|Comments for Sunday, August 26,
2018, thru Friday, August 31, 2018:
August 31, 2018 - Grumble grumble. While doing research this morning I stumbled across something I wrote about on December 3, 2017. At that time I also showed this image from page 17 of the April 19, 1921 issue of the The New York Times:
How could I have failed to include that news story as a reference in my article about "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light"?! And why didn't I use it in my arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum? Somehow I'd forgotten about the NYT article, which more clearly than any other source explains why the speed of light is variable. The image is from a web site HERE, which also includes images of the rest of the article, and the entire article was also included in a book titled "Albert Meets America," which I have in my collection.
August 30, 2018 - The discussion about my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light" that I started on August 15 is continuing even though I haven't posted any comments to the sci.physics.relativity forum since August 25th. I don't think the discussion is about my paper anymore, since my name is not being mentioned. I'm not sure what it is about, since it is arguments between mathematicians, and half of each argument consists of mathematical equations with most of the rest referring to various theories and theorists.
I'm still trying to describe the workings of an atomic clock in layman's terms for the revision to (or overhaul of) my paper on "What is Time?". But, I've run into an unexpected problem. Here is the official definition of a second:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.When I first read that definition, I thought it meant something totally different from what it now seems to say. I thought it had to do with the creation of light photons. I thought it was some kind of measurement of how fast two cesium 133 atoms can toss an excess light photon back and forth, or how fast one cesium 133 atom could reject light photons shot at it from a laser. But, I now see that an atomic clock doesn't do anything like that.
Understanding the term "corresponding to" is the trick. It's all about how a microwave photon oscillating at the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second corresponds to a "transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." You need a microwave photon of that frequency to cause a "transition of hyperfine levels" in a cesium 133 atom.
I had to create illustrations to make sense of what is meant by a "transition of hyperfine levels." It is also very different from what I'd thought. It's not about changing orbits, it's about flipping an electrical or magnetic charge from positive to negative. I won't go into details here, since I could spend all day on it, I still don't fully understand it myself, and I need to get back to doing research to make sure I do truly understand the process.
The problem is that most of the books and articles on the subject of how atomic clocks work do not really explain how atomic clocks work, they just repeat or rephrase what the author read somewhere was an explanation. So, they are usually just a lot of buzzwords which generate unanswered questions. This morning I found two books which have sections which go into great detail about how atomic clocks work. "The Physics of Metrology" has just five pages on the topic, but the number of pages isn't as important as the clarity of what is said. It seems very clear. I just need the time to study it. "The Quantum Beat" has 25 pages on the subject, and seems to go into great detail about every step and how each piece of equipment works. Again, I just need time to study it.
I just hope that when I finish all this research and studying of atomic clocks I'll have something I can use to disprove the claims by some mathematicians that time does not slow down or speed up, claims that time passes at the same rate everywhere, and claims that it is just an illusion when we think we measure time as slowing down or speeding up in another "frame of reference."
August 28, 2018 - While driving around doing chores this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #10 from the 10-CD set for "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership" by James Comey.
I found it to be a very interesting and enjoyable book, unexpectedly so. I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but what I got was a book about management and ethics. and a book about how "tribalism" seems to be creeping back into American life. It's a book about how respect for the law is what keeps us from going back to tribalism, where everyone is subject to the whims of the chief who leads the tribe. And that is what Donald Trump wants (or wanted) to be - some kind of Chief of some kind of White American Tribe. Or the head gangster in some nation-wide gang.
The book is an autobiography, so James Comey spends a lot of time going through all his experiences before be became the head of the FBI during the Obama administration. Early in the book Comey describes how he and his younger brother were at home alone one night and a burglar broke in, not expecting anyone to be home. So, the Comey brothers (both less than 13 years old) had to figure out how to deal with a man pointing a gun at them. They convinced the burglar to lock them in a room in the cellar where they knew how to escape via a window high on the wall. But, when they escaped, the burglar was outside waiting for them. That resulted in a lot of screaming and yelling, which attracted neighbors, and the burglar finally ran away. It was the kind of story that you do not want to hear while driving, since when you reach your destination you either have sit in your car and listen to the rest of it, or you have to turn your car off right in the middle of the story. I turned it off, but it was still fresh in my mind the next day when I got back in my car to hear how things ended. (It is the reason why I do not listen to novels while driving.)
Comey's book doesn't really get into the Trump Presidency until nearly 3/4ths of the way through. But there's still plenty of interesting stuff there. I also borrowed the Kindle version from my library, so I can quote passages of interest, such as the time (after Trump was elected, but before he was sworn in) when Comey had to advise Trump of some things that Trump needed to know about:
After Trump finished with his opening monologue, which lasted for a minute or so, I explained the nature of the material I was about to discuss and why we thought it important that he know about it. I then began to summarize the allegation in the dossier that he had been with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013 and that the Russians had filmed the episode. I didn’t mention one particular allegation in the dossier—that he was having prostitutes urinate on each other on the very bed President Obama and the First Lady had once slept in as a way of soiling the bed. I figured that single detail was not necessary to put him on notice about the material. This whole thing was weird enough. As I spoke, I felt a strange out-of-body experience, as if I were watching myself speak to the new president about prostitutes in Russia. Before I finished, Trump interrupted sharply, with a dismissive tone. He was eager to protest that the allegations weren’t true. I explained that I wasn’t saying the FBI believed the allegations. We simply thought it important that he know they were out there and being widely circulated. I added that one of the FBI’s jobs is to protect the presidency from any kind of coercion, and, whether or not the allegations were true, it was important that he know Russians might be saying such things. I stressed that we did not want to keep information from him, particularly given that the press was about to report it. He again strongly denied the allegations, asking—rhetorically, I assumed—whether he seemed like a guy who needed the services of prostitutes.Trump certainly acts like he's afraid that Putin might put that "filmed episode" on YouTube if Trump ever does something to cross Putin.
There are other interesting things about Trump I hadn't really noticed before, but when they are mentioned you realize they are correct. For example, Trump almost never laughs. And the only time he does laugh is when something cruel happens to someone he dislikes.
The part of the book where Trump fired Comey is fascinating. Comey was in California talking with perspective FBI agents when everyone saw it appear on the news that Comey had been fired. The room had TVs on the back wall. But then things got really nasty, and we can see how petty Trump can be. Trump wanted Comey to have to find his own way home from California, but the FBI flew him back.
President Trump, who apparently watches quite a bit of TV at the White House, saw those images of me thanking the cops [who escorted him to and from the airport] and flying away. They infuriated him. Early the next morning, he called McCabe and told him he wanted an investigation into how I had been allowed to use the FBI plane to return from California. McCabe replied that he could look into how I had been allowed to fly back to Washington, but that he didn’t need to. He had authorized it, McCabe told the president. The plane had to come back, the security detail had to come back, and the FBI was obligated to return me safely. The president exploded. He ordered that I was not to be allowed back on FBI property again, ever. My former staff boxed up my belongings as if I had died and delivered them to my home.The book ends with some of Comey's thoughts about Donald Trump. An example:
Donald Trump’s presidency threatens much of what is good in this nation. We all bear responsibility for the deeply flawed choices put before voters during the 2016 election, and our country is paying a high price: this president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values. His leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty.and:
I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served presidents of both parties. What is happening now is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay. Whatever your politics, it is wrong to dismiss the damage to the norms and traditions that have guided the presidency and our public life for decades or, in many cases, since the republic was founded. It is also wrong to stand idly by, or worse, to stay silent when you know better, while a president brazenly seeks to undermine public confidence in law enforcement institutions that were established to keep our leaders in check.I could go on and on, but I recommend you read the book.
By the way, while I was working out at the gym this afternoon, a news show on one of the gym's TVs was interviewing an author whose new book came out today. The book is titled "The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence," by Michael D'Antonio. As soon as I got home, I made a recommendation to my local library that they buy the book. It looks like it could be an interesting read.
While I think Trump is a total jerk and by far the worst President this country has ever had, I do not want to see him impeached. Trump may be stupid and sleazy and even a criminal, but if he was impeached he would be replaced by Mike Pence. And Mike Pence is just plain evil.
August 27, 2018 - Uh oh. This morning I started overhauling my April 19, 2016 paper titled "What is Time?" While doing so, I noticed this on page 3:
The speed of light is not only fixed, we know of nothing that can move faster than the speed of light. That suggests that Time Dilation must be caused by some kind of “conflict” with the speed of light. Time, or something that controls or causes Time, is forced to slow down because it cannot exceed the speed of light.Hmm. At that time I thought, like most other people, that the speed of light is fixed. My most recent paper, however, says that the speed of light is variable, and so do all other recent papers of mine. The turning point seems to have been my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. Beginning with the first version of that paper in April 2017, I began to see that if time is variable because of how fast atoms and particles spin or oscillate, the speed of light must also be variable, since atoms create light.
Needless to say, my overhaul of the "What is Time?" paper will eliminate any suggestion that the speed of light is fixed. In 2016, I wasn't thinking about how light is created. I don't know if I'd ever even looked into the subject.
I imagine mathematicians will see this as a "mistake," even though, at the time, I agreed with them on this subject. They'll just see it as proof that I make mistakes and therefore cannot be trusted. If I were to just recite memorized dogma as they do, then I could never make such a mistake.
I see it as proof that I have an open mind, I can recognize my mistakes, and I will correct my mistakes when I see them.
August 26, 2018 - Because I want people to understand that I am not alone in siding with Albert Einstein in his arguments with mathematicians, I am always looking for other people who agree that mathematics is more like a religion than like physics or science. Retired Caltech Professor Carver Mead agrees with that, and yesterday I found another quote from him:
Most of us took mathematics courses from mathematicians—Bad Idea!The quote is from the "Forward" that Prof. Mead wrote for a book titled "Street-Fighting Mathematics: The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving," written by Sanjoy Mahajan.
Further research led to a quote from the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld:
The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.And, I also found another relevant quote expressing that same idea. It is by Carver Mead and from the "Forward" to his book "Collective Electrodynamics":
Many phenomena that in the past were seen as separate are now understood to be the same: Fire is a chemical reaction, not a separate element; temperature is energy; light is electromagnetic radiation; molecules are aggregations of atoms; mechanical forces are electromagnetic in origin; . . . Each of these equivalences represents a major unification and simplification of the knowledge base. Ideas formerly occupying separate conceptual spaces now occupy the same conceptual space. Each unification was made possible by a deeper understanding of existing facts, often triggered by the discovery of a crucial new fact.I've been arguing about time and time dilation for over two years, trying to convince people that those subjects are a lot simpler than they seem and much simpler than how they are typically taught. In the past week, those discussions and arguments have caused me to realize that I need to know exactly how atomic clocks work. They seem to work in a way that clearly and undeniably answers the question: Is the frequency of a photon determined at the time of emission, or does the frequency of a photon change as it moves up or down through a gravitational field? Mathematicians believe the latter, the facts seem to support the former.
If the oscillation frequency of photons changes when you raise or lower an atomic clock, that says that the mathematicians are wrong. Mathematicians claim that the photon oscillation frequency changes as the photon travels from a high location to a low location, or from low to high. The basic idea of an atomic clock, however, says that the atoms and photons change frequencies when they are raised or lowered. There is no traveling up or down by photons involved.
As I wrote in my August 22 comment, the term "atomic clocks" is a somewhat of a misnomer. An actual "atomic clock" would tell time by the oscillations or spinning of an atom - such as a cesium-133 atom, using those oscillations instead of a pendulum or balance wheel to measure time. Atomic clocks do not do that. Instead, an atomic clock that utilizes the cesium-133 atom consists of a regular quartz-crystal clock that does the oscillating and time keeping, and then there is a lot of extra equipment that adjusts and corrects the quartz-crystal oscillations if the quartz-crystal clock is not oscillating at the same rate that a cesium-133 atom oscillates.
Quartz-crystal clocks usually have the word "quartz" on their face:
The problem is that any normal clock, even a quartz-crystal clock, will "drift" and lose or gain time depending upon temperature changes, fluctuations in its power source, etc. After a few months or years, you may note that the time it displays is no longer the exact time as provided by the "Naval Observatory" or the "Bureau of Standards" or from wherever you obtained the exact time when you set the clock. It has become a minute or two off. Or more.
If you do not want your clock to "drift," you can buy a radio-controlled clock, which will automatically check with the Naval Observatory every day or every hour and automatically reset your clock to that standard.
A cesium-133 atomic clock does the same thing, except it doesn't check with the Naval Observatory, it checks the spin rate of cesium-133 atoms at your location. It makes certain your quartz-crystal clock is ticking at the same rate as local cesium-133 atoms. And, it appears that the atomic clock doesn't check and compare every hour or every day, it apparently checks every second.
By design, an atomic clock will NOT keep the same time as the U.S. Naval Observatory clock or a clock at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Atomic clocks aren't for "keeping time." They are for "measuring time." "Keeping time" is keeping in sync with some other clock that is a "standard." "Measuring time" involves measuring how fast time passes at your location. If you have two atomic clocks, you can measure how fast time passes at your location versus some other location.
Maybe things will become more clear when I try to describe how an atomic clock works in a planned revision to my 2016 paper on "What is Time?". I'm going to have to describe the process in a way that makes perfect sense to me, while at the same time trying to avoid conflict with all the articles I've read. The problem I'm having is finding some source that makes clear exactly how the atomic clock adjusts to the correct tick rate or frequency. I've read many different articles and papers on the subject, but they just say the clock "fine tunes" the frequency.
It's probably a very simple process, but I'll have to make certain I fully understand it by going through each of steps described in the articles, making sure I fully understand each step before going on to describe the next step.
It's become my #1 priority because I think it could contain irrefutable proof that photons oscillate at the rate they have when they are created and do not increase their oscillation rates as a result of "falling" toward the Earth or slow their oscillation rates as a result of " struggling against gravity" to move away from the Earth - as so many mathematicians believe.
What I cannot understand is: if scientists know and proclaim that the atomic clocks they have built can measure differences in altitude of just a foot or so, why don't they describe exactly how that is done? The articles describe how atomic clocks work, but they do not describe how a change in altitude affects the workings of the clock. They do not clearly state that atoms and particles change oscillation rates when raised or lowered to different altitudes. They just say that atom oscillation rates are used to correct the time measured by a quartz-crystal clock. I cannot find a single article that says, "atoms change their oscillation rates when their altitude or motion changes." It is vaguely implied, but it is never clearly stated. And if it is never stated, then mathematicians will argue that there is no article which states such a thing. They claim that anyone who believes time ticks at different rates at different altitudes is simply wrong and those people need to take the physics courses the mathematicians took and read the books the mathematicians have read so that they will believe as mathematicians believe.
I also cannot help but wonder if scientists do not state that time changes when the oscillation rate of an atom changes because that would directly conflict with Einstein's theory that time is related to length and distance. Einstein's theory that time is related to length and distance seems to be the only Einstein theory with which mathematicians fully agree. So, when you describe how an atomic clock works, and how time is related the spin or oscillations of atoms, you cannot state or even imply that Einstein was wrong.
I'm still searching, but so far I've found eight articles and 1 book describing how atomic clocks work. The book, which was written by scientists from the NIST in 1999, argues the mathematician's argument that Einstein claimed that time dilation is reciprocal, which is just plain absurd. Seven of the articles, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, do not mention Albert Einstein at all. The eighth article was written by NASA and says,
If all goes as planned, a laser-cooled clock named PARCS will be installed on the ISS in late 2004 or 2005. Experts expect it to be the most stable clock ever, keeping time within 1 second every 300 million years (1 part in 1016).The idea of having an atomic clock on the ISS seems terrific. So, this morning I researched PARCS. I found this:
The Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space or PARCS was an atomic-clock mission scheduled to fly on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2008, but cancelled to make way for the Vision for Space Exploration.Sigh. I just found another NASA article about PARCS from May 1, 2009, which says,
The purpose of the PARCS project is to place an advanced laser-cooled cesium atomic clock in orbit and utilize it to test a variety of predictions of the Theory of Relativity. One of these predictions, made by Albert Einstein in 1915, is that clocks tick slower in strong gravity than they do in weak gravity. An orbiting satellite might place PARCS at an altitude of 220 miles (360 kilometers), where gravity is slightly weaker than that found at the Earth's surface. Thus the PARCS clock aboard the satellite ticks faster than a clock on the surface of the Earth by about 1 second in every 10,000 years.I cannot find any article which says that PARCS was ever launched to the ISS. Maybe NASA gave up on the idea of putting PARCS in orbit because they just didn't want to get into a lot of arguments with mathematicians. They certainly would have.
Further research this morning indicates that another atomic-clock-in-space program is literally having trouble getting off the ground. ACES (Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space) has had launches postponed and is currently scheduled for launch by the Japanese some time this year. Another such project, RACE (Rubidium Atomic Clock Experiment) was scheduled for launch in 2006 or 2007, but now seems to have been totally forgotten about. The same with SUMO (Superconducting Microwave Oscillator).
|Comments for Sunday, August 19,
2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018:
August 23, 2018 - Explaining things in a dozen different ways really does help me understand things better. This morning on the sci-physics.relativity discussion forum, "Paparios" continued to argue about how atomic clocks work in orbit versus on the ground. We often seemed to agree, but it was how things were phrased that was confusing him. Spanish is evidently his native language, and English phrasing was confusing him. So, I explained things in a different way than how I'd previously explained and phrased things. I wrote:
1. We have two atomic clocks, A & B. Both use 10.23 MHz as their operating frequency, meaning they both "tick" 10.23 million times per LOCAL second.Wow! I think that may be about as simple and clear as I can get. It seems the only way it can be made more clear is with illustrations.
Meanwhile, it keeps bugging me that the way an atomic clock works confirms that photons do not speed up as they "fall" toward the Earth. When you raise an atomic clock, the clock automatically adjusts its "tick rate" to the new altitude. And it's "tick rate" is the photon oscillation frequency at that altitude. The photon oscillation frequency is higher whenever the altitude is higher.
That means that when photons are sent down to earth from a high altitude, they do NOT change oscillation frequency. They remain at the same fixed rate high frequency at which they were created at the high altitude. Scientists down below measure the photons as being "blue-shifted" because those fixed rate photons oscillate faster than fixed rate photons created at that lower level.
It "bugs" me because it seems so clear and undeniable, yet there seem to be many mathematician-physicists who will argue that the photons change speed as they "fall," being pulled down faster and faster by gravity, or as they struggle upward against the pull of gravity and go slower and slower.
Frustratingly, you get the same test results either way, the fixed rate way and the changing speeds way. But, we know for certain that atomic clocks demonstrate that the cycle rates of photons and atoms speed up when the clock is moved upward and slow down when the clock is lowered. So, there is undeniable evidence that the photons created at a higher location oscillate faster than photons emitted at a lower altitude, and it is only a belief that photons change oscillation rates when falling or climbing. There seems no way to demonstrate via experiment the "change speeds theory" which wouldn't also confirm the "fixed rate" version. But logically, only the fixed rate version can be correct.
Unfortunately, I know that the mathematician-physicists will say. They'll use #9 from their "Current World View" as described by Carver Mead:
9. It is acceptable for a theory to be logically inconsistent.August 22, 2018 - The arguments on the sci.physics.relativity group seem to have changed to others arguing with each other. They are not arguing with me as much as usual. That's fine. I need some time to do research. I was researching how others describe and define a photon, but somehow while doing that it occurred to me that I do not fully understand how an atomic clock works. And when I started researching that, it became very interesting.
I read through article after article about how atomic clocks work, and they didn't seem to say anything about keeping or measuring time. They were just about counting certain types of atoms that absorb photons in order to find the situation or location where the greatest number of such atoms absorb photons. What does that have to do with keeping time?
Gradually, I began to realize that that process those papers describe isn't about keeping time, it is about adjusting a regular quartz crystal clock to tick at the correct rate. Atomic clocks aren't "atomic clocks" that somehow count the "ticks" of atoms. They are regular quartz crystal clocks with an automatic correction feature to keep an ordinary quartz crystal clock ticking at the proper rate.
The article that first opened my eyes about that is titled "Radio-Controlled and Atomic Clocks." Radio-controlled clocks are clocks that periodically get radio signals from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) or some other source to reset the clock so that it will reach noon or midnight at the exact same instant as the "standard" clock at the NIST. The article begins with this:
You might have the most expensive watch in the world, but if it's set to the wrong time to begin with, it's no use to you at all. Even really good quartz clocks struggle to keep time to better than a second a day; if they wander out by just a couple of seconds in 24 hours (an amazing accuracy of 99.998 percent), and the errors don't cancel out, that could add up to a minute a month or almost a quarter of an hour a year. That's why most people regularly check their watches against a reliable time signal—like the ones you hear before news broadcasts on radio stations. Now wouldn't it be neat if your watch could listen to those broadcasts and set itself to the right time automatically without you ever needing to worry? That's the basic idea behind radio-controlled clocks and watches, which set their time by super-accurate atomic clocks.And how do the "super-accurate atomic clocks" keep the correct time? The article goes on to say,
Atomic clocks are actually quartz clocks—just like the ones you have at home. The difference is that an ordinary quartz clock relies purely on the oscillations of its quartz crystal to count seconds. As we've already seen, the rate at which quartz vibrates is affected by things like ambient temperature, so although a quartz clock is generally very accurate, it doesn't necessarily keep time as well as you might think. By contrast, an atomic clock has an extra mechanism—pulsating atoms—that it uses to keep an ordinary quartz clock to time.Researching the subject further, I found another article says the same thing, but adds some new details about the the quartz clock:
The quartz-crystal oscillator in turn controls some display device such as a wall clock. Of course, the wall clock runs at a much lower frequency-usually 60 hertz, like an ordinary electric kitchen clock. To produce this lower frequency, the crystal’s frequency is reduced by electronic circuitry in a manner similar to using a train of gears to convert wheels running at one speed to run at another speed.Then I found a free book titled "From sundials to atomic clocks: Understanding time and frequency," that was written by scientists at the NIST, and the quote above is from page 56 of that book, word for word.
So, as I understand it, an atomic clock includes mechanisms that can periodically check the oscillation frequency of photons traveling between atoms of a specific type (cesium atoms, for example) and the vibration frequency of a quartz-crystal oscillator used to control a standard digital clock. If the frequencies do not match, the atomic clock mechanisms adjust the quartz-crystal oscillator to match the photon oscillation frequency.
So, instead of making certain that your clock reaches the top of the hour at the exact same instant as the clock the NIST provides as a "standard" for setting all normal clocks, an atomic clock makes certain that the NIST "standard" clock is ticking at the exact same rate as cesium-133 atoms "tick" at its location.
Live and learn.
August 20, 2018 - When I hunted down, located and downloaded the 20 papers about photons mentioned on the edkurtzbooks.com web site, the second paper on the list grabbed my attention. It is titled "The Nature of Light: What are 'Photons'?" by Carver Mead. The name "Carver Mead" was very familiar to me, but it took a few minutes for me to realize that I had written a lot about him on this web site two years ago. On August 7, 2016, I quoted from his 2001 American Spectator interview:
"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game."And, there was also an interview with Carver Mead in a British newspaper that said this:
Professor Mead's arguments that mathematicians are destroying science fit very well with my thinking at the time (and still does), and I'd even tried exchanging emails with him, with no success.
The article Prof. Mead wrote about photons contains more of the same thing. Here are four things he lists as "The Current World View" which are certainly consistent with most arguments I get from mathematicians:
6. Mathematical elegance is the most important attribute of a theory.That last one is the argument that really drives me nuts. If you argue that a theory does not have to be logically consistent (as mathematicians constantly do), you ignore all arguments that undeniably show your theory is illogical.
Professor Mead then says,
Once these prejudices are articulated, it becomes clear that not every person subscribes to all of them. Some seem self-evident, some seem irrelevant, and some seem nonsense to any given person. Yet no two people, even if they are working in the same discipline, agree on which is which. And all of these ideas are, in one way or another, effectively shaping current scientific discussion.Mead then proposes an "Alternate World View" which includes these items:
14. It is centrally important for a theory to be logically consistent.And the paper also includes this:
Efforts on the old quantum theory persisted well into the 1920's. In the mid-to-late 1920's, the work of DeBroglie, Schroedingier, Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, and Dirac led from the old quantum theory to the quantum theory that is taught in schools today. Experiments during that formative period were still based on spectra from excited gasses, and hence were, by their very nature, only statistical in nature. The limitations of those experiments were built into the conceptual foundations of the new quantum mechanics, and remain there to this day. In fact, the limitation to statistical predictions was turned into a religion by Bohr and Heisenberg.Yes, mathematics, as promoted by Bohr and Heisenberg, has become a RELIGION. I see it every time I argue with mathematicians.
While I certainly agree with Professor Mead that mathematicians are destroying science, the paper is titled "The Nature of Light: What are Photons?" And I cannot agree with his theory about photons.
His theory is difficult to decipher, since it is buried in a lot of information about what other people believe. However, Carver Mead seems to believe that photons are "transactions" between atoms. One atom emits a photon to another atom which accepts and then emits a new photon to another atom which repeats the process with another atom, and on and on and on.
While that is generally true, I think the important point is that the "transaction" process is not continued when a photon hits an atom that converts it into chemical energy. I see photons as "excess energy" looking for some place where it can be put to use. And the main place where the excess energy is used is by living things. The energy is not destroyed, it is converted into heat and other forms of energy that living things need to thrive.
It might not be that simple, but until I see other ways that Nature utilizes the "excess energy" that photons carry from point to point, I definitely like the idea that it is in search of life.
August 19, 2018 - My new paper on Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light isn't generating much discussion. I'm certainly getting a lot fewer arguments about it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group than I expected. In fact, after just 73 posts in 4 days, the thread seems to have gone stagnant. The last post (17 hours ago as I type this) wasn't even about my paper. It was a post from someone on my "Do Not Reply" list calling me an "idiot" because I responded to a comment from Sushika Imaki who is evidently the same person who is posting as Lovu Biftek. Since I don't recall ever seeing any posts by either Sushika Imaki or Lovu Biftek in any previous discussions in which I participated, the claim means nothing to me.
The arguments from Sushika Imaki, Lovu Biftek and "Paparios" were all basically the same. They all endlessly argued that the term "length of a second" makes no sense, since length is about measuring distance, not about duration.
It appears that they are all Spanish-speakers. If you try using Google's translator program, most languages translate "length of a second" properly, but translating it into Spanish results in "duración de un segundo." And translating "duración de un segundo" back into English gives you "one second duration."
Since "span" is also a term about distance, not time, just for the hell of it, I translated "The visit lasted a span of two weeks" into Spanish. That gave me "La visita duró un lapso de dos semanas." When I translate that back into English, I got "The visit lasted two weeks." The metaphor is just ignored.
I suppose my interest was piqued because it reminded me of something I read about the Spanish language in a book titled "The Old Patagonian Express" maybe 15 years ago or more. I cannot find the passage right now, but it was something about someone telling the author, Paul Theroux, that the English language was so much more interesting than Spanish, because there was such a great choice of words to use to describe anything, largely due to so many English words originating in other languages. But, in Spanish there is usually just one way to say something.
So, "duration of a second" is correct and "length of a second" makes no sense at all - unless your primary language is something other than Spanish.
I suppose it also interested me because I have regular visits (almost daily) to this web site from people in Spain, the Canary Islands and Chile.
But, that wasn't what I was planning to write about this morning. I was planning to write about how I feel I've answered the question that got me so interested in the subjects of time, time dilation and the speed of light. The question was: How can so many college text books be so wrong in what they say about those topics?
The answer appears to be described very well in this book cover:
Einstein was correct, but Neils Bohr won the game. People found it easier to understand mathematics than a universe that works in ways that no one has yet fully figured out. So, they believe in math and that their math is correct to the point of it being a religion that is blasphemous to question.
I find it totally insane that physicists will argue that light consists of waves when it is known beyond any doubt that light consists of individual photons. But it is okay with mathematicians, because they simply use different equations when they want to discuss waves versus photons. They do not care how light actually works.
I also find it totally insane that physicists will argue that motion is reciprocal simply because they cannot find a "preferred frame of reference" to use in mathematics to measure motion against. They were blissfully happy when they could measure motion using a totally imaginary ether, but when Einstein stated that the ether was "superfluous" and unnecessary, the mathematicians became lost and unable to compute the motion of objects in space - real or imaginary. So, they require that the motion of an object be measured relative to some other object, and that "relative motion" is reciprocal, since, without any ether or "preferred frame of reference" to measure movement against, it is not known which object is actually moving. My arguments that you can use time to measure who is moving faster than whom just doesn't make sense to them because it doesn't provide a "preferred frame of reference."
I've got a new question that has me curious. I want to see how people answer the question "What is a photon?" One web site has 20 different papers supposedly answering that question. You have to join something to access the papers via that site, and I'm not a joiner, but they provide enough information to allow all of the papers to be found via Google searches. So, I've downloaded those 20 papers and a few others to see what sense I can make of them. Then I'm hoping I will be ready to work on a book about all this.
|Comments for Sunday, August 12,
2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 18, 2018:
August 17, 2018 - Hmm. While browsing through some college textbooks yesterday, I came across this:
811. Mode of Propagation. - Only three methods are known by which energy may be transmitted from one point of space to another.Hmm. The text then asks how light is "communicated" from one point to another. It rejects the first mode as "inconceivable." Light isn't a shaft that you can push on one end to cause the other end to move. The text then says that Isaac Newton favored method #2, but Christiaan Huygens favored method #3. And the author goes on to say,
The velocity with which a projectile travels depends on the initial impulse. If light is communicated by means of particles shot out from the luminous body we should expect to find the velocity depending on the source and that particles emanating from the sun would have a different velocity from those from an electric light.Hmm. He seems to be saying that the sun, being much larger, should shoot out light projectiles at a much faster speed than a light bulb. That is not the case, so light must be a wave.
I'd never seen the problem described that way. Is it the basic thinking behind the endless arguments over whether light consists of "projectiles" or waves?
The quotes are from "A College Text-Book of Physics" by Arthur L. Kimball. It was first printed in 1917.
What I'm seeing is that light is neither a "projectile" nor a "wave." It is a photon, and a photon uses a fourth "mode of propagation." The problem is: what should that fourth mode of propagation be called? A pulse? An emission? "Emission" seems to be appropriate, even though it also fits with waves. When light is emitted, it is emitted at the speed of light. It doesn't have to accelerate to get to that speed. In that way it is not like a projectile. However, it is not a wave because (1) waves require a medium to travel through, and (2) a photon retains its size and shape like a "projectile," it does not spread out like a wave.
So, as I see it, Kimball would have been more accurate if he had written:
811. Mode of Propagation. - Only four methods are known by which energy may be transmitted from one point of space to another.Yeah. Now I just have to go back in time 101 years and persuade Kimball to change what he wrote. It certainly seems just as easy to do that as it is to change the minds of anyone living in our current time who still believes what Kimball wrote.
August 15, 2018 - There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light" is now on vixra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf. And, of course, now I can only think about things that I cut from the paper but shouldn't have, and things I should probably change.
For example, I used this quote from Dr. Sten Odenwald on a Stanford University web site to illustrate the claim that light changes frequencies as it goes toward or away from the Earth:
The gravitational redshift happens when light tries to escape from a gravitational field. This is actually a phenomenon that you can explain using ordinary newtonian physics. Thanks to Einstein's famous E= m c squared, and Planck's equally famous law relating the energy of light to its frequency, E = h x frequency, we can see that as a particle of light (photon) moves out of a gravitational field, it must loose energy working against the gravitational field. Since photons always travel at the speed of light, the only place where this energy loss can show up is in a change of frequency. The frequency of the photon must decrease so that the energy carries by the photon is lower, and this corresponds to a 'red shift' to longer wavelengths. This phenomenon has been confirmed in laboratory experiments carried out by Pound and Rebka at Harvard University over 30 years ago. It's not a theory, its real.Yesterday, while browsing through some physics books, I found this quote from Dr. Michio Kaku on page 104 of his book "Einstein's Cosmos":
Next, Einstein calculated how gravity would affect the frequency of a light beam. If a rocket is launched from the earth and sent into outer space, the gravity of the earth acts like a drag, pulling the rocket back. Energy is therefore lost as the rocket struggles against the pull of gravity. Similarly, Einstein reasoned that if light were emitted from the sun, then gravity would also act as a drag on the light beam, making it lose energy. The light beam will not change in velocity, but the frequency of the wave will drop as it loses energy struggling against the sun’s gravity. Thus, yellow light from the sun will decrease in frequency and become redder as the light beam leaves the sun’s gravitational pull. Gravitational red shift, however, is an extremely small effect, and Einstein had no illusion that it would be tested in the laboratory any time soon. (In fact it would take four more decades before gravitational red shift could be seen in the laboratory.)And it says this on page 209:
In an era of atomic clocks, lasers, and supercomputers, scientists are mounting the kind of high-precision tests of general relativity that Einstein could only dream about. In 1959, for example, Robert V. Pound and G. A. Rebka of Harvard finally confirmed Einstein’s prediction of gravitational red shift in the laboratory, that is, that clocks beat at different rates in a gravitational field. They took radioactive cobalt and shot radiation from the basement of Lyman Laboratory at Harvard to the roof, 74 feet above. Using an extremely fine measuring device (which used the Mossbauer effect), they showed that photons lost energy (hence were reduced in frequency) as they made the journey to the top of the laboratory.A book by Michio Kaku would be a better reference source than a quote from some on-line web site, even if it is a Stanford University web site. But, the Michio Kaku quotes are too convoluted and vague. (The part that I highlight in red and bold is correct.) Plus, neither source mentions the belief that light also increases in frequency as it "falls" to earth. I had written something in an earlier draft of my paper that said that that would mean that all light reaching Earth from distant sources, such as stars, must be extremely blue-shifted, since the photons would be picking up speed as they fell for thousands of miles (perhaps millions), not just the 74 feet measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment. That would also mean that images taken from a ground-based telescope should show far more blue-shifting than images taken by the Hubble telescope. Why haven't we heard more about this extreme blue-shifting of light if light increases in frequency as it falls? The obvious answer: Because the claim is nonsense. Light doesn't increase in frequency as it "falls," it is emitted at a higher frequency at higher altitudes.
Somehow, in some edit I did, I cut that blue-shift argument out of my paper.
As I was typing this comment this morning, I began to wonder if they just aren't seeing the relationship between time and the speed of light. They seem to understand that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes, but they do not see how that means that light also travels faster when it is emitted at a higher altitude.
And somewhere I noticed information about "Gravity Probe A" in which NASA launched an atomic clock in a suborbital flight, measuring time as the rocket lifted higher and higher and then fell back down again. It confirmed that a clock does tick faster as it moves away from the Earth and it ticks slower as it falls back toward the Earth. Here is the way a Georgia State University web site explains the experiment:
Somehow, I don't recall ever reading about "Gravity Probe A" before this morning. Or if I did, its significance never registered before.
I also cut from my paper a proposed experiment which would theoretically measure the difference between the speed of light at the top of a mountain and at the bottom of the mountain. The idea probably needs a lot more thought, but basically it was to have a light measuring device emit light at the top of the mountain into a fiber optic cable. The light would then exit the cable in another light measuring device at the bottom of the mountain as the light being emitted there.
The problem is that the mirror will not reflect the light back at the emitted rate, it will reflect light back at the local rate. So, the light going to the mirror might travel at 299,792,460 meters per second, and the light returning from the mirror will travel at 299,792,458 meters per second, producing a measured two-way speed of light of 299,792,459 meters per second. Then, of course, you would have to argue that the true speed of light is 2 meters per second faster at the higher level, not just 1 meter per second faster.
The idea could be completely nuts. But, if it is, right now I don't see how. I just didn't feel the paper was the right place for it. Maybe I should see what the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum have to say about it.
August 14, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking about another important change I needed to make to my new paper "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light." I was afraid it would require a lot of time to make the change, but it turned out to be very simple. Moreover, it made the paper much easier to read and understand. And at 10:46 a.m. (Central Time) I submitted the paper to vixra.org as a replacement for my previous paper "Time Dilated Light."
The way vixra.org works, the new paper will show up as version 6 of "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of light." That way all the previous versions of the paper (and their different titles) remain on-line for people to study, and for me to use if someone should claim that they discovered that the speed of light is variable before I did, and they attempt to use a paper they produced a month ago is proof of that. The previous versions of the paper show I've been writing about the speed of light being variable since July 18, 2016. And this web site probably shows that I've been writing about it here for longer than that.
The last time I submitted a paper to vixra.org it took two days for it to appear on their site. However, the time before that it took less than a day.
Of course, as soon as the paper appears on vixra.org I'll probably start a thread about it on the sci.physics.relativity Google/Usenet group to see what kind of reaction it gets there and to see if they can find any real errors. They'll almost certainly claim that the paper is just one whole mass of errors because it shoots down a lot of beliefs they have used in previous arguments. But, it could be interesting to see what they have to say about a paper that disproves many of their most cherished beliefs.
I think it may also be my final paper. I had ideas for a paper about light being photons not waves, but that topic is addressed in the new paper and in several other papers I wrote. I also had ideas for a couple other papers, but none seems to be particularly important right now, and it seems more important for me to get to work on my book which will incorporate and organize all the ideas in all of my papers.
But first I have do a thousand personal chores that I've been putting off for months because all I could think about was finishing that new paper.
August 12, 2018 - I keep thinking I'm almost done with my new paper titled "Variable Time and The Variable Speed of Light," but then I'll get into an area or topic that requires that I do a lot of research. And that becomes a serious problem when my research shows conflicting arguments about some topic. The topics that are currently driving me nuts are the Pound-Rebka experiment and the Mössbauer Effect. Did the Pound-Rebka experiment show that light is emitted at different frequencies at different altitudes, or did it show that light changes frequencies when it travels from one altitude to another? Both conclusions are advocated by numerous on-line and printed sources. And there are others that are simply ambiguous.
The two images below illustrate the conflict. The image on the left (from some foreign language web site) shows light changing speeds - i.e., gaining speed as it "falls" from the light source at the top and slowing down as it "climbs" away from the light source at the bottom. The image on the right shows how Einstein and I view the situation: Light is emitted at a faster rate at a higher altitude and it is emitted at a slower rate at a lower altitude, and it does not change speeds as it travels.
Both produce the same results: the observer at the bottom sees the received light as being a higher frequency than light emitted at the bottom, and the observer at the top sees the received light as being a lower frequency than light emitted at the top.
Which one did Pound-Rebka demonstrate? I'm not sure. First of all, Pound-Rebka used gamma rays, not any kind of visible light photons. And gamma ray photons are not created by the changing energy of electrons like ordinary photons, they are created by radioactive decay of the nucleus of a large atom, such as iron. And the key Pound-Rebka paper is titled "Apparent Weight of Photons", because it is about gamma ray photons, whereas ordinary photons evidently have no mass nor weight. I don't see how anyone can use gamma ray photons to describe how all photons work. It's like using an apple to describe how to peel an orange.
My research found that Bowling Green State University's physics web site uses this illustration:
Note these words in the lower left corner: "frequency higher after falling." And note that it is talking about "gamma radiation."
Here is how Wikipedia defines the Pound-Rebka experiment:
The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959, and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity.The term "gravitational redshift" implies that the light "shifts" or changes its frequency or wavelength as it travels. It doesn't. It is just measured to be a different wavelength because wavelength involves the distance a wave travels in a given period of time. Time moves at a different rate at different locations, but the photon's wavelength does not change. It is measured to be different because you are using a different length for a second when doing the measurements.
Here is how "gravitational redshift" is illustrated on Wikipedia:
The text that goes with the illustration says:
The gravitational redshift of a light wave as it moves upwards against a gravitational field (produced by the yellow star below).But light consists of photons, not waves!!!! And only the length of a second changes!!!!!
The Pound-Rebka papers also mention a Doppler shift somehow occurring in the experiment. A University of Iowa web site uses the images below to discuss that Doppler shift.
The web page says that because gravity is equivalent to acceleration (and vice versa), an emitter at the bottom of the building is uniformly accelerating upward and an "observer [at the top] will notice a redshift (since the observer is moving away from the source of light) caused by the Doppler effect." And, "Since the equivalence principle requires that all such experiments must also produce the same result in a stationary lab with the equivalent gravitational acceleration, we must also see this effect in labs on Earth. This is called the gravitational redshift effect, and was first measured by Pound and Rebka at Harvard in 1960."
Would there be a Doppler effect in this situation? The light is going to appear "red shifted" because of time dilation and the fact that light emitted at the bottom travels slower than light emitted at the top. But there are no waves, and the bottom and top of the building are stationary relative to one another. However, this situation is somewhat like the situation in my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" where a person with a radar gun inside a closed lab on a inertial moving railroad train can measure his movement by measuring the Doppler effect. But there is no actual movement in the building example, at least none that a radar gun could measure. The only effect would be the result of time dilation. I just cannot see how the Doppler effect has any relevance in the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Complicating matters is the fact the Pound and Rebka evidently got the idea for their experiment from the the Mössbauer Effect. When I researched the Mössbauer Effect, I found this quote on a Harvard University web site:
Robert Pound and Glen Rebka performed their historic experiments here at Harvard in the Jefferson Physical Laboratory. They were able to demonstrate that the frequency of gamma radiation measured at its source (on the building's roof) differed from the frequency measured in the basement. The incredibly small shift (about 1 part in a million billion) showed that clocks run slower in the basement than the roof because, being closer to the Earth, the gravitational field, and hence the space-time curvature, is larger there. The faster clock on the roof would read a lower frequency of gamma radiation and thus the wavelength would be longer, or red-shifted.It's saying that Pound-Rebka was not about gamma radiation photons changing speeds, it's about gamma radiation being emitted at different speeds because time runs faster at higher locations and slower at lower locations.
To further complicate matters, the Mössbauer Effect seems to be mainly about an atom recoiling when it is hit by a photon and when it emits a photon. It says that if the atom is part of a solid mass of atoms, the recoil is almost entirely absorbed by all the atoms in the mass, and the atom that actually got hit or did the emitting is barely effected. There is nothing in that of interest to me.
The problem is how to describe the Pound-Rebka Experiment in my paper. I started out by saying it was all wrong. Gradually I started thinking it isn't "wrong," it is just confusing. Everyone seems to interpret it differently.
I could just ignore the Pound-Rebka experiment, but if I do that, people will point to the Pound-Rebka experiment when they argue against my paper. If I include Pound-Rebka in the paper, people will ague that I misinterpret it.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but, either way, I expect to put the new paper on vixra-org sometime this week.
|Comments for Sunday, August 5,
2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 11, 2018:
August 9, 2018 - I'm still working on my new paper which is now tentatively titled "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light," and which will be posted to vixra.org as a total rewrite of my paper on "Time Dilated Light." Again and again I seem to be nearing completion, but then I realize I need to add something or clarify a point.
Yesterday, I typed this thought into the paper:
Photons are excess energy moving from atom to atom until they are observed or consumed.I'm not sure where that thought came from. Evidently, it was something from my subconscious mind that suddenly popped into my conscious mind. Wherever it came from, I had to stop typing and study it to try to figure out if it was correct or not.
Photons definitely seem to be "excess energy." A photon is emitted by an atom that cannot retain that "excess energy" because it makes the atom unstable. So, the atom ejects that energy and the energy travels as a photon until it hits another electron in another atom which also cannot retain the excess energy. The atoms may be right next to one another or they may be trillions of miles apart. Either way, the process is repeated until the photon happens upon someone's eyeball, which activates a nerve cell which sends a message to that person's brain, thereby consuming or using the "excess energy" and stopping the atom to atom travel. Plants also "consume" the excess light energy carried within a photon and transform it into chemical energy via photosynthesis. "Consume" is probably not the right word to use. "Transform" seems better. "Transform" says the energy is not destroyed, it is just converted into a different form of energy which will no longer zip through space at the speed of light looking for some atom that can accept it and retain it. The sentence should probably say:
Photons are excess electromagnetic energy moving from atom to atom until they are transformed into a different form of energy.I'm not sure that any of this fits within my paper. But it was interesting to think about.
August 7, 2018 - In my Sunday comment I mentioned how Einstein's General Theory of Relativity says that gravity will bend the path that light travels. That evening I sat down to watch TV, and I chose an episode of a TV series from the mid-1960s called "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." In June of 2016, the Decades channel did one of their weekend "binges" and aired about 50 episodes of the series, one after another I recorded them all on my DVR. The episode I happened to watch Sunday night was from season 3 and was titled "The Monks of St. Thomas Affair." It's about U.N.C.L.E. agents stopping some bad guys who took over a monastery atop a mountain in Switzerland and planned to use a powerful ray gun to destroy the Louvre museum in Paris, a few hundred miles away. I only mention it because at one point Illya Kuryakin (David McCallum) starts talking about Einstein's theory that gravity bends the path that light travels. Needless to say, my jaw dropped open at the coincidence.
I can't use that episode as a reference in any scientific paper, of course, but it might be fun some day to cite it as a source in some argument on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, just to see what the reaction would be.
Meanwhile, the next morning I returned to working on a paper about how both time and the speed of light are variable. As I was writing, I started going off on a tangent about how time moves faster during the day than it does at night. This is because of the Earth's velocity as it orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. During the day, due to the spinning of the Earth on its axis at about 1,000 mph, a clock would be moving against the orbital movement, so the clock would be traveling a 66,000 mph. And at night, the same clock would be on the side away from the sun and would be moving at 68,000 mph with the Earth in its orbit.
I should probably create an illustration for this, but I don't have the time right now. So, I found this one on the Internet:
The illustration shows the Earth orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, while the Earth also spins on its axis at 1,040 mph at the equator. During the day the Earth (the one at the top) is turning against the orbital direction, and during the night (the one at the bottom) it is turning with the orbital direction.
At dawn and dusk, a clock on the Earth is momentarily moving at the same speed as its orbit around the sun. Then time starts moving in the opposite direction to how it was moving for the past 12 hours.
When you sit down and think about it, a clock ticks at its "correct" rate at dawn, it then ticks faster and faster until noon, then it starts slowing down more and more until it reaches that "correct" rate again at dusk. Then it slows more and more during the night, until midnight when it reaches its minimum, then it starts gradually speeding up back to that "correct" rate again. And all the slowing down and speeding up averages itself out, so the clock ticks at the "correct" rate - on average - all day and night long.
But then I sat down and thought about it some more and realized it wasn't a big deal, and it wasn't worth a paper of its own. It's no different than getting into your car with an atomic clock. The clock will tick slower as you gain speed, and it will tick faster as you apply the brake and slow down. The clock will tick faster when you go uphill, and it will tick slower when you go downhill.
And time ticks faster for your head than for your feet. Your time is your time, and what happens to time for you has no effect on anyone else. It doesn't take you into anyone else's future or past. It just affects how fast (or slow) you age. Or, to put it another way, it just affects how fast you accumulate time.
August 5, 2018 - Since I am no longer arguing with the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet/Google group, I've managed to make some good progress on a new scientific paper. Or maybe it is best described as a total overhaul of an old paper. Either way, that "good" progress slowed to a crawl yesterday when I hit the question of whether or not light has weight. It seems no one can provide a straight answer to that question - except those who do not seem to know what they're talking about.
Here is how one web site describes the problem:
Photons are the smallest measure of light, and no, they don't have mass. So that's easy, right? Light is composed of photons, which have no mass, so therefore light has no mass and can't weigh anything.And here how another web site describes the problem:
Does light have mass? The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".Yada yada yada.
The best answer I've found so far was on a University of California Santa Barbara web site:
Well if you read a textbook, you will find out that light can be thought of as being made up of particles called photons. These photons have no mass! So there is the simple answer, light has no mass and no weight. This is a lot like knowing the name of the bird, you know that light has no mass and no weight, but you don't know how light behaves.And that same UCSB web site also has this:
Light does not have mass, and therefore there is nothing for the force of gravity to pull on, so light doesn't have weight either. However, light does have energy.I highlighted part of one particular sentence in the first UCSB quote above in red and in bold because it makes a very important point. It says that "a large body with a lot of mass" (and gravity) doesn't change the speed of a light photon, nor its frequency, it just bends the trajectory or path the photon is traveling.
There are probably other sources that say the same thing, but mathematicians will just say they are "dumbing down" physics for the layman, which is the same as saying they are lying, since they are saying the complete opposite of what mathematicians believe to be true.
The question is important to me right now because it is what the Pound-Rebka experiment was all about. According to Pound-Rebka, light must have weight, because gravity pulls light down just the way gravity pulls solid objects down. And it pulls light fast and faster as it falls further and further, compressing its wave frequency, causing the light to be more and more "blue-shifted."
Of course, that would mean that all the light we see from distant stars must be blue-shifted to a high degree, since it is falling for thousands of miles, not just 74 feet from the top of a building to the bottom, as was done in Pound-Rebka. But Pound-Rebka doesn't address that inconsistency. And how can light from distant galaxies be red-shifted due to their motion away from us if everything we see from earth is blue-shifted by gravity?
The answer that mathematicians would give is that physics doesn't have to make sense. Physics doesn't have to be logical. You just have to memorize the math equations and be able to recite them on demand.
My frustrations over that attitude also caused me to respond to a post someone made to the Neil deGrasse Tyson Facebook group last week.
The thread was started by Sidney Patterson, who wrote:
If you find it hard to understand quantum physics, theory of relativity, dark matter & dark energy, Unruh effect, standard model e.t.c...just know that...
So, I wrote,
That is a VERY IGNORANT thing for Mr. Tyson to say. It basically tells people that they shouldn't TRY to make sense of the universe. It also echoes what some university physics professors teach when they tell their students that physics doesn't have to be logical. They are just telling their students to BELIEVE what they are being told and don't ask questions!
I'll ask questions until I find answers that are logical and make sense. And if those answers do not fit with what Mr. Tyson or physics textbooks say, then I'll ask more questions and do research to find out which is correct.To which Mike Norieka responded to everyone,
that is what Einstein said. He cannot accept anything that to him is not logical. Therefore he never accepted Quantum Theory even though he had mathematically proven it he disregarded it. Who really knows?? They say you can mathematically prove almost anything but maybe our math is not the end it all.And Jeremy Warner responded to me specifically,
Ed Lake, No No!!! You have to hear it in the right context!!And I responded:
Yes, Quantum Mechanics is a problem in that it argues things which defy logic and common sense. To me (and Einstein), that means QM cannot be trusted to be true. And, as Mike Noreika stated, "They say you can mathematically prove almost anything." I agree. Solving science problems with math tends to begin with an answer and then they develop equations that produce that answer.And Jeremy Warner had the last word by posting,
well then...you never asked the universe to make sense and Mr Tyson wasnt talking about youI'm not asking the universe to make sense. I am assuming it does make sense. We just need to figure out how everything works.
Right now, I want to know how light works. How can it fall faster and faster as it heads toward the earth, as Pound-Rebka indicated? Why wouldn't that mean that all light from everywhere beyond Earth is blue-shifted when we see it? Clearly the light from stars and planets is NOT blue-shifted when we see it.
According to Einstein (and me) light from the top of a building is blue-shifted when viewed by people at the bottom of the building because light that is created at the top of a building is created by atoms which are less affected by gravity, thus the light those atoms produce travels faster than light created at the bottom of the building where gravity is stronger. The light didn't shift to blue as it fell, as Pound-Rebka claimed, it started out bluer (oscillating at a higher frequency) than light created the same way at ground level.
All we need is for someone to perform an experiment to confirm or disprove that.
|Comments for Wednesday, August 1,
2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 4, 2018:
August 2, 2018 - I've been trying to organize the digitized books about physics I have in my computer. I seem to have at least 400 different books scattered through a library of 1,031 items, more than half of which are scientific articles. I keep track of everything on a computerized spreadsheet, but I haven't been making any detailed notes about what is contained in each book. Below is a list of just 15 books (the spreadsheet also contains the file name, a ranking, the document type, the number of pages, whether it is digitally searchable or not, and a space for a brief note):
The only note I made about the book by Carl Ramirez was "Very heavy in mathematics, but might contain something worthwhile." The notes also say that a couple others seem to be self-published, so they wouldn't make good references.
One book I browsed through this morning was the 3rd edition of "Physics for Scientists and Engineers - With Modern Physics" by Paul M Fishbane, Stephen Gasiorowicz and Stephen T Thornton (one of two books I have with that exact title). When I read the underlined sentences below, I had to stop to make an image of them:
To me, the underlined sentences illustrate the insanity of what is being taught in many colleges today. They say the particle theory of light cannot explain certain observations, so the book is going to promote the wave theory of light, which can explain those observations. What is not mentioned is that the wave theory of light cannot explain other observations, primarily that light definitely consists of particles, not waves. As Richard Feynman put it on page 14 of his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter":
Newton thought that light was made up of particles—he called them “corpuscles”—and he was right (but the reasoning that he used to come to that decision was erroneous). We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon - and if the light is all one color, all the “raindrops” are the same size.And he wrote this on page 15:
I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.Instead of incorrectly teaching students that light behaves like waves, the students should be taught that light consists of particles that have some as-yet-unknown properties that make them act wave-like under certain conditions. For example, the path a photon follows appears to bend around obstacles.
The purpose of science is to figure out exactly how a photon works, and in colleges and universities students should be informed that there are things about light photons that are not yet fully understood. They shouldn't be taught an incorrect theory just because it is easier to describe things that way or because some author believes one theory over another.
August 1, 2018 - Whew! Sigh! I finally decided to put an end to my latest round of arguments on Google's sci.physics.relativity discussion forum. I advised each one of the NINE people I was arguing with today (Paparios, Tom Roberts, Edward Prochak, Chris M. Thomasson, Ecký Zcitná, Cliff Hallston, RichD, Michael Moroney and Paul B. Anderson), that I wasn't going argue any further in that thread because I wanted to work on some scientific papers and on my book.
The fact that I was arguing with at least nine different people doesn't mean that it was just me against them. When not arguing with me, they would argue with each other. If I had the time to sit down an analyze each one of their arguments, I feel reasonably certain that I would find that each one of them has a slightly different understanding of the physics of light, time and time dilation.
Nevertheless, it was a very interesting discussion that began on July 13, when I first posted a comment suggesting that someone put atomic clocks into the large centrifuge at NASA's Ames Research Center to see how gravitational and velocity time dilation will work together to slow down time. As of my last message today, there are 649 posts by 38 different authors in the thread, with about 1,110 "views."
It was surprising to see how many people cannot discuss or even think about light consisting of photons, instead of waves. When I quoted from "reliable" sources about how light photons are absorbed by atoms in an object (like a mirror or the bumper of a car) and then emitted again as totally new photons, that was totally incomprehensible to most of them, and some argued that the authors I was citing didn't really mean what they wrote - or that the sources were not reliable and just made stuff up.
So, I need to do some research to see what college textbooks say about how light photons are created and "reflected." If they have details about how light waves are created and reflected that don't just claim it works the same way sound waves work (which is absurd), then I'll need to make notes about that, too.
But mostly I want to study some scientific papers about putting atomic clocks on centrifuges. In one argument, someone cited about 5 such papers. So, it appears it has been done at least five times, but not the way I wanted it done nor for the reasons I wanted it done. The five experiments evidently all had atomic clocks at the center and/or at various locations along the arm of the centrifuge. And their purpose appears to have been to verify the findings of the Pound-Rebka experiment. As I see it, Pound-Rebka produced nothing but an incorrect understanding of how light works. Their findings were incorrectly interpreted, and I assume all the centrifuge experiments to verify or reproduce the Pound-Rebka findings were also misinterpreted. They all start with a belief and then just verify that belief.
They believe that light changes its frequency to be faster and "blue-shifted" as it "falls toward the earth," or as it "falls" toward the end of a centrifuge's arm. Likewise, they believe that light changes it's frequency to be slower and "red-shifted" as it move upwards away from the earth or away from the end of a centrifuges arm. Like so (using flashlights as emitters):
The facts, as I see them, say that the light is created at a higher ("blue") frequency at the high starting point and does not change as it "falls." Likewise, light is created at the lower "red" frequency when it is created at the low point or end point and sent upward, and it does not change. Like so:
My understanding also seems to be an incredibly easy thing to confirm (I think it has already been confirmed countless times) or disprove, but how do you get people to perform an experiment which might show their unshakable beliefs are wrong?
About all I can do is write about it to see if anyone can prove that I am wrong. More arguments that I am wrong simply because it conflicts with a mathematical model that mathematicians have been using for decades won't change my mind, it will just make me chuckle and shake my head in amazement over the unbelievable things that some people believe.