Quantized redshift anomaly

Tom

what are you on about for crying out loud. light is electromagnetic, you know that, what are you thinking??

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />light is electromagnetic, you know that, what are you thinking??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here is what we published about this matter in “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It has come to be assumed by many in modern physics that changes in electric fields caused by acceleration of a charge are electromagnetic waves. However, this assumption is subject to the same confusion as failing to distinguish changes in gravitational fields from gravitational waves, as we discussed in section 4. It is essential to distinguish hard facts from flexible interpretations. The equivalence of changes in electric fields with (e.g.) light waves is an interpretation that gets into logical difficulties when the minimum propagation speed of such changes indicated by experiments is considered. An interpretation with no such difficulties is based on a separation of these concepts: The acceleration of a charge sets off a wave in an underlying “light-carrying medium”, which is a light wave propagating at speed <i>c</i>; whereas the electric field of the charge accelerates nearly in lockstep with its source by regenerating at a speed much faster than lightspeed. ...

Carlip says that the sudden change in the field is what we mean by the electromagnetic radiation of an accelerated charge (e.g., emission of a light wave), and that an interpretation in which the field changes propagated nearly instantly could only exist “at the expense of ‘de-unifying’ Maxwell’s equations and breaking the connection between electric fields and electromagnetic radiation.” However, reality is rather the opposite. It is true that the relative velocity between charges or masses determines the energy, and hence the frequency, imparted to the emitted electromagnetic wave. But the connection between energy and frequency still involves a parameter, the Planck constant, whose value must be determined empirically. So any unification of these two effects is a bit illusory in that we do not know the origin of that constant of proportionality, nor can we determine its value on theoretical grounds.

To be specific, the energy of an emitted light wave is <i>hf</i>, where <i>h</i> is Planck’s constant and <i>f</i> is frequency. Planck’s constant is an empirically determined fundamental constant. We have no way to determine experimentally why an accelerating charge emits a light wave, but the frequency of the generated wave must give it an energy equal to the energy emitted by the charge. For example, if a force is applied to an electron, the work done is the product of the force and distance traveled. Distance is velocity multiplied by time interval. And force multiplied by time interval is the momentum of an impulse. So the energy change in the electron is the product of impulse momentum and electron velocity. Note that this same proportionality to velocity applies whatever the mechanism for the emission of the light wave.

By contrast with the usual quantum electrodynamics interpretation, for the nearly-instantaneous-propagation version of the equations, the same phenomena are predicted (electromagnetic waves in QED, gravitational waves in GR) through the mechanism of mechanical friction as the target body travels through the potential field of the source. This friction is likewise proportional to relative velocity, and therefore has the same functional form in all respects as the interpretation Carlip prefers. In that respect, one sacrifices no simplicity or understanding by switching interpretations. However, the near-instantaneous-propagation model differs in two important ways: It clearly shows without any ambiguity that gravitational waves are very-long-wavelength electromagnetic waves because both are disturbances of the same medium – the potential field of a source mass or charge. And it offers the prospect of a true unification of models by prospectively showing how to derive the Planck constant from theory in terms of the properties of this potential field, or those of the light-carrying medium in general.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So my point is just the opposite of your assumption. I think that formulating a theory in which light is "explained" as electromagnetic was a mistake. There is a causal connection between time-varying electric and magmetic fields and the emission of light. But light has no charge and no magnetism. So I think it was a mistake to call it an electromagnetic wave in the first place. It gives people (such as yourself) the entirely wrong impression that there is something about light that is electric and magnetic. Indeed, its two transverse wave components are named "electric vector" and "magnetic vector". But applying labels does not make it so. -|Tom|-

[Johnduff] "To express H in SI units, we have to convert km/sec to meters/sec, ... "

??? Km/sec is already in SI units.

Changing the "k" into the number it represents (1000) is a (re)scaling operation, not a conversion. Same for rescaling the distance in the denominator from lightyears to meters.

You start with a physical quantity expressed in SI units, and you end with the same physical quantity still expressed in SI units, but with different scale factors.

===

Most people would prefer to deal with a number like 70 than with a number like 2.26 x 10^(-18). That is why the Hubble Constant is expressed at the scale of KILO-meters per second per MEGA-PARSEC rather than at the scale of meters per second per meter. It moves those ugly exponents into the units part of the quantity.

Bottom line, of course, is that it is a personal preference to some extent. You can scale any physical quantity any way you want within the SI unit system, or even convert it to some other unit system. But unless you have a pretty good reason for doing so I recommend going with the flow to reduce communication problems.

LB

Larry B.

Semantic problem. My understanding of the SI units is that they consist of kilograms. meters, and seconds. These units can then be modified by prefixes such as Mega, nano, giga, etc. for decimal point location.

The preferred nominclature for density of mass, for example, is in units of kg/m^3. Using SI units, the density of water is 1000 kg/m^3, rather than the more famillior 1 g/cm^3.

personally, I'll keep using g/cc because that's what I'm used to.

Useless information: the speed of light is 1.804 x 10^12 furlongs/ fortnight.

johnduff

From Tom's paper:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The equivalence of changes in electric fields with (e.g.) light waves is an interpretation that gets into logical difficulties when the minimum propagation speed of such changes indicated by experiments is considered. An interpretation with no such difficulties is based on a separation of these concepts: The acceleration of a charge sets off a wave in an underlying “light-carrying medium”, which is a light wave propagating at speed c; whereas the electric field of the charge accelerates nearly in lockstep with its source by regenerating at a speed much faster than lightspeed. ...

Carlip says that the sudden change in the field is what we mean by the electromagnetic radiation of an accelerated charge (e.g., emission of a light wave), and that an interpretation in which the field changes propagated nearly instantly could only exist “at the expense of ‘de-unifying’ Maxwell’s equations and breaking the connection between electric fields and electromagnetic radiation.” However, reality is rather the opposite. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
Hmmm. Let's hold on a minute here. There is a controversy about Maxwell's equations. It has been difficult to ascertain exactly what the difficulty was, his equations are well worked out. but I found it in Thomas Kuhn book. Thanks![] Earlier I had happened across a graduate student notes taken from a lecture at Cambridge, Maxwell was said to believe in the Ether and included several terms to indicate this. The notes indicate that Maxwell was wrong about the Ether and why "displacement currents" were removed from his equations.

Well, it popped up agan in Kuhn's book on page 107 and 109. So the controversy is real. and Kuhn summarizes with this comment, "Space in contemporary physics, is not the inert and homogenous substratum employed in both Newton's and Maxwell's theories; some of its new properties are not unlike those once attributed to the ether; we may someday come to know what an electric displacement is."

Here's my point, (which I got from Thomas Bearden, widely regarded as a qrackpot,) there is a part of Maxwell's equations which have been left out becuase they were difficult to work with (the quaternions) and because they were based on the ether which has since been discounted. But only the physical effects of ether hae been discounted and instead the notion has been replaced with things like the quantum foam of the Dirac sea, in EMF terms the ZPE. So now what about Maxwell?

I like to think of the ZPE et al as the INSIDE of empty space. A higher dimension, especially 26 of them does not ring a bell in my head. Hyperspace sounds good, but hyperspace is out there, the INSIDE pf empty space is right here and out there.

This is going to be very interesting, because the way I look at it, the INSIDE does not interact directly with the outside or us. By that I mean it is like a PURE Energy, an energy not doing anything. It is everywhere all at once, and like a bird landing on a 40kv power line, we are oblivious to it. So I don't think anyone can say it is this or that. It is not a thing. But what I think can be done is to look at the interface between the outside and the INSIDE.

Come to think of it, this interface existed at the beginning. What the Big Bang people are saying is that a point was pricked into the INSIDE, and from that point the Universe emerged, . Can one say that space was at a point too? THe INSIDE is everywhere, so it would make no cosmic sense to start at a point. It would makes more sense to create stuff everywhere. And if it could do it then, why not now?

Maybe the white hot centers of galaxies are producing stars? Instead of Black Holes gathering them up...

Kuhn talks a lot about the Gestalt shift and how it often arises in the course of a "revolution" The Gestalt here, I think, occurs on a deeper level than just the Big Bang vs Static, I think the Gestalt shift will be from parts to wholes. There are two possible world views or assumptions which then form the primary direction one goes off in. One assumption is that the Universe is parts first, then it proceeds, by chance, to organize into a whole Universe . The other assumption is that the Universe is Whole to start with, and parts comes afterwards. The initial questions asked in each of these views is also different, in one view the question is how do parts organize into the whole? Whereas in the other view the question is how does the Whole divide into parts.

So I think that the gestalt shift of the Big Bang will be something along the lines of seeing wholes, then parts. As opposed to seeing nothing but parts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />One assumption is that the Universe is parts first, then it proceeds, by chance, to organize into a whole Universe. The other assumption is that the Universe is Whole to start with, and parts comes afterwards. The initial questions asked in each of these views is also different, in one view the question is how do parts organize into the whole? Whereas in the other view the question is how does the Whole divide into parts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Interesting thoughts. However, both your choices require a beginning because the universe is first one thing, then changes. A beginning is a form of miracle. We need to do physics without miracles, as explained in "Physics has its principles" [ metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp ]. And the only alternative available to us is "no beginning". That line of thought is derived and developed in the Meta Model. IMO, it can answer these basic questions in a more satisfying and meaningful way than the Big Bang, Quasi-Steady State, Variable Mass, or Plasma Cosmology, the only viable contenders now on the table. -|Tom|-