of the measured photon is at least 1015 smaller than the coupled mass that emits it. If you insist that the atomic clock measures only the "slower light speed" then please explain why all other components of the clock should work as expected and feel no gravity at all....
Sorry Wyttenbach, I'm not sure what you mean here. All other components of the clock are made of atoms. These atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. The electrons are in essence light going round and round a spin ½ path and so are the protons. That's why in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation, we see gamma photons. Not quarks and gluons:
Annihilation images from CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility
Neutrons will, if freed, decay into electrons, protons, and neutrinos, which travel at c. So you can reason that all components of the clock are affected by the slower speed of light. They call it gravitational time dilation. But there is no thing called time going slower inside the clock. Time is just some cumulative measure of local motion.
-
THHuxleynew - lots of things are simply not being discussed re the Mizuno replications - why the Deneum replication failed, why Zhang only obtained transient excess heat results or why Mizuno's later R21 re-incarnation was not so effective as R20 - we are simply awaiting more data I suppose before any further analysis can be done?
-
The thread that began with the announcement of securely repeatable excess heat and gamma emission from the "Atom-Ecology" system has been closed. The discussion of these results here is now seems forbidden.
What is in the Assisi poster (Tab 5).
All our experiments with magnetic elements do show gamma radiation with coupling magnetic gamma states of neighbor nuclei. This leads directly to the conclusion that one path for disposing LENR energy is coupling to neighbor nuclei magnetic gamma states. There are two kinds of coupling. See Tab. 5 that shows a small selection of active isotopes we measured in one spectrum of 10 minutes duration. The total counts of this spectrum were 90% above background (assuming 10% fluctuation) . About 20% of the additional line counts were known magnetic lines with > 100% above background.
-
What is in the Assisi poster (Tab 5).
All our experiments with magnetic elements do show gamma radiation with coupling magnetic gamma states of neighbor nuclei. This leads directly to the conclusion that one path for disposing LENR energy is coupling to neighbor nuclei magnetic gamma states. There are two kinds of coupling. See Tab. 5 that shows a small selection of active isotopes we measured in one spectrum of 10 minutes duration. The total counts of this spectrum were 90% above background (assuming 10% fluctuation) . About 20% of the additional line counts were known magnetic lines with > 100% above background.
I can't say that I understand the implications of this information but to see it coming out is great! Is there an online location where I can view the whole poster?
-
The point is that the proper time of each clock is based on the local motion of light. ....
It's usually given as 299,792,458 m/s. See Wikipedia. That's because it relates "local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress-energy tensor). See Wikipedia. The key word is local. However it 's sometimes given the value 1, and it's sometimes omitted altogether.
The whole darn theory is local. That is why it is called general relativity instead of special relativity. The tensors are tensor fields over spacetime, which are free to change from point to point according to the distribution of matter/energy. What is not free to vary from point to point is c which, as you point out is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). That is why c appears just as "c" in Einstein's GR equation. It isn't a function of spacetime, it is just a number. I don't see you denying this in your answer. The fact that c can be set to a value of 1 (for instance by measuring spatial distance in light-seconds instead of meters) just makes it more obvious that within GR, c is a constant with the same value everywhere.
Your 1911 quote shows how Einstein was treating the speed of light before GR. Einstein abandoned that approach and replaced it with GR specifically to retain the invariance of laws and of the speed of light in all inertial and accelerated frames.
-
where I can view the whole poster?
https://www.researchgate.net/p…/5d865a5e3843b0b982655cb9
https://www.researchgate.net/p…physics_Main_achievements
also livechart for gamma state transitions
-
I can't say that I understand the implications of this information but to see it coming out is great! Is there an online location where I can view the whole poster?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336107679_Nuclear_Particle_Physics_version_20_SO4_physics_Main_achievements (fixed the link!)
-
The whole darn theory is local. That is why it is called general relativity instead of special relativity. The tensors are tensor fields over spacetime, which are free to change from point to point according to the distribution of matter/energy. What is not free to vary from point to point is c which, as you point out is a constant (299,792,458 m/s). That is why c appears just as "c" in Einstein's GR equation. It isn't a function of spacetime, it is just a number. I don't see you denying this in your answer. The fact that c can be set to a value of 1 (for instance by measuring spatial distance in light-seconds instead of meters) just makes it more obvious that within GR, c is a constant with the same value everywhere.
Again, the expression relates local spacetime curvature with the local energy and momentum. That doesn't mean the speed of light is the same everywhere.
QuoteYour 1911 quote shows how Einstein was treating the speed of light before GR. Einstein abandoned that approach and replaced it with GR specifically to retain the invariance of laws and of the speed of light in all inertial and accelerated frames.
He didn't abandon that approach. That's a myth. See The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity where he said "the principle of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo must be abandoned". The word velocity is the common usage, as in "high velocity bullet". The word speed would be better. Now see this page where he said "As he will not make up his mind to let the velocity of light along the path in question depend explicitly on the time". He was still talking about the variable speed of light. Hence the other Einstein quotes my in post 524 above. Such as this one:
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.
Make sure you read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…n's_early_proposal_(1911)
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#Einstein's_updated_proposals_(1905–1915)
It says this: "Division of a scalar by a vector is not defined, so there is no other way to interpret the velocity of light in this usage except as a variable scalar speed". Also make sure you read this:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/…Light/speed_of_light.html
My good buddy Don Koks, the PhysicsFaq editor, says this: "light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling, and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor". This is why, in on a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses, Einstein said light rays "take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2”. Sorry Bruce, but this means that just about everything you think you know about gravity and black holes is wrong. Isn't that interesting? Especially since gamma ray bursts perform a 100% conversion of matter into energy.
-
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
What is the quantum measurement problem?
