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)

Postby socrat44 on October 29th, 2017, 7:24 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on October 30th, 2017, 6:28 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby ralfcis on October 30th, 2017, 10:11 pm 

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
Member
 
Posts: 712
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on October 31st, 2017, 10:07 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on October 31st, 2017, 10:12 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on November 13th, 2017, 5:59 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on November 14th, 2017, 9:23 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: SRT  (an another interpretation)

Postby socrat44 on November 16th, 2017, 1:56 am 

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: 106
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests