## SRT  (an another interpretation)

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### SRT  (an another interpretation)

SRT  (an another interpretation)
=============
One postulate of SRT says:
the speed of quantum of light in vacuum is constant (c=1)

Another postulate of SRT says:
all movements (including the constant speed of quantum of light)
are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether  medium T=0K.

It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and
quantum of light can have speed faster than minimal (c>1).
(tachyon solution).

Third  postulate says:
the speed of quantum of light is independent of its source.

It is possible only if the source of its speed is self-quantum action (h or  h/2pi).

==========================================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Sorry, I want to rewrite my post.
================
1. Light quant move trough an  absolute  aether  medium: T=0K.
a) this was  Maxwell and Lorenz point of view.
b) Minkowski hid this absolute  aether  medium into mathematical unity
of 4D spacetime  (an other name is : negative -2D Pseudo-Euclidian space)

2)  the speed of quantum of light in zero vacuum (T=0K) is constant (c=1)

3) all movements (including the constant speed of quantum of light)
are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether  medium T=0K.

4) It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and
quantum of light can have speed faster than minimal (c>1).
(tachyon solution).

5) the speed of quantum of light is independent of its source.
It is possible only if the source of its speed is self-quantum action (h or  h/2pi).
The result of  self-quantum action  is described  by Lorenz  transformations.
========================================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

I'm starting to appreciate the futility of words. The Oz syndrome, a sign at work, "Eschew Obfuscation". Haiku, words stream, a stream . . . to consciousness.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

By the way,
Minkowski 4D spacetime is as absolute reference frame as the aether medium.

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil
of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth,
space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
Minkowski.       (Sep 21, 1908)

Then, why do we need complex mathematical equations
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space)   to explain that 2+2=4,
when  Minkowski 4D absolute spacetime  is a simple T=0K ?
=========================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

1) We live on planet Earth therefore when we say time it must mean gravity-time.
Gravity-time depends on its  masses and speed.
Without gravity-masses we don't have time.
SRT is theory without gravity, without gravity-mass therefore it can seem  that
SRT is a timeless theory.

2)  But  indeed, SRT does speak about a time.
It can mean that the subject of SRT is not gravity-time, but time that belongs to the
individual quantum particles. These  quantum particles  have  no gravity-mass, but
they  have pure energy-mass. And this pure energy mass of quantum particles
depend on their  own speed/ spin. (h or h/2pi).
Different value of spin of quantum particles create their  individual  mass and energy-time.

=============================================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Was Einstein wrong?
Paul Davies 2003:
The idea of a variable speed of light, championed
by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity.
Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula
known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light.
It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it?
In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light
might not be constant at all. Shock, horror!
Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... teinwrong/
=====================================

socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

In 1908 Minkowski showed that everything that happened in SRT took
place in an absolute 4-dimensions spacetime. This solution was adopted
by all scientific community.
However, if SRT explains some real quantum action, then the mathematical absolute
4-dimensions spacetime also must be some real absolute reference frame,
but in the books about SRT it is impossible to find the real
(not mathematical) image of 4-dimensions spacetime.
=======================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

A strange new world of light.
Date:
November 2, 2017
Source:
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

There's nothing new thing under the sun -- except maybe light itself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141857.htm
=============================================================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

SRT: Einstein's two  postulates.    / other  interpretation/

a)  The laws of physics are the same in all material (!)  inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference are approximately (!) inertial
reference frame.

b)  The speed of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum (T=0K)  has
constant speed: c=1

c) All  laws of physics change when quantum particles transfer from absolute
vacuum continuum (T=0K) to inertial reference frames.  / Lorenz transformations./
=====================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » November 25th, 2017, 9:41 am wrote:    SRT: Einstein's two  postulates.    / other  interpretation/

a)  The laws of physics are the same in all material (!)  inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference are approximately (!) inertial
reference frame.

b)  The speed of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum (T=0K)  has
constant speed: c=1

c) All  laws of physics change when quantum particles transfer from absolute
vacuum continuum (T=0K) to inertial reference frames.  / Lorenz transformations./
=====================

SRT: Einstein's two  postulates.    / other  interpretation /

a)  The laws of physics are the same in all material (!)  inertial reference frame:
/ Galileo transformations./
All material (!) inertial frames of reference (stars, planets ) are approximately (!)
inertial reference frame.

b)  The speed of quantum of light in vacuum's constant / absolute continuum
(T=0K)  has constant speed: c=1 and therefore all  laws of physics change
when quantum particles transfer from absolute vacuum continuum (T=0K)
to inertial reference frames (planets . . . ) or vice versa: from planets to vacuum.
/ Lorenz transformations./
=====================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

a) SRT describes physics in the absence of gravity,
It means that stars, planets, galaxies cannot be SRT subjects.
It means that SRT is interesting in situation  around gravity-masses.
And the ''object''  that surrounds    all billions and billions galaxies.
is an absolute , infinite, eternal Minkowski 4D spacetime - ''space fabric'' .

b ) All material  inertial reference frame like stars, planets, galaxies  . . .
are approximately inertial systems.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frame
( Galileo transformations  ) and therefore  all different observers
on different inertial  reference frame (planets) will see  that the speed of quantum of light
as constant,  independently of who measures this speed and how fast the observers move
with  respect to the absolute , infinite  ''space fabric'' .

c) All physical laws change when we try to unite inertial and absolute references frame.

============================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - 2018

1 - The speed of objects in Newton / Galileo / Descartes system is relative
and transform by the laws: v=d/t, v(2) - v(1) =at or v(2) ^2 - v(1)^2 = a2d.
Classical physics uses Galileo transformations to explain this situation.

2 - The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the motion
of the source of the light / - Michelson experiment /
However:
This fact is contradict with the idea of “transformation theory”
Lorentz transformation theory violates constant speed of light.
Lorentz transformation theory says: the light speed is not always constant.
The speed of quantum of light sometime can be c=1 and sometime cannot be equal 1.

3 - '' . . . the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" explains behavior
of quantum of light in the vacuum (in Minkowski an absolute space-time)
====
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Einstein was wrong with his second postulate but only in a minor way that is easily corrected with no need for adjustment to either the physics or math. His error was in misidentifying c as the speed of a photon particle traveling through space rather than as a spacetime dimensional constant. The observed delay we find in light related events is a propagation constant directly related to the permittivity and permeability of spacetime as it appears in Maxwell’s equations and in Minkowski's diagrams. For light, emission and absorption are simultaneous events but we can never observe them as simultaneous from our 3D perspective.

Does Light Exist between Events? Jim Walker
https://www.nobeliefs.com/light.htm

"Einstein gave a heuristic description of light, not one that he thought of as absolute or as a requirement for his theories:
Could not the entire phenomenon occur as a function of electron events? Could not an electron transfer a part of its energy to another electron, not through a trajectory in space, but in time? The difference in the analogy from the classical model comes with eliminating the concept of discrete particle entirely. In other words, light does not exist between events, but only at the events.

A matter-measurement model of light not only does not contradict any known physical laws but, in effect, tends to support quantum mechanics. Just as electrons jump from atomic orbital to another in the Bohr model of the atom, so also can we think of electromagnetic events that jump from event to event."
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

@bangstrom

Does Light Exist Between Events?
- by Jim Walker
PREFACE
Perhaps we cannot find a basic mechanism of light for the simple possibility
that it may not exist.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/light.htm
=======

1 -  The permittivity of space-time (vacuum) is zero as it appears
in Maxwell’s equations and in Minkowski's diagrams

2 - Maxwell introduced light as EM subject and Lorentz introduced
electron in Maxwell's EM theory.
Questions.
'' Could not an electron transfer a part of its energy to light ?''
''What is connection between a quantum of light and an electron?''
'' What mechanism works between an electron and quantum of light ?''

3 -  Just as electrons jump from one atomic orbital to another
(by emitting or absorbing  light) in the Bohr model of the atom,
so also in  electromagnetic events electrons can jump from event to event
by emitting or absorbing quantum of light
====
P.S.
"One might still like to ask:
'How does it work?
What is the machinery behind the law?'
No one has found any machinery behind the law. . .
We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced."
- Richard Feynman
======
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » December 4th, 2018, 3:40 am wrote:
1 -  The permittivity of space-time (vacuum) is zero as it appears
in Maxwell’s equations and in Minkowski's diagrams

The permittivity and permeability of free space are both non-zero in Maxwell’s equations and they are functions of c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity

The two values together represent how much a wave in a vacuum resists being displaced and how rapidly it responds to the restoring force. They represent the amount of time delay found in every unit of distance in Minkowski’s diagrams.

socrat44 » December 4th, 2018, 3:40 am wrote:
2 - '' Could not an electron transfer a part of its energy to light ?''

An electron transfers a part of its energy directly to another electron. The simultaneous gain in energy by one electron and loss of energy by the other is what we call "light."

socrat44 » December 4th, 2018, 3:40 am wrote:
''What is connection between a quantum of light and an electron?''

A quantum of light is the amount of energy exchanged between electrons in a single energy exchange of light energy.

socrat44 » December 4th, 2018, 3:40 am wrote:
'' What mechanism works between an electron and quantum of light ?''

Here is an illustrated description of the mechanism as described by John Cramer.

Cramer’s view is a slimed down version of the older Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory for light. Cramer’s theory eliminates the more elaborate and implausible explanations put forth by Wheeler and Feynman and it is much like Hugo Tetrode’s 1922 understanding of light. The complete version of Cramer’s theory can be found here:
https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mijp1/tra ... I_toc.html

socrat44 » December 4th, 2018, 3:40 am wrote:
3 -  Just as electrons jump from one atomic orbital to another
(by emitting or absorbing  light) in the Bohr model of the atom,
so also in  electromagnetic events electrons can jump from event to event
by emitting or absorbing quantum of light

Electrons in atoms do not follow fixed orbits. Instead, their orbits can only be described as probabilities of where an electron might be found. For an instant, an electron can be found at a higher or lower energy level than expected for it own energy.

When electrons are entangled, they share a common wavefunction with a shared energy level and their energy levels are indeterminate. We can’t say which electron is at a high energy or which is at a low energy until they are observed. When one of the entangled electrons is observed, this simultaneously fixes the energy levels for both electrons and the first observation is random. It can be either high or low but it is not necessarily the same as it was for the electrons before entanglement.

If the electron that was previously at a low energy is now the electron with a high energy, we have an exchange of energy known as “light.” There is no need for energy to be physically transported through space from one electron to another by an energy carrying photon as described by the classical photon theory for light. The exchange of energy occurs directly within the electrons themselves rather than crossing through the space between. In this model, the energy level of one electron goes up as the other electron goes down so energy is conserved.

The big difference between this and classical photon theory is that the wavelike connection between a light signal and receiver is established non-locally between entangled electrons before there is an exchange of energy. Electrons do not, and can not, exchange a quantum of energy until after this wavelike connection has been established. This explains how light appears to be prescient of its destination before it is emitted. There is no place in this theory for photon particles to be fired randomly into space and, by chance, hit another electron.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

My main complaint about Cramer's theory is that he continues to use the term "photon" when referring to a single quantum of light energy that does not travel through space and he also reverts to "photons" for purposes of explanation. Most of his contemporaries prefer to drop the word "photon" and others from their lexicon entirely for the sake of clarity but any explanation of light is difficult without photons, light waves, and the speed of light as if these things are still part of the theory when they are not. Old concepts die hard.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Vacuum permittivity

The physical constant ε0 , commonly called the vacuum permittivity,
permittivity of free space or electric constant or
the distributed capacitance of the vacuum, is an ideal, (baseline) physical constant,
which is the value of the absolute dielectric permittivity of classical vacuum.
#
Historical origin of the parameter ε0.
The "permittivity of free space" (  ε0)  ''  is a consequence of the result
that Maxwell's equations predict that, in free space, electromagnetic
waves move with the speed of light. ''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity

@bangstrom
The permittivity of free space or vacuum permittivity or electric constant or
the distributed capacitance of the vacuum is ZERO because quantum of light
at constant speed c=1 doesn't produce EM waves.
=====
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » December 5th, 2018, 6:34 am wrote:The permittivity of free space or vacuum permittivity or electric constant or
the distributed capacitance of the vacuum is ZERO because quantum of light
at constant speed c=1 doesn't produce EM waves.

In Cramer’s theory and its ilk that say the same thing, the wavelike connection between electrons takes place before the transition of energy from one electron to another. The energy exchange is non-local and essentially simultaneous. There are no photons particles or any thing else traveling through space with a speed of c or any other measurable speed to produce EM waves. Light happens at the electrons only.

Our perception of light related events in 3D space is limited by the permeability and permittivity of free space which amounts to one second of time delay for every 300,000 km of distance as demonstrated in special relativity. The value of c is a constant for all observers despite their individual velocities because c is a spacetime dimensional constant and not the speed of anything traveling through space.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

bangstrom » December 5th, 2018, 3:15 pm wrote:
socrat44 » December 5th, 2018, 6:34 am wrote:The permittivity of free space or vacuum permittivity or electric constant or
the distributed capacitance of the vacuum is ZERO because quantum of light
at constant speed c=1 doesn't produce EM waves.

There are no photons particles or any thing else traveling
through space with a speed of c or any other measurable
speed to produce EM waves.
Light happens at the electrons only.

sorry . . .
cannot understand you . . . .
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » December 5th, 2018, 10:05 pm wrote:
sorry . . .
cannot understand you . . . .

Understanding light as Cramer and and similar views describe it is extremely difficult for everyone to follow because the usual way to approach the topic is to try to understand it in reference to classical photon theory which only leads to confusion because there is little to compare. Usually one has to discover on their own that the old theory is flawed before they can move on to a different understanding.

socrat44 » December 5th, 2018, 6:34 am wrote:
The permittivity of free space or vacuum permittivity or electric constant or
the distributed capacitance of the vacuum is ZERO because quantum of light
at constant speed c=1 doesn't produce EM waves.

Other than the obvious reference to Einstein’s second postulate, why do you say c is a speed?
This is one of the holdovers from classical photon theory that is so difficult to recover from.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 710
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

bangstrom » December 6th, 2018, 3:44 am wrote:
socrat44 » December 5th, 2018, 10:05 pm wrote:
sorry . . .
cannot understand you . . . .

Understanding light as Cramer and and similar views describe it is extremely difficult
for everyone to follow because the usual way to approach the topic is to try
to understand it in reference to classical photon theory
which only leads to confusion because there is little to compare.
Usually one has to discover on their own that the old theory is flawed
before they can move on to a different understanding.

''Understanding light . . . is extremely difficult . . . because . . .
. . . . in reference to classical photon. . .''
/ bangstrom /
===

''Classical photon'' has one old history.

Newton said - ''classical photon'' is particle
Huygens said - '' classical photon'' is wave
Maxwell said - ''classical photon'' is EM wave
Michelson - ''classical photon'' has constant speed.
FitzGerald and Lorentz side - ''classical photon'' isn't firm particle
Planck said - ''classical photon'' is quantum of action
Bohr introduced ''classical photon'' in atom.
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer
to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
===
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Wave/particle duality: The position of a particle can't be determined when it's moving. If the position can be determined, it's momentum can't be. Light travels as a wave. It becomes a photon when it strikes something and stops moving. Since we can't determine individual photons when they're moving, they don't really exist until they hit something. All that exists is the moving wave. Only the Tom, Dick and Harrys don't know this as Albert said.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Socrates, I would be interested in reading your own thoughts, rather than posts that consist of famous quotes and cut/pastes from Wikipedia.

TheVat

Posts: 7345
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

ralfcis » December 6th, 2018, 10:19 am wrote:Wave/particle duality:

Wave/particle duality: ! ?
#
No known theory can be distorted so as to provide even an approximate explanation
[of wave-particle duality]. There must be some fact of which we are entirely ignorant
and whose discovery may revolutionize our views of the relations between waves and
ether and matter. For the present we have to work on both theories.
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays we use the wave theory; on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Saturdays we think in streams of flying energy quanta or corpuscles.
-- Sir William Bragg
https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCatego ... ations.htm

Braininvat » December 6th, 2018, 12:40 pm wrote:Socrates, I would be interested in reading your own thoughts,
rather than posts that consist of famous quotes and cut/pastes from Wikipedia.

Wave/particle duality . . .
a) sometime light can be like-particle . . .
b) sometime light can be like-wave . . .

but . . . if light moves as a like-particle then it must have geometrical form . . .
does every Tom, Dick and Harry and Mr. Braininvat know the geometrical form of light ?
and . . . how the theory that describes ''animal without its form'' can be looked ?

. . . my own thought . . .
======
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » December 7th, 2018, 3:33 am wrote:
Wave/particle duality . . .
a) sometime light can be like-particle . . .
b) sometime light can be like-wave . . .

but . . . if light moves as a like-particle then it must have geometrical form . . .
does every Tom, Dick and Harry and Mr. Braininvat know the geometrical form of light ?
and . . . how the theory that describes ''animal without its form'' can be looked ?

. . . my own thought . . .
======

Even ''Pegasus theory'' needs geometrical form
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Sorry, I can't respond to non-sequitur, stream of consciousness word salad.
ralfcis
Banned User

Posts: 941
Joined: 19 Jun 2013

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

''DUALITY''  of  Quantum Particle.
a) Sometimes  quantum of light's speed  IS constant.
In this kind of movement quantum of light  DOESN'T have EM waves.
b) Sometimes quantum of light's speed  IS variable.
In this kind of movement quantum of light  DOES  have EM waves.
Maybe the problem of  ''DUALITY''  of quantum particle is hidden here.
===
Faster-than-light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
===
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

No known theory can be distorted so as to provide even
an approximate explanation [of wave-particle duality].
There must be some fact of which we are entirely ignorant and
whose discovery may revolutionize our views of the relations
between waves and ether and matter.
For the present we have to work on both theories.
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays we use the wave theory;
on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays we think in streams
of flying energy quanta or corpuscles.
— Sir William Bragg
=====
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

socrat44 » January 1st, 2019, 5:25 am wrote:No known theory can be distorted so as to provide even
an approximate explanation [of wave-particle duality].
There must be some fact of which we are entirely ignorant and
whose discovery may revolutionize our views of the relations
between waves and ether and matter.
For the present we have to work on both theories.
On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays we use the wave theory;
on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays we think in streams
of flying energy quanta or corpuscles.
— Sir William Bragg
=====

socrat44 » January 1st, 2019, 5:25 am wrote:There must be some fact of which we are entirely ignorant
— Sir William Bragg

What is the '' fact of which we are entirely ignorant '' ?
#
Planck / Einstein described  ''quantum of action'' as: E=hf
where ( h)  is a ''quantum of action'' of particle and (f) its frequency.
(wave / particle duality - simultaneously )
Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit described how this action is possible: E=h*f
( h bar = h/2pi )

That means the fact of wave-particle duality
''which we are entirely ignorant '' is hidden
in the movements / states of quantum particle.
=======
Attachments
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

TheVat » December 6th, 2018, 12:40 pm wrote:Socrates, I would be interested in reading your own thoughts,
rather than posts that consist of famous quotes and cut/pastes from Wikipedia.

Lorentz Transformations have coordinates in
an absolute Minkowski 4-D spacetime and
Newton's v=ct has coordinates in 3-D.
Two different systems, two different objects:
4-D quantum particles and all other 3-D stuff.
SRT didn't marry them.
=====
socrat44
Member

Posts: 430
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

Next