According to Descartes' view of the mechanical world, natural phenomena occur when objects are engaged like gears.
Funnily enough I was just reading about Descartes. Whilst I don't thing all natural phenomena occur because objects are engaged like gears, I do think some are. Did somebody mention the helium nucleus?
Display MoreThere is a scissor mode.
This is a phenomenon in which gamma rays are re-radiated when gamma rays are irradiated to the nucleus.
I anticipate that scissor mode is also caused by neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not particles, but the shortest electric field pulses.
Neutrinos are transmitted using nuclei as a medium. The neutrino then supplies a charge to the proton.
Protons that are supplied with electric charges emit electric field pulses and gamma rays around them because their size changes.
I call this proton oscillation. Proton oscillation creates a standing wave of gamma rays around the nucleus.
Orbital electrons fall into the valley of standing waves.
The standing wave of gamma rays is the cause of quantum leaps.
The above may be science fiction.
I'm afraid I don't recognise this as corresponding to the physics I know, Kazunori. Sorry.
well you said it, the problem is how, saying that there is no strong nuclear force and that all forces are mIsunderstood EM forces is controversial.
I was talking about the nuclear force, Curbina. I think everybody agrees that it exists. The issue is how does it actually work? I've looked into this. Here's something I've written previously:
In 1986 in Hideki Yukawa and the meson theory Laurie Brown said “today’s standard model has not been able to calculate ‘low-energy’ processes, such as meson-nucleon scattering, or the nuclear forces”. In 1999 Charlotte Elster said calculations started about 15 years ago and many groups have been involved, but all the models create either too little or no intermediate-range attraction. According to Riken in 2007 the short-range repulsion remains an open question. That’s when Frank Wilczek said this in Nature: “ironically from the perspective of QCD, the foundation of nuclear physics appear distinctly unsound”. In John Gowan’s 2012 paper strong force two expressions you can read that the exact origin of the strong force is not yet a completely settled matter. In Ruprecht Machleidt’s 2013 paper origin and properties of strong inter-nucleon interactions you can read that it’s been seventy years of desperate struggle. Machleidt advocates chiral effective field theory but the bottom line is that there hasn’t been much in the way of recent progress. That’s why the nuclear force is in the list of unsolved problems in physics.
The last reference is to WIkipedia, which says this: "What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes?" Whilst you can read stuff about it being a residual force leftover from the strong force between quarks, that's merely a hypothesis. On a forum like LNER, I think this sort of think is important.
The idea of neutrons as a composite particle is one that Santilli says his research has proven. But it remains controversial AFAIK
I don't think it's controversial. Even the Standard Model says the neutron is composite. I'd say what's controversial is how it's composite. Take a look at this:
Neutron: structure and geometry of charge distribution
"An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[67] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve electric charge)".
That doesn't fit with the usual 3-quark picture. Nor does this:
Nuclear force plot from the Dux college HSC physics course, neutron charge distribution image by Dru Renner, inverted by me
They don't call it electron capture for nothing. And in beta decay, we don't see W-bosons, and we don't see quarks and gluons.
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.
Display MoreThomas Minderle - a brief introduction to scalar physics.
Abstract
The forces of magnetism, electricity, and gravity are distortions of
a single primordial field that permeates the universe and comprises
the fabric of existence. Vorticity in this field gives rise to magnetic
fields. Dynamic undulations give rise to electric fields. Compression
or divergence gives rise to gravitational fields. When put into
mathematical form, these relations reveal how electric and magnetic
fields can be arranged to produce artificial gravity and many other
exotic phenomena such as time distortion and the opening of portals
into other dimensions.
This looks interesting. But dynamic undulations are light and vorticity gives rise to electromagnetic fields. Sadly I rather think the portals to other dimensions will make people dismiss everything he's saying, which is a pity. However I'll read this with interest. Thanks.
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.
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 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.
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”.
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".
Unluckily experiments down on earth on different altitudes did not yet show a different speed of light. Thus we should not discuss about things we can't measure as the decision is made by experiments and not by theory.
The frequency of the light in an atomic clock is defined by the vibration of the atom (bound electron) and not by the varying speed of light. Atoms do not follow GER but they follow gravity.
Experiments do show a varying speed of light. The NIST optical clock goes slower when it's lower. It's an optical clock. There is no thing called "time" going slower inside this clock. Zephir is right.
Yes, the frequency of the light in an atom is defined by the electron. But we can make an electron out of light in gamma-gamma pair production. Then when we annihilate it with the positron, we get light again. The electron is just light in a closed path. I would urge you to read Erwin Schrödinger's quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. He talked about wavefunction and phase and geometrical optics, and on page 18 said classical mechanics fails for very small dimensions of the path and for very great curvature. He said “let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. He was talking about the electron.
The point to note here is that what Huxley is saying, is that the speed of the two light pulses in the gif is defined to be the same. Take a look at them. Yes, the gif is exaggerated, but it's essentially correct. Do they look as if they're moving at the same speed to you? They are not. Einstein was right. So was Shapiro. So is Koks, and Wright, and a growing number of other people who now understand the tautology.
But, is a weapon of mass destruction via cold fusion possible?
Yes, I'm afraid it is. No further comment.
JD: Ad-hominems
My comments on JD's posts here have been critical, but not ad hominems. Specifically I am not saying his posts about are false because he is a bad poster, or for any other quality he possesses. The posts on stackexchange he posted and I referenced show his (wrong) view of GR as do his posts here. Relating those - since they are indeed related - is not an ad hominem comment.
It's an ad hominem, and a call for censorship. You know full well that I take Einstein's view.
So when light goes slower the second is bigger
Here we are again. Making a comparison between two frames F1, F2 where the gravitational field in F2 is larger than in F1. A 299792458m path in each frame will mean that light takes 1s frame time to travel the path. Time dilation of F2 relative to F1 means that 1s runs relatively slower.
Those frames do not exist. The room you're in exists. The two optical clocks exist. Light exists. And the lower clock is going slower than the upper clock because light goes slower when its lower. It's that simple Huxley. There is no magical mysterious thing called time going slower inside those clocks. Have you never heard of A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein? PS: The clock rate depends on gravitational potential, not field, which is the gradient in potential. We say potential is lower at the lower elevation
QuoteThus: speed is constant, time dilates => more fewer bounces observed in F2 than F1 for an observer in F1 (or F2).
John's confusion here is that in spite of studying general relativity he makes non-relativistic arguments.
I'm not confused at all. Einstein was crystal clear: “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”. You would dismiss Einstein and the evidence, and claim that the light pulse in the lower parallel-mirror clock is moving at the same speed as the light pulse in the upper clock? Let me assure you, it isn't. And by the way, the metre doesn't change, as I explained above.
Gif image by Brian McPherson
You bring up standard definitions. And they make my case, the speed of light is by definition constant (for length defined as here).
Which is consistent with what 99.9% of people agree, but John here does not like:
In an accelerating frame c stays constant, but time dilates, relative to an inertial frame. According to the principle of general relativity, a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerating frame.
it isn't just me saying the speed of light varies. Einstein said the speed of light varies, Irwin Shapiro said the speed of light varies. Don Koks says the speed of light varies. Ned Wright says the speed of light varies. See his Deflection and Delay of Light article. He doesn’t say the light is deflected because spacetime is curved. Instead he says this: “In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light. The figure below shows a bundle of rays passing the Sun at various distances”:
That delay is the Shapiro delay. It's there because "according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path". The hard scientific evidence of NIST optical clocks says the speed of light varies. See what Wikipedia says: "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". It also says this: "Peter Bergmann did not agree with Einstein, but left the dispute out of his earlier book in 1942 to get Einstein’s endorsement. After Einstein died Bergmann wrote a new book in 1968 claiming that vector light velocity could change direction but not speed. This has become a prevailing opinion in science, but not in agreement with Einstein’s unambiguous math". I didn't write this article. I'm sorry Huxley, but what you think is general relativity, isn't the real thing. And in some important respects, when it comes to black holes, it's wrong. Because light can't go slower than stopped.
Thank you Zeus.
Wyttenbach: time is based on the motion of light. You sit there counting those caesium hyperfine light waves go by, and when you get to 9,192,631,770, that duration is a second. See what I said above about the metre. It's “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458th of a second”. So when light goes slower the second is bigger and the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out. So the metre is unchanged.
Re separating a single behavior (speed of light), and electron is just light going round and round. It's the wave nature of matter. The same principle applies to protons. That's why protons also go round in circles in a uniform magnetic field. And why in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation, we see gamma photons.
Annihilation images from CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility
I realise this is tedious for some. But maybe worth engaging with John on this topic because some here might end up believing what he says and thus being very misinformed. There was a reason he got banned from stackexchange for poor quality answers on this topic!
Ad-hominems do you no credit, Huxley. I was suspended from Stack Exchange because my answers were too good.
Quote[Re "Time is just a measure of motion"] Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that. But there are multiple proper times for multiple different reference frames, so nothing "just" about it!
I refute it thus: spacetime models space at all times. So there is no motion in spacetime. It is static. Motion is not defined by proper time in an inertial frame. Such things are abstract things. Do not try to define real things using abstract things that do not exist. Can you look up to the clear night sky and point out a reference frame? No. But I can point out the motion of a meteor. In similar vein I can hold my hands up a foot apart and show you the gap, the space between them. I can also waggle my hands and show you motion. I can do this because space and motion are real. They are empirical. Can you show me time? No, because time is not. Every time you try to show me time I will point out that all you've shown me is some cumulative measure of motion.
QuoteThis is 100% false. You have shown how in an external to the black hole inertial reference frame all world lines (trajectories of objects) have an asymptote at the event horizon, where they never actually cross it. but, those same world lines, measured by their own (clock on traveller) proper time, pass through the event horizon in finite time. Saying that there is no time at the event horizon is false; there is perfectly good time, just that it is decoupled by an asymptote from external times.
Can you look up to the clear night sky and point out a worldline? No. Because there are no worldlines. They do not exist. And because spacetime models space at all times, It is static, so objects do not move along their worldlines. As for your perfectly good time at the event horizon, let's see what Einstein had to say about that: “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". Let's see now, we have a stopped clock. But you think there's a perfectly good time? And accuse me of coming up with something that's 100% false?
QuoteThis shows a lack of respect for reality. Sure - relativistic physics is counter-intuitive and strange (some people, including me, would say wonderful). It is not contradictory once you accept its tenets - that time is relative and there is no global universal time. Both stories can be right - you can even trace light rays from the infalling object to the external observer and see how they get stretched asymptotically in external time to make both right. It is lazy not to go through that calculation: if you are capable. If you are not capable then you have no business asserting your minority viewpoint over 99.9% of people who have done it and understand how this physics works.
I have total respect for reality. It isn't me being lazy, it's you, elevating abstract things above real things. And I'm sorry Huxley, but when you say you fall through the event horizon and I say you don't, there is a contradiction, as plain as day. Remember that I'm with Einstein. You're not. The general relativity you're talking about comes from people like Kip "I believe in time travel" Thorne, Roger "parallel antiverse" Penrose, and Lenny "the elephant is in two places at one" Susskind. They didn't read the Einstein digital papers. They appealed to Einstein's authority whilst flatly contradicting the guy. They did their own thing, and they made it up as they went along. I'm sorry Huxley, but the general relativity you believe in is an ersatz fantasy doppelganger popscience general relativity that has nothing to do with Einstein, and nothing to do with reality either.
I still don't understand your claim. Are you saying that a group of tiny scientists living inside the top clock would measure a different value for the speed of light than a second group of tiny scientists living in the bottom clock?
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. Again, see the interview with David Wineland of NIST: “if one clock in one lab is 30cm higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at”. Both clocks are optical clocks. The lower clock goes slower because light goes slower when it's lower.
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. Check out Irwin Shapiro's 1964 paper on the Shapiro delay. Wikipedia faithfully quotes what he said: “the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path”. For some strange reason this now seems to be some lost secret of the ancients.
"Convictional" - well said!
If I had the cash I'd fly Mills, Wyttenbach and ol' Duffield in a room and iron this all out for the next generation - it would take about 72 hours and a few days of video editing and physics would be back on course. Hand to hand combat and man-to-man combat is useless. JD take it from the kids, they are moving trillions of capital out of fossil fuels due to their moral force and war-like activism. I think it'd be better for them to occupy the physics departments till they get answers, and I'm thinking of actually instigating that.
Good stuff Navid. Can I say however that I have a reticence when it comes to energy. There's an awful lot of energy tied up as matter. The Tsar Bomba converted circa 2.33 kg of matter into energy. That’s about the same as a bag of potatoes. The mushroom cloud was forty miles high. Everything within a forty-mile radius was destroyed. Windows broke five hundred miles away. If some nutjob anarchists knew how to convert matter into energy they'd send us back to the stone age.
Quote from WyttenbachA bit more precision due to the highly simplifying English language could sometimes help.
Noted, Wyttenbach, noted.
