If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Paul Reed: "Vladimir But sadly they didn't. So I still await proof that there is..." in THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING...
Paul Reed: "Vladimir I have of course read your theory before, and while I cannot..." in Which is What? by Paul...
Vladimir Tamari: "Anton Congratulations on a well-explained, ingenious and relevant essay on..." in A Space-Time Information...
Lawrence Crowell: "The physical world just does not conform to that way of thinking. The..." in It From Bit is...
Vladimir Tamari: "Paul, Congratulations for your excellent well-thought out paper. In the..." in Which is What? by Paul...
Lev Goldfarb: "Vladimir, still, from a 'conceptual' point of view, it is more productive..." in THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING...
Dov Henis: "Graviton's Energy-Mass Dualism Gravity, The Monotheism Of The Universe ..." in Our Not-So-Special...
John Merryman: "Lawrence, It just seems to me, that if you are starting with the one..." in It From Bit is...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
A View From the Top
Thinking of causation as a "two-way street"—along which the passage of information can be inverted—could have implications for the origin of life.
Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained
In 2004, Stephen Hawking famously conceded that black holes do not devour all information when they swallow matter—seemingly resolving the "black hole information paradox" that had perplexed physicists for decades. But some argue that the paradox remains open, and we must abandon our simple picture of spacetime to unravel it.
Quantum Biology: Making Waves in the Natural World
Could quantum effects explain the mechanisms behind smell, photosynthesis and bird navigation?
The Accidental Universe
Have we been fooled into seeing one form of reality, with particular fundamental forces and laws, based on the peculiar way that we have chosen to measure time?
The Cosmic Hologram
Is our universe an illusion projected backward in time from the future?
Paul Reed: "Vladimir But sadly they didn't. So I still await proof that there is..." in THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING...
Paul Reed: "Vladimir I have of course read your theory before, and while I cannot..." in Which is What? by Paul...
Vladimir Tamari: "Anton Congratulations on a well-explained, ingenious and relevant essay on..." in A Space-Time Information...
Lawrence Crowell: "The physical world just does not conform to that way of thinking. The..." in It From Bit is...
Vladimir Tamari: "Paul, Congratulations for your excellent well-thought out paper. In the..." in Which is What? by Paul...
Lev Goldfarb: "Vladimir, still, from a 'conceptual' point of view, it is more productive..." in THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING...
Dov Henis: "Graviton's Energy-Mass Dualism Gravity, The Monotheism Of The Universe ..." in Our Not-So-Special...
John Merryman: "Lawrence, It just seems to me, that if you are starting with the one..." in It From Bit is...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
A View From the Top
Thinking of causation as a "two-way street"—along which the passage of information can be inverted—could have implications for the origin of life.
Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained
In 2004, Stephen Hawking famously conceded that black holes do not devour all information when they swallow matter—seemingly resolving the "black hole information paradox" that had perplexed physicists for decades. But some argue that the paradox remains open, and we must abandon our simple picture of spacetime to unravel it.
Quantum Biology: Making Waves in the Natural World
Could quantum effects explain the mechanisms behind smell, photosynthesis and bird navigation?
The Accidental Universe
Have we been fooled into seeing one form of reality, with particular fundamental forces and laws, based on the peculiar way that we have chosen to measure time?
The Cosmic Hologram
Is our universe an illusion projected backward in time from the future?
FQXi BLOGS
May 19, 2013
 |
| www.fqxi.org/community/podcast |
www.fqxi.org/community/podcast
Two editions are up and available for your perusal (one from March and one from April).
Some items are related to FQXi grant winners: Markus Aspelmeyer talks about his proposed table-top test of quantum gravity, which could allow physicists to probe the Planck scale using current quantum optics technology; and Jeff Tollaksen describes time-symmetric quantum mechanics and the idea that laser experiments have shown the future influencing the past.
Other items you may be familiar with from the blog: If you liked Matt Roberts’ review of the physics opera, The Astronaut’s Tale, last month, then you’ll enjoy the interview with Nancy Rhodes, the director of Encompass New Opera Theatre, who describes how chats with FQXi’s Brian Greene, as well as with Ed Witten and Michio Kaku, helped her develop an opera about string theory. The podcast includes audio snippets from one of her operas too. Neuroscientist David Eagleman also talks about “neural relativity,” the nature of time as constructed by the brain, and how schizophrenia may be related to a disorder in time perception.
We also have a bit of physics news: Jeroen van den Brink and Krzysztof Wohlfeld talk about how they have split the electron into two quasiparticles -- the spinon and the orbiton.
And, talking to us back in March, Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek had a bit of a moan about the way the faster-than-light neutrino saga was handled by the media.
So please go ahead and have a listen, and tell us what you think. (There are also forum threads set up where you can discuss individual editions -- have a look at the podcast page for the link.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Zeeya,
Your text below seems to suggest that Julian Barbour does not believe in the principle of constancy of the speed of light anymore. Is that really the suggestion?
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greates
t-work-wrong-didnt-go-far
"But numerous experiments failed to discover any evidence of the ether, and Einstein realized the speed of light must stay constant no matter which direction it came from or how an observer moved. That understanding contradicted Newton's view of space. In his physics, you could catch up to anything, even light, if you moved fast enough. But if the speed of light holds steady no matter where you were or how you were moving, it would always seem to zoom away from you at the same constant 186,000 miles per second. Einstein enshrined that principle in his first theory of relativity (special relativity), which states that you can never catch up to a light beam no matter how hard you might try. Barbour first heard these ideas as a teenage schoolboy in the early 1950s, a time when Einstein was still alive. As a 3-year-old child Barbour had earned the nickname "Why?" from a friend of his mother's because of his ever-curious nature. Yet upon learning of relativity, he uncharacteristically did not question it. "I was lost in admiration," he says. "Everyone thought Einstein was the greatest figure after Newton, and so I took it on trust, almost like someone being indoctrinated into a religion."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Your text below seems to suggest that Julian Barbour does not believe in the principle of constancy of the speed of light anymore. Is that really the suggestion?
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-is-einsteins-greates
t-work-wrong-didnt-go-far
"But numerous experiments failed to discover any evidence of the ether, and Einstein realized the speed of light must stay constant no matter which direction it came from or how an observer moved. That understanding contradicted Newton's view of space. In his physics, you could catch up to anything, even light, if you moved fast enough. But if the speed of light holds steady no matter where you were or how you were moving, it would always seem to zoom away from you at the same constant 186,000 miles per second. Einstein enshrined that principle in his first theory of relativity (special relativity), which states that you can never catch up to a light beam no matter how hard you might try. Barbour first heard these ideas as a teenage schoolboy in the early 1950s, a time when Einstein was still alive. As a 3-year-old child Barbour had earned the nickname "Why?" from a friend of his mother's because of his ever-curious nature. Yet upon learning of relativity, he uncharacteristically did not question it. "I was lost in admiration," he says. "Everyone thought Einstein was the greatest figure after Newton, and so I took it on trust, almost like someone being indoctrinated into a religion."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Hi Pentcho,
I think it is more that he doesn't subscribe to Einstein's view of the fabric of spacetime -- though you're right that paragraph does make it seem like it is the constancy of light in particular that he is questioning.
report post as inappropriate
I think it is more that he doesn't subscribe to Einstein's view of the fabric of spacetime -- though you're right that paragraph does make it seem like it is the constancy of light in particular that he is questioning.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Zeeya,
Elsewhere Barbour adds that "absolute simultaneity should be restored" which is tantamount to saying that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is false:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/final_version_of
_bulletin_autumn_2011.pdf
"The debate heated up quickly. One physicist put forward a radical alternative to the above views and, in fact, to many of the standard textbook ideas of relativity, with a telling subtitle "Was Spacetime a Glorious Historical Accident?" Julian Barbour, a world-renowned expert on the subject of Time, or rather, the non-existence of Time, questioned whether one should formulate the laws of nature as the local laws of nature. Instead, it is the Hamiltonian of the entire universe that we should think about, he argued. Inspired by Paul Dirac's doubt in four-dimensional symmetry as a fundamental property of the physical world, Julian advocates the famous Mach's principle, the very idea that inspired Einstein's general theory of relativity - although Einstein failed to fulfil it completely. Julian reasoned that TIME SHOULD NOT BE FUSED WITH SPACE: it emerges from the timeless shape dynamics of space. Ratio is everything that is meaningful in physics, and the size of universe is far less fundamental than its shape. An instant of time is one configuration of the entire universe at one instant, he claimed, and ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY SHOULD BE RESTORED."
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlyc
areer/events/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Elsewhere Barbour adds that "absolute simultaneity should be restored" which is tantamount to saying that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is false:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/final_version_of
_bulletin_autumn_2011.pdf
"The debate heated up quickly. One physicist put forward a radical alternative to the above views and, in fact, to many of the standard textbook ideas of relativity, with a telling subtitle "Was Spacetime a Glorious Historical Accident?" Julian Barbour, a world-renowned expert on the subject of Time, or rather, the non-existence of Time, questioned whether one should formulate the laws of nature as the local laws of nature. Instead, it is the Hamiltonian of the entire universe that we should think about, he argued. Inspired by Paul Dirac's doubt in four-dimensional symmetry as a fundamental property of the physical world, Julian advocates the famous Mach's principle, the very idea that inspired Einstein's general theory of relativity - although Einstein failed to fulfil it completely. Julian reasoned that TIME SHOULD NOT BE FUSED WITH SPACE: it emerges from the timeless shape dynamics of space. Ratio is everything that is meaningful in physics, and the size of universe is far less fundamental than its shape. An instant of time is one configuration of the entire universe at one instant, he claimed, and ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY SHOULD BE RESTORED."
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ias/earlyc
areer/events/time/programme/julian_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Hi Zeeya,
:)You know , you can say to Nancy road that thre spheres and their rotationsz implying the spherical waves are relevant. The strings have helped, the spheres shall help more still.
I liked the idea about the orbiton and the spinon. Taking my equations about the 3 motions of spheres of light for example.E=m(c³o³s³)and mcosV. I am insisting on the facat that the serie of uniqueness is essential for a real quantization of mass and their properties of polarization of evolution.
The spheres of mass and light are sorted or synchronized in a pure rule of complementarity.
About the neutrino, like I said before , I see only a solution for the fermion,s but not for the bosons which are under the special relativity considering the linearity of this light. The only solution is so in accelerating these fermions, but for this result,a field of forces is essentialm implying this acceleration of fermions. In my theory the bosons turn in the other sense than fermions. We cannot violate the SR, but a fermion perhaps can considering the other main sense of rotations of entangled spheres.
About the schyzophrenia, I beleive that the time is not the only one parameter.The psychology freudian seems showing the answers. The neural relativity is relevant in fact. The relativity is everywhere indeed.But what a world .
ps have you a neural specialist for the paranoiacs? :)I try to relativate but I must admit that I have difficulties of adaptation.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
:)You know , you can say to Nancy road that thre spheres and their rotationsz implying the spherical waves are relevant. The strings have helped, the spheres shall help more still.
I liked the idea about the orbiton and the spinon. Taking my equations about the 3 motions of spheres of light for example.E=m(c³o³s³)and mcosV. I am insisting on the facat that the serie of uniqueness is essential for a real quantization of mass and their properties of polarization of evolution.
The spheres of mass and light are sorted or synchronized in a pure rule of complementarity.
About the neutrino, like I said before , I see only a solution for the fermion,s but not for the bosons which are under the special relativity considering the linearity of this light. The only solution is so in accelerating these fermions, but for this result,a field of forces is essentialm implying this acceleration of fermions. In my theory the bosons turn in the other sense than fermions. We cannot violate the SR, but a fermion perhaps can considering the other main sense of rotations of entangled spheres.
About the schyzophrenia, I beleive that the time is not the only one parameter.The psychology freudian seems showing the answers. The neural relativity is relevant in fact. The relativity is everywhere indeed.But what a world .
ps have you a neural specialist for the paranoiacs? :)I try to relativate but I must admit that I have difficulties of adaptation.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Hi Steve,
Thank you for listening to both episodes in full -- I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I don't know any neural specialists...Sorry.
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for listening to both episodes in full -- I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I don't know any neural specialists...Sorry.
report post as inappropriate
you are welcome Zeeya,
I appreciate that you appreciate it. The specialists exist you know, for example in geometrical algeberas.I know several specialist. In the domain of the neural diseases also you know. I am persuaded that at New York it exists good psychiatres. Fortunally furthermore , isn't it ? :)
Wait ! see what uis the crazzyness lol,I am going to change this town, I am...
view entire post
I appreciate that you appreciate it. The specialists exist you know, for example in geometrical algeberas.I know several specialist. In the domain of the neural diseases also you know. I am persuaded that at New York it exists good psychiatres. Fortunally furthermore , isn't it ? :)
Wait ! see what uis the crazzyness lol,I am going to change this town, I am...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
podcasts, me it is a future film mixed by spielberg, Lucas and Cameron .
:) Revolution spherization Zeeya REVOLUTION !!!
I am going to be soon at New York, you shall see how I can utilize the medias for a real changement at global scale .the aim is to unite the good persons.
New York will be the first sphericalized Town ! The crazzyness is the begining of the wisdom, isn't it ?
This world must change for the well of all !!!And New York can show the road ...
Regards
report post as inappropriate
:) Revolution spherization Zeeya REVOLUTION !!!
I am going to be soon at New York, you shall see how I can utilize the medias for a real changement at global scale .the aim is to unite the good persons.
New York will be the first sphericalized Town ! The crazzyness is the begining of the wisdom, isn't it ?
This world must change for the well of all !!!And New York can show the road ...
Regards
report post as inappropriate
What is going on here? Explain it so even I can understand what a PodCast is?
QuantumWidgets.com "Making Tomorrow Happen. Today..."
report post as inappropriate
QuantumWidgets.com "Making Tomorrow Happen. Today..."
report post as inappropriate
Hi Tommy,
Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will find it there.
Hi Zeeya,
it seems to be working well. I have watched the Dr Eagleman video on neural relativity, which is fascinating. Though I think the perception of duration and simultaneity of events as perceived by a human observer is less relevant to physics than it might seem at first. That's because physics experiments are rarely conducted using human estimation. Clocks or other measuring devices and artificial detectors and recording devices are used which are "less easily fooled".
What is relevant, to my mind, though is the evidence that -appearances- or what seems to be, are not the external reality. This kind of experimental evidence backs up the other evidence we have. This is relevant to the temporal paradoxes, in that what is observed is not what exists externally but what the sensory system, or other reality interface, makes out of the data received and how -that- is interpreted gives the misunderstandings that lead to the paradoxes.
report post as inappropriate
Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will find it there.
Hi Zeeya,
it seems to be working well. I have watched the Dr Eagleman video on neural relativity, which is fascinating. Though I think the perception of duration and simultaneity of events as perceived by a human observer is less relevant to physics than it might seem at first. That's because physics experiments are rarely conducted using human estimation. Clocks or other measuring devices and artificial detectors and recording devices are used which are "less easily fooled".
What is relevant, to my mind, though is the evidence that -appearances- or what seems to be, are not the external reality. This kind of experimental evidence backs up the other evidence we have. This is relevant to the temporal paradoxes, in that what is observed is not what exists externally but what the sensory system, or other reality interface, makes out of the data received and how -that- is interpreted gives the misunderstandings that lead to the paradoxes.
report post as inappropriate
Re."table top tests for quantum gravity", Sabine Hossenfelder's critique puts a very different light on the proposal. Its good to have both available together.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
"Though I think the perception of duration and simultaneity of events as perceived by a human observer is less relevant to physics than it might seem at first. That's because physics experiments are rarely conducted using human estimation."
That's a great point Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
That's a great point Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
I have already seen in my life the spite and the wickedness. But there frankly the team merits the first prize. AND THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE.A real band of pseudo thinkers loving monney and power. We recognize these pseudo by their lack of skilling for the generality and the universality. In fact they are easy to recognize. In fact they confound the play and the rationality.
Mr Aguire and Mr...
view entire post
Mr Aguire and Mr...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
and the strategy saying that FQXi is a cool platform for the not pros. Let me laugh with your Pentcho and your Frank. Let me laugh with all your strategies of the theory of nothing for nothing.
And what, you are going to say what? That this platform has several roads for the toe. Let me laugh band of stealers !!!
Your sciences are a pure joke from a team lacking of skilling for the generality. Your details are not details but false improvements. In fact your opportunism is ironical.
Let me laugh even with your most important spite. The wickedness is the torch of frustated teams. In logic, they are numerous and that, to complete their lack of competences.
New York WAKE UP ....ahahah REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION SOON AT NEW YORK.....KILL ME OR LEARN !
report post as inappropriate
And what, you are going to say what? That this platform has several roads for the toe. Let me laugh band of stealers !!!
Your sciences are a pure joke from a team lacking of skilling for the generality. Your details are not details but false improvements. In fact your opportunism is ironical.
Let me laugh even with your most important spite. The wickedness is the torch of frustated teams. In logic, they are numerous and that, to complete their lack of competences.
New York WAKE UP ....ahahah REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION SOON AT NEW YORK.....KILL ME OR LEARN !
report post as inappropriate
Zeeya,
Elsewhere, in a response to Eckard, you wrote: "I have only removed parts of posts that include personal comments". Then why did you remove so many of my posts which did not include any personal comments? Or perhaps it wasn't you?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Elsewhere, in a response to Eckard, you wrote: "I have only removed parts of posts that include personal comments". Then why did you remove so many of my posts which did not include any personal comments? Or perhaps it wasn't you?
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Hi Pentcho,
No, I haven't deleted any of your posts. I think that this may become an FAQ, so just to clarify the usual procedure for moderating posts goes like this:
If someone reading the blogs or forum or articles finds a post inappropriate for any reason, they hit the "report" button. That post is then flagged and placed under review for someone (not me) to examine and decide whether it should be deleted. The post could be deemed inappropriate for a number of reasons: it may be spam, it could contain personal comments, or it may simply be off topic. My guess is, if some of your posts disappeared, it may be because they were off topic. But as I say, I don't actually handle that review process, so I don't know which of your posts were deleted, when they were deleted, or why. Alternatively, there may be a site glitch.
The Disproofs thread has become a special case. That thread (and its predecessors) are quite old, and it seems the discussion got out of hand there as it continued over many many months. The posts *I* deleted on that thread were never actually flagged up by any posters/visitors on the site--and since the report button was never used to notify anyone about them, they slipped through the usual moderation process, described above. That said, when I saw some of the comments--although they had not caused enough offence to make readers hit the report button--I decided to clean up some of them. I have left notes where I have made deletions and edits, precisely so people aren't left wondering what happened, what was cut, or why.
But once again, I haven't deleted any of *your* posts. They must have been affected by an entirely separate moderation process.
report post as inappropriate
No, I haven't deleted any of your posts. I think that this may become an FAQ, so just to clarify the usual procedure for moderating posts goes like this:
If someone reading the blogs or forum or articles finds a post inappropriate for any reason, they hit the "report" button. That post is then flagged and placed under review for someone (not me) to examine and decide whether it should be deleted. The post could be deemed inappropriate for a number of reasons: it may be spam, it could contain personal comments, or it may simply be off topic. My guess is, if some of your posts disappeared, it may be because they were off topic. But as I say, I don't actually handle that review process, so I don't know which of your posts were deleted, when they were deleted, or why. Alternatively, there may be a site glitch.
The Disproofs thread has become a special case. That thread (and its predecessors) are quite old, and it seems the discussion got out of hand there as it continued over many many months. The posts *I* deleted on that thread were never actually flagged up by any posters/visitors on the site--and since the report button was never used to notify anyone about them, they slipped through the usual moderation process, described above. That said, when I saw some of the comments--although they had not caused enough offence to make readers hit the report button--I decided to clean up some of them. I have left notes where I have made deletions and edits, precisely so people aren't left wondering what happened, what was cut, or why.
But once again, I haven't deleted any of *your* posts. They must have been affected by an entirely separate moderation process.
report post as inappropriate
Thank you, Zeeya. I am glad *you* haven't deleted my posts. You wrote: "My guess is, if some of your posts disappeared, it may be because they were off topic." I think they were just as "off topic" as perhaps 50% of all posts on all threads and yet such a masssive deletion (at least 7-8 posts on this thread) seems to have occurred for the first time. I am quite used to this of course.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Hi Pentcho,
Now you mention it, at some point l thought I saw a post on this thread by someone who had listened to the podcast and written a comment specifically about the neural relativity item. I know both Georgina and Steve did, but I thought somebody else had too, recently (within the past 24 hours). I didn't have time to read it through, but was going to come back to it this morning...but now it's gone. And that was definitely _on_ topic, so I have no idea how that one has vanished. It could genuinely be site glitching. It is something you've noticed on this thread (the podcast thread) in particular?
report post as inappropriate
Now you mention it, at some point l thought I saw a post on this thread by someone who had listened to the podcast and written a comment specifically about the neural relativity item. I know both Georgina and Steve did, but I thought somebody else had too, recently (within the past 24 hours). I didn't have time to read it through, but was going to come back to it this morning...but now it's gone. And that was definitely _on_ topic, so I have no idea how that one has vanished. It could genuinely be site glitching. It is something you've noticed on this thread (the podcast thread) in particular?
report post as inappropriate
Einsteiniana: Three Crucial Questions
QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/Doppler
Effect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/Doppler
Effect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Einsteiniana: Three Crucial Questions II
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:...
view entire post
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Einsteiniana: Three Crucial Questions III
QUESTION 3: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs. Does this imply that, in a gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v?
ANSWER: The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed V (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation V'=V(1+gh/V^2) (it is assumed that V>>(V'-V) and air friction is ignored). If the cannonball is shot from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/V when it meets the cannonball. Accordingly, the speed of the cannonball as measured at the bottom is V'=V(1+gh/V^2)=V+v.
If, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, then the speed of a light signal emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). If the signal is emitted from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/c when it meets the signal. Accordingly, the speed of the signal as measured at the bottom is c'=c(1+gh/c^2)=c+v.
The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity. In the context of the above argument, its truth entirely depends on the PREMISE:
"Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs"
If the PREMISE is true, the equation c'=c+v is true. If not, not.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
QUESTION 3: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs. Does this imply that, in a gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v?
ANSWER: The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed V (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation V'=V(1+gh/V^2) (it is assumed that V>>(V'-V) and air friction is ignored). If the cannonball is shot from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/V when it meets the cannonball. Accordingly, the speed of the cannonball as measured at the bottom is V'=V(1+gh/V^2)=V+v.
If, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, then the speed of a light signal emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). If the signal is emitted from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/c when it meets the signal. Accordingly, the speed of the signal as measured at the bottom is c'=c(1+gh/c^2)=c+v.
The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity. In the context of the above argument, its truth entirely depends on the PREMISE:
"Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs"
If the PREMISE is true, the equation c'=c+v is true. If not, not.
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Mr Witten and Mr Tegamrk with their friends of New York think that I am nervous in seeing their play of copycats.In fact they do not know that their only one solution is to kill me. In fact they are simply a little lost now.They do not know what they must do in fact. The try to make me nervous with their "joy" the joy and with their spinons and orbitons. Ahahahy New York wake up ! It is not like this that the truths appear.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post