Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.

[socratus]

Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in a negative 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) is relative. (!)
4.
One postulate of SRT says the speed of quantum
of light is going in a vacuum.
Minkowski, trying to understand Einstein’s idea, decided to take
time as a fourth coordinate and created his negative spacetime
4D continuum.
What is negative 4D spacetime continuum really?
Really the negative spacetime 4D continuum is vacuum.
Why?
Because only vacuum has negative parameter ( negative temperature )
and only in vacuum the space and time tied together in unrequited continuum.
===.
My conclusion.
Einstein’s SRT explains the behavior of light quanta in vacuum.
=====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================..
P.S.
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

===.

 

[Niflmir]

Schroedinger's equation, is all that is necessary to explain the quantization of light. One just expands the vector and scalar potential in a fourier series, exchange them with creation and annihilation operators, and voila: photons.

Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) is the combination of quantum mechanics with special relativity, and is needed to explain a bunch of inconsistencies that arise in explaining interactions between light and matter.

 

[MHz]

The speed of light cannot be constant if light can be bent by gravity. It would be increasing in speed when being attracted by a mass in 'front' and losing speed when the mass is 'behind'.

 

[Niflmir]

The speed of light cannot be constant if light can be bent by gravity. It would be increasing in speed when being attracted by a mass in 'front' and losing speed when the mass is 'behind'.

Light isn't bent by gravity. Light travels along straight lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics

Just like the shortest distance on a map is curved: the shortest distance is a straight line over the surface of the globe, the map is a poor representation of the geometry for this purpose.

 

[MHz]

I totally agree with you, I have been shot at many times for holding that view
http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/albert-einstein-and-bending-light-a43865

In 1919 a team of researchers led by Sir Arthur Eddington conducted a famous experiment to measure the precise location of stars surrounding the sun during an eclipse (which, coincidentally, is the only time you can actually see the stars immediately adjacent to the sun). To the shock of scientists everywhere, Eddington’s results confirmed a phenomenon that Albert Einstein had predicted four years earlier – that the light from stars would “bend” as it passed by the sun, thus shifting the position of the stars ever so slightly.

Read more at Suite101: Relativity and Bending Light: Albert Einstein’s Most Famous Prediction of General Relativity | Suite101.com http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/albert-einstein-and-bending-light-a43865#ixzz1rr47No2p
​

 

[Niflmir]

I totally agree with you, I have been shot at many times for holding that view
http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/albert-einstein-and-bending-light-a43865

In 1919 a team of researchers led by Sir Arthur Eddington conducted a famous experiment to measure the precise location of stars surrounding the sun during an eclipse (which, coincidentally, is the only time you can actually see the stars immediately adjacent to the sun). To the shock of scientists everywhere, Eddington’s results confirmed a phenomenon that Albert Einstein had predicted four years earlier – that the light from stars would “bend” as it passed by the sun, thus shifting the position of the stars ever so slightly.

Read more at Suite101: Relativity and Bending Light: Albert Einstein’s Most Famous Prediction of General Relativity | Suite101.com Relativity and Bending Light: Albert Einstein
​

Yes, in laymen's term, gravity bends light. But as I pointed out, spacetime is curved, and it is not the light which is bending it is your coordinates which are badly configured. To be honest, the same thing happens when you shoot a bullet. It is not that the path of the bullet is curved, the path of the bullet is straight, rather the space the bullet travels through is curved, and your mind lays down bad coordinates on it. In this way you hit a monkey falling out of a tree by aiming straight at it.

But that is general relativity, not special relativity.

 

[MHz]

That experiment was done 100 years ago and nobody has updated it that I am aware of. The same theory is used to explain being able to see 'objects behind a galaxy'. It would make more sense to use the same explanation that causes a mirage on earth, light is being reflected rather than being bent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

 

[Niflmir]

That experiment was done 100 years ago and nobody has updated it that I am aware of. The same theory is used to explain being able to see 'objects behind a galaxy'. It would make more sense to use the same explanation that causes a mirage on earth, light is being reflected rather than being bent

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lots of experiments/tests have been done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity

General relativity has been confirmed to a very high level. Not quite as high as QED, but still.

 

[MHz]

Back to the original complaint, if it can be bent does it have a constant speed? Gravity is also a force that accelerates something from it's original course and speed.

Just as a thought problem. The earth has it's 'clear atmosphere' if you were on the moon and you were looking past the earth at stars would the thin layer of atmosphere act as a lense to alter the visual position of a barely visible star? Same effect if light was being bent, being able to see objects that should be hidden.

Two follow-ups that would put me on the right course.

If Mars had water and lost it (or this earth when the sun evolves into a red giant) I assume the solar winds just became stronger than the gravity effect on the components that make up water. Any vapor would be swept towards deep space. That form is it in when it is mid-way between stars?

Does the sun have something that would be equivalent to an vaporous and optically almost clear atmosphere just above what we can visibly see?

 

[socratus]

The question is:
Can quantum of light change its constant speed ?
===.
Faster-than-light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

etc . . .
===.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Back to the original complaint, if it can be bent does it have a constant speed?

It's not bent, it's just following the shortest path through the shape of the space it's passing through, and yes it does have a constant speed, but it varies depending on what it's passing through. Speed's at a maximum in a vacuum, and all evidence indicates that's as fast as anything can ever go, and slower in everything else, by an amount calculable from the medium's index of refraction. Refraction is a bending, as you would detect from a star on the limb of the earth seen through the atmosphere from the moon, but it's quite a different effect from gravitational lensing and does involve a slowing down, but light's speed through any particular medium will be constant.

Gravity is also a force that accelerates something from it's original course and speed.

It's often convenient to conceptualize it that way, and the calculations are much simpler (though less accurate) but according to general relativity that's not really what's happening. The presence of mass introduces a local distortion in the shape of spacetime around it, objects moving through it are just following the shape of the distortion, and the larger the distortion, which increases with proximity to the mass, the faster they go. Can't think of a simpler way to describe it without tossing in the equations, which I confess I don't really understand very well anyway so that'd probably just confuse both of us.

If Mars had water and lost it (or this earth when the sun evolves into a red giant) I assume the solar winds just became stronger than the gravity effect on the components that make up water. Any vapor would be swept towards deep space. That form is it in when it is mid-way between stars?

It's not that the solar winds overwhelm the gravity that keeps the atmosphere in place. Mars' gravity is too weak to hold much of an atmosphere for very long, thermal agitation will ensure that many molecules in the atmosphere will achieve escape velocity. Earth's escape velocity is higher, so it retains more atmosphere, but there's still a certain amount of loss going on all the time. A hotter atmosphere would increase the loss rate, make it hot enough it'll all get away. Once in space, the molecules will be buffeted by the solar wind, but water will remain water unless it's struck by something energetic enough to dissociate it into hydrogen and oxygen.

Does the sun have something that would be equivalent to an vaporous and optically almost clear atmosphere just above what we can visibly see?

There's the coronosphere, which ordinarily can't be seen but becomes visible during a total eclipse.

 

[MHz]

It's not bent, it's just following the shortest path through the shape of the space it's passing through, and yes it does have a constant speed, but it varies depending on what it's passing through. Speed's at a maximum in a vacuum, and all evidence indicates that's as fast as anything can ever go, and slower in everything else, by an amount calculable from the medium's index of refraction. Refraction is a bending, as you would detect from a star on the limb of the earth seen through the atmosphere from the moon, but it's quite a different effect from gravitational lensing and does involve a slowing down,

Variable depending on the medium, okay. Is it variable in one medium because no medium is perfectly constant itself. I'm going to use a colored pinwheel to help visualize my 'question' . From the center to its measured outer edge is 200 units, the perimeter is divided into 100 segments and each neighboring each other is a slightly different 'overall density'. Right off the bat I have 'a problem'. If light is made up of particles and particles have mass that would mean at any given time at the surface of the sun (center of the pinwheel) a certain amount of mass is being ejected. More light enters my eye the closer I am, would I be gaining weight from the light that enters my eye but never leaves?

To the real question, say we are the center and the sun is at the 100 unit mark and it full covers the whole part of 1 segment, at the 2 edges of that same segment at the 200 unit mark are 2 stars that are pinpoints of light (very narrow beam). All 3 segments have a slightly different density, more to the left, less to the right.
Stationary what would be the effect on the light from the 2 stars if they were 10 units from being fully blocked from my vision if it was a perfectly straight?
Moving slowly right to left and then the other way?

Back to stationary, with the adjoined segments being slightly different in density, is that alone going to let me see objects that should be fully blocked?

but light's speed through any particular medium will be constant. It's often convenient to conceptualize it that way, and the calculations are much simpler (though less accurate) but according to general relativity that's not really what's happening.

Same pinwheel but this time our galaxy is at the 100 mark and we are at the center and 3 points of light are at the 200 mark, 2 edges and midpoint between them. The segment to the right has a low density, a perfect deep space vacuum, the segment to the left has matter in it, all the 'matter' that would be vaporized in our solar system during the end-cycle of our sun. What evvects is that going to have on my ability to see the 3 points of light, both stationary and in slow rotation?

The presence of mass introduces a local distortion in the shape of spacetime around it, objects moving through it are just following the shape of the distortion, and the larger the distortion, which increases with proximity to the mass, the faster they go. Can't think of a simpler way to describe it without tossing in the equations, which I confess I don't really understand very well anyway so that'd probably just confuse both of us.

How does the fact that colder and hotter items also react to the presence of each other. Radiant heat travels from hot to cold, do the 2 different directs have light traveling at a different speeds relative to my position. (I can see the light from the sun yet deep space is mostly black but some objects are still visable)

It's not that the solar winds overwhelm the gravity that keeps the atmosphere in place. Mars' gravity is too weak to hold much of an atmosphere for very long, thermal agitation will ensure that many molecules in the atmosphere will achieve escape velocity. Earth's escape velocity is higher, so it retains more atmosphere, but there's still a certain amount of loss going on all the time. A hotter atmosphere would increase the loss rate, make it hot enough it'll all get away.

With a large 'cloud' of atmosphere swept away an now in deep space is light going to be reflected/refracted by that cloud so I end up seeing points of light that would otherwise be invisible to me?

Once in space, the molecules will be buffeted by the solar wind, but water will remain water unless it's struck by something energetic enough to dissociate it into hydrogen and oxygen.

Still abler to affect the speed of light it meets and act as a prism if it happens to be in that particular shape. Other shapes would give different, but predictable results'.

There's the coronosphere, which ordinarily can't be seen but becomes visible during a total eclipse.

Enough that light from a star behind it can be 'altered' in speed and direction but still visible? Should optical size and position both be affected?

Yours truly,
the impossible student lol

 

[Spade]

Go back to bed, MHz! Light doesn't travel at night!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Variable depending on the medium, okay. Is it variable in one medium because no medium is perfectly constant itself.

No, it's because of what's actually going on at the quantum level as the light passes through it. The photons don't merely pass through, there's a complex series of absorptions and re-emissions going on, that's what slows it down.

If light is made up of particles and particles have mass ...

Light particles don't have mass, or more specifically they have zero rest mass, and all such particles are required to move at the speed of light, particles with non-zero rest mass have to go slower than that, though they can go faster in some media than light does, which produces an interesting phenomenon called Cerenkov radiation, but they can't exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

To the real question, say we are the center and the sun is at the 100 unit mark and it full covers the whole part of 1 segment, at the 2 edges of that same segment at the 200 unit mark are 2 stars that are pinpoints of light (very narrow beam). All 3 segments have a slightly different density, more to the left, less to the right.
Stationary what would be the effect on the light from the 2 stars if they were 10 units from being fully blocked from my vision if it was a perfectly straight?

Just to be sure I've understood your scenario here, you're asking about a narrow wedge, 200 units long, with the sun sitting precisely in the middle of it at the 100 unit mark, and at that point it's exactly the same width as the wedge, your eye is at the point of the wedge, and at the other end of the wedge are two stars whose lines of sight to you just graze the edge of the sun on each side. Right so far? You do realize how artificial this scenario is? Actually the diameter of the sun and the geometry you specified determines the size of those units, each wedge has to be 3.6 degrees wide, a hundredth of a circle, and the sun's about 1.4 million kilometers across, which means you're viewing it from about 22 million kilometers away, about half of Mercury's closest approach to the sun. The two other stars are a mere 22 million kilometers beyond that, far too close to be perceived as point sources, probably far too close to detect any gravitational lensing effect, it'd be much smaller than their diameters, and we'd all be cooked anyway. But let us proceed with the spirit of your question rather than the letter of it, on the assumption that at least one observer will survive.

In general, you'd perceive the two more distant stars as shifted slightly away from the edge of the sun due to gravitational lensing. When you add in the wedges on each side with different refraction indices, they'd appear to be displaced more, and the one on the side with the higher refraction index would be displaced farther than the other one. The refraction effect would probably be much larger than the gravitational lensing effect, depending on what you chose for the various refraction indices involved.

Back to stationary, with the adjoined segments being slightly different in density, is that alone going to let me see objects that should be fully blocked?

You mean in the absence of gravitational lensing? Yes. I presume from the context you're using density as a proxy for the index of refraction, though they're not really related.

You'll have to try that one about the galaxy again, I can't visualize what you're asking about.

Radiant heat travels from hot to cold, do the 2 different directs have light traveling at a different speeds relative to my position.

Radiant heat is just radiation of a particular frequency, it'll radiate away from whatever its source is, not necessarily only toward colder things. You'd see the light traveling at exactly the same speed regardless of where it's coming from, that's one of the key principles of relativity. The speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their state of motion or the motion of the source.

A large cloud in deep space isn't going to let you see points of light you wouldn't otherwise see, it won't generate point-like images. Reflections from it might let you deduce the presence of a light source you can't see, but you won't see it as a point source, you'll see a scattered, diffuse reflection.

 

[MHz]

Just to be sure I've understood your scenario here, you're asking about a narrow wedge, 200 units long, with the sun sitting precisely in the middle of it at the 100 unit mark, and at that point it's exactly the same width as the wedge, your eye is at the point of the wedge, and at the other end of the wedge are two stars whose lines of sight to you just graze the edge of the sun on each side. Right so far?

Perfect, if it would be better to put the 2 stars at 20M units no problem as long as the straight line remains straight.

You do realize how artificial this scenario is?

Totally.

Actually the diameter of the sun and the geometry you specified determines the size of those units, each wedge has to be 3.6 degrees wide, a hundredth of a circle, and the sun's about 1.4 million kilometers across, which means you're viewing it from about 22 million kilometers away, about half of Mercury's closest approach to the sun.

That is a little further than I intended but it leads to this 'question' Using our view as the center and the sun at the a distance that allows each planet we have to cause an total eclipse of the sun from our advantage point and just off the sun are the 2 stars at distance. Would there be a difference in the different cases as to how the position of the distant stars were in an observed position. Would the same results show up in all the various wavelengths of would it just affect visible light?

The two other stars are a mere 22 million kilometers beyond that, far too close to be perceived as point sources, probably far too close to detect any gravitational lensing effect, it'd be much smaller than their diameters, and we'd all be cooked anyway.

Move them to 22M units and for this we are immortal or we have a machine that is. So that is a plot for each planet in the solar system using the same basic duagram and the dimensions will change. but the suns atmosphere that is 'clear' should have a greater effect the closer the position to the sun is. If the ones farthest away do not show any deformation of position does the theory hold or are there more elements at play?

But let us proceed with the spirit of your question rather than the letter of it, on the assumption that at least one observer will survive.

Does that include a safe return or survive just long enough to transmit the observations?

In general, you'd perceive the two more distant stars as shifted slightly away from the edge of the sun due to gravitational lensing. When you add in the wedges on each side with different refraction indices, they'd appear to be displaced more, and the one on the side with the higher refraction index would be displaced farther than the other one. The refraction effect would probably be much larger than the gravitational lensing effect, depending on what you chose for the various refraction indices involved. You mean in the absence of gravitational lensing? Yes. I presume from the context you're using density as a proxy for the index of refraction, though they're not really related.

So a galaxy blocking my vision cannot be part of at nature of space that a mirage can be caused? Does the gravitational lensing example include just a very few pics or is it a pattern that is seen in every different galaxy shot that is 'similar"?

You'll have to try that one about the galaxy again,

Exact same diagram as the one with the sun but at the 100unit mark would be a galaxy and that should mean a black hole enters the parameters and I'm assuming a star in the far distance would 'disappear' some distance from being blocked from sight from matter in the galaxy.

A large cloud in deep space isn't going to let you see points of light you wouldn't otherwise see, it won't generate point-like images. Reflections from it might let you deduce the presence of a light source you can't see, but you won't see it as a point source, you'll see a scattered, diffuse reflection.

That would be like shards of randomly shaped glass glass floating around in the night sky. So you are saying no mirrors and nothingh that is going to alter the 'percieved position or relative size of any object that is visible'.
I'll live whichever way it actually is.

 

[B00Mer]

 

[taxslave]

Does any of this have any bearing at all on the high price of gasoline?

 

[MHz]

It keeps me from driving around. Reg gas just jumped $0.10 for no apparent reason other than it was Monday.
Iran has apparently found a way to hide how much it is shipping, plus the selling is in non-US funds.

 

[socratus]

The name of this link is:
‘Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.’
The theme is about SRT.
SRT doesn’t have conception of gravity.
Gravity is another theory.
Therefore all these emails and debates belong to another thread.
==.

Light particles don't have mass, or more specifically they have zero rest mass, . . .

1.
A New Limit on Photon Mass.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
2.
Every sentence I utter
not as an affirmation but as a question

/ Niels Bohr./

===.

 

[MHz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but two methods used in this documentary are based on two software programs that are listed below. (that is not saying they are not totally accurate.

The part where they have a blackhole controlling a stars motion is followed by a sim of heavenly bodies that are interacting with each other through gravity. That is based on a dos program called gravity.zip and is in the old dos/win 31 archives under astronomy. The part that will confirm this is by running a sim of 16 random planets. The documentary just played with the various parameters than can be adjusted, totally valid outcome.
http://www.uranisoft.com/gravity/
http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-resize/?ind
The 2nd was when a sharpening of a blurry image was made via infrared. A program called 'resize' works off fractal geometry and that is based on a program mentioned in an Arthur C.Clark production about fractals. The program used the sharpening of an eagle's eye as the example.

National Geographic - Inside the Milky Way (2010) Bluray 1080p - YouTube

The show promotes a heavenly body being able to establish a stable orbit around a black-hole and no dimming of the light at it's closest point, shouldn't it get captured or at least have some of it's light captured?