Feynmanfan85

@swansont As the frequency of a photon increases, the number of wavefronts within the photon increases. The energy of a photon is in my model NE_0 = hf, where N is the number of wavefronts within the photon, and E_0 is the minimum quantized energy. As f increases, N increases. It's that simple. As a general matter, I really suggest you simply read the paper. The idea that I'm going to write a 60 page paper that's inconsistent with something obvious like Planck's equation is just not realistic. And I'm guessing by now you realize I'm not some crank. I have a significant investment in my professional reputation, and this stuff is not written anonymously. My model is consistent with every single test of special relativity that I am aware of. It's consistent with (though sometimes differs slightly from) every equation within special relativity that I'm aware of. The areas that I do not address are electrostatic charge, magnetism, and QM. I'm not saying these aren't important, they're obviously incredibly important. And perhaps my model runs afoul of something in these areas. But everything else is covered.

@swansont No no, not at all. Planck's equation is the root of my model of light, and matter in general. Think about what the equation says: energy is equal to a frequency multiplied by a constant. In layman's terms, energy is equal to the number of times something happens per second, multiplied by a constant. I take that concept and run with it, and say that what's actually happening in that equation is that the energy of a photon is literally the result of a frequency - the number of times a wavefront crashes into an atom per second, where each wavefront carries the same, discrete amount of energy,

My model treats light, and all particles generally, as waves. A photon is in my model a discrete set of wavefronts in series. Put informally, it's a "horizontal particle" that consists of some finite number of wavefronts. The tighter the wavefronts are packed into the photon, the greater the frequency, and the greater the total energy of the photon (each wavefront carries an equal amount of energy). To analogize, if you were standing at a beach, and a series of 10 equally sized waves in row all hit you, and then no waves followed afterward, that would be similar to what happens when a photon hits an atom in my model. It's a discrete amount of energy, but it's not all delivered at once, but is instead delivered over a very short period of time. So if, as in your example, an atom absorbs a single 1 eV photon, it means that a finite series of wavefronts with a total energy of 1 eV have smashed into the atom. If that atom is moving, then it can still eject all of that energy, but not as a single photon. That is, it will eject all of the wavefronts from the incoming photon, but over a longer period of time than it would have if it were stationary. As a result, the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy, but the amount of time it takes for the outgoing energy to get ejected is longer than it would have been if the atom were stationary. As a result, the frequency of the outgoing photons is lower than the frequency of the incoming photon.

@swansont That is exactly right. Energy is conserved in all cases, it is just a consequence of the frequency with which light is incident upon the detector. If the source is moving towards the detector, in the direction of its light, then the wavefronts will be compressed, causing a Doppler shift up in frequency. This doesn't change the amount of energy ejected by the source over any interval of time, it simply changes the rate at which energy is incident upon the detector (in my model each wavefront carries the energy of a lightwave). If the detector is moving towards the source, the same reasoning applies. That is, since the relative velocity of light is not fixed in my model, a detector that is moving towards the source will get hit by wavefronts at a faster rate, causing an increase in the observed frequency. This is consistent with the classical doppler effect, and therefore, my model makes use of the classical Doppler equations, even in the case of light waves. However, my model also implies that time-dilation will occur both in a moving source, and a moving detector. In the case of a moving source, the rate at which energy is ejected by the source will be decreased. That is, if the source ejects E Joules of light energy per 1 second when stationary, then it will take (1 + s) seconds for the source to eject E joules when moving, where s is the amount of time-dilation that corresponds to its velocity. The result is that the frequency of light ejected by the source is downshifted. A moving detector will also experience time-dilation, and the analysis is similar to a moving source. In the case of a moving detector, the rate at which energy hits the detector is obviously unaffected by time-dilation, since the motion of the detector has absolutely no effect on the source. However, I assume that the rate at which energy is exchanged by the atoms within the detector is affected by time-dilation, in the same way a moving source is affected. That is, it takes longer for the energy that hits the surface of the detector to make its way through the detector, since the atoms within the detector exchange less energy per unit of time, ultimately resulting in a lower observed frequency.

It is not the alphabetical characters that purportedly follow your name that concern me, it is substance that is missing from your words. You obviously lied about reading my paper. Why bother responding, just go do something else.

@Mordred To quote you: Yet you also say, I address both of these topics, so you obviously did not read my paper. In fact, the relativistic Doppler shift is addressed in the same section as the general Doppler shift. I've tolerated your uninformed belligerence, but going forward, I'm not going to respond unless you have something of substance to say, written in some comprehensible human language, and not the gibberish you've been spouting so far. That uninformed, anonymous people like you are allowed to pretend to be experts on anything at all is a serious problem for the dissemination of information online, because unlike me, most people would probably take you seriously.

@Strange There is a specific set of criteria that have been developed for testing Lorentz violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension I am saying that testing my model is much simpler, and requires only that we move a detector towards a light source. This is not a sophisticated experiment. If SR's predictions for the observed frequency are closer to the actual observed frequency than my model's predictions, then I'm probably wrong. However, this experiment has never been performed (to my knowledge) to the accuracy required to test my model. Your "10-35?" has no units, so I can't answer that question. For substantial velocities, and substantial frequencies of light, the difference between my model and SR is on the order of 10-6eV in the case of a Doppler shift. That is the range of accuracy that is required to test my model, which is certainly doable given current technology. @MigL @Mordred In Newtonian, and Relativistic physics, the quantity that you can't measure is velocity. That is, if you're in a given inertial frame, you can't know your "true" velocity, since all motion is relative. This has been the assumption for a long time, and I am very aware that it predates even Newton. In my model, energy is the "hidden variable" that generally cannot be measured. In contrast, I propose a method for experimentally measuring absolute velocity, by measuring the velocity of light, that makes use of time-dilation. This is set forth in Section 5 of my paper. Also, note that your statement that energy is "measurably" frame dependent is only true because you are using equations that assume energy is a particular function of velocity or heat. My equation relating energy and velocity is very abstract, and allows for different particles to have different relationships between their energies and their velocities, all using a single equation. For example, the velocity of a photon is fixed, regardless of its energy. This is generally not the case for most particles in the standard model. @studiot Apologies, I'm getting a lot of "dings" on this thread. What question would you like me to address? @Mordred Not in my model, it's simply dependent upon the observed frequency of light. If you're going fast towards a source, you will objectively experience a shorter amount of time between wavefronts. This is simply common sense prevailing over philosophy. If waves come in towards a beach once every second, and you run out into the water, towards the waves, you will get hit with wavefronts at a frequency that is greater than once per second. My model takes this same, common sense approach to light waves, and generates equations that are nearly identical to SR. I would suggest you just read Section 3.5 of my paper, as it is only a 5 or 6 pages long, and contains the bulk of the information that relates to your questions.

@Strange Again, I propose two experiments which would test all of these things, one of which would be very easy to perform in a reasonably well equipped lab. It is not necessarily Lorentz invariance that needs to be tested, but simple, direct measurements of photon frequencies. The differences from SR would be very, very small, and as far as I'm aware, well beyond the precision of any experiment that has been conducted to date. Also, my model is consistent with every experiment testing SR that I have come across, since the predicted differences are incredibly small. If you have a particular experiment in mind that you think disproves my model, please feel free to share it.

@Strange This is just a consequence of velocity being generally presumed to be relative, a topic I deal with at length in my paper. This has nothing to do with energy itself, but is instead a consequence of the formulas for energy in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. As noted above, my model is more general, and does not need to make use of the same equations for energy. Also, motion is absolute in my model, not relative, and energy and information are similarly absolute, and not relative.

Hi @MigL Information is actually a conserved quantity in my model as well. And I present a theory of time-dilation due to gravity that is consistent with the general theory of relativity. However, my model of gravity is due to quantized "chunks" of energy interacting with systems. I think of my model as a potential "bridge" between SR, GR and QM, and if you have expertise in QM, I would greatly appreciate your insight. I'm not sure why energy or information has to be made frame dependent, so if you could expand upon that a bit I think it would be helpful Also, though I understand your initial skepticism, I think by actually reading the paper you'd find that assuming that energy is a substance explains quite a bit, though it may seem odd initially. @swansont I think this is the core of our misunderstanding: In my model, energy is a substance that contains information, it doesn't simply exist on its own. It's analogous to a unit of memory that contains information. Each "chunk" of energy is like a tiny writable disk. The properties coded for in the energy of a particle characterize the properties of the particle overall. So for example, in an electron, there will be some number of "chunks" of energy, each of which contain the information that characterizes the overall properties of the electron. This means that the chunks of energy within an electron will collectively code for charge, causing the electron to have charge. In that sense, all other properties are in fact properties of energy, but not in the traditional sense. Rather, these properties exist because the information contained in the energy of a particle causes these properties to manifest. If we "flip the switches" on the codes within an electron, it could turn into some other particle altogether. This is how my model views particle decay, photon photon collisions, and electron positron annihilations - in each case, the codes within the energy contained in a particle changes, causing the properties of the particle to change. It's like rewriting the information on a disk - the program / particle will behave differently, and have different properties, after its code is changed. Another analogy is DNA: the energy of a particle is its DNA. If you change the DNA, you change the particle. The amount of energy in a particle is, in my model, really just a measure of the amount of information it contains. Time-dilation in the case of particle decay occurs because it becomes less likely that these codes change as a particle gains kinetic energy. This happens because the particle's kinetic energy, which codes for motion, uses up the particle's "bandwidth", slowing down the processing of the particle's own information (which is contained in its mass). That's if we use the relativistic momentum - I just meant that the two formulas become consistent if you swap v with c, using the classical momentum of a particle. I'd state the formula from my paper, but it will look like nonsense without reading the rest of the paper. The gist is there's some minimum quantized energy in my model, just like there's a minimum quantized charge. Let's call this minimum energy E_0. If m is the mass of an electron, then it's mass energy is E = mc2. Assume the electron is stationary, with a kinetic energy of zero (motion is not relative in my model, so this means it literally has no kinetic energy). The number chunks of energy in my model is simply E/E_0. That is, you take the mass energy, and you divide by the minimum energy, and that gives you the number of chunks. Since each chunk of energy contains the same amount of information, the amount of information contained in an electron is given by M E/E_0, where M is a constant I discuss in my paper. This is the amount of information you need to "produce" an electron, generating a particle with the right mass, charge, spin, etc.

I think I see your point of concern, and the answer is yes: I know enough to not discuss the topic. My model uses information theory, just like statistical mechanics uses information theory, but the results are completely different, and flow from a completely different set of axioms. I don't rely on any precarious results in information theory that have ambiguous physical meaning. I use very basic, very concrete concepts, like codes, bits, complexity, etc, and use these concepts to build a combinatorial model of elementary particles. The similarities to statistical mechanics are in my mind superficial. That said, there could be deeper connections, but they're not necessary to achieving the main result of the paper, which is time-dilation. The concepts in my paper amount to an alternative to special relativity. If my model is a problem for statistical mechanics, then special relativity should be as well. That said, if you have an expertise in statistical mechanics, I would welcome your input.

Maxwell's equations are expressed in generic units of mass, time, and length. Using kg, seconds, and meters should not impact his analysis, so long as those units are used consistently. My question is, his analysis, making use of mass, time, and length, is that analysis viewed as incorrect or deficient? If not, then we necessarily have a connection between energy and magnetic pole strength, which I found intriguing. I am open to the possibility that his analysis is dated, which is really the question I am posing.

My background is in discrete math, not physics, which is why I ask these questions. I think my claims are limited to claims contained in reputable sources, other than my original research, which I think is well-reasoned, but I am of course open to criticism and suggestions. I am certainly not claiming to be some kind of king, but I am a published mathematician in the subjects of graph theory and information theory, so yes, I think I understand these topics quite well. I am aware of the connections between information theory and statistical mechanics. However, the point of my research is to show that information theory can be used to produce time-dilation. That said, I think someone with a background in statistical mechanics would likely find my work interesting, and will probably make connections that I have not made, that are unrelated to time-dilation.

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the modern formulation. I was really more interested in the dimensional analysis Maxwell put forward. Working with his units, we obtain a relationship between magnetic strength and energy that I thought was interesting, and was wondering if anyone has carried that analysis forward. Do people view Maxwell's units as wrong, or deficient? Or have they simply fallen out of favor? For some reason I didn't get a notice about your response, apologies for the delay in responding.

@Mordred As I noted above, my model is more general than SR, so a neutrino can have mass, and a velocity of c, as gamma = ET / EM, without any further restrictions on the value of gamma. Here is the section of my paper that addresses this topic, where v is the formula for the velocity of a particle.

I don't assume these equations. I make a series of assumptions, like any model of physics or mathematics, from which the equations I discuss above follow logically. I do in that sense "prove" the formulas, as the paper is on the whole a discrete math paper. I'm not sure what that means. I propose two experiments that would distinguish my model from SR. Those experiments would be the test of my model. Again I'm not sure what this means. Physics, and the sciences generally, are concerned with repeatable experiments. I've proposed two of them, one of which should be quite simple to perform.

My model predicts that for a particle with mass, gamma = ET/EM, where ET is the total energy of a particle and EM is its mass energy. However, it does not require that gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2). That is an additional assumption that is perfectly consistent with my model, but completely independent of my model. My model is in this sense more general than SR. Also, please keep in mind we were discussing the neutrino velocity, which, according to all experimental evidence, is exactly c, and therefore is an example of a particle that does not obey the exact equations for energy given by SR.

@swansont My model implies that the De Broglie wavelength of a particle is dependent upon its velocity (which is consistent with the equation for the De Broglie wavelength), and that experimentally, we would observe the De Broglie wavelength of a particle. However, my model views the Compton wavelength as the "true" distance between the "chunks" of energy within a particle, which is what we would observe if the particle had a velocity of c (which is also consistent with the equation for the De Broglie wavelength, just substitute v with c). You can certainly have energy and no momentum, just consider any stationary particle. Any spin zero particle has zero angular momentum. The point is that energy is the only property common to all particles in the Standard Model. As such, if we want to pick a horse, energy is the only choice for a fundamental property, since it is the only property that is common to all particles. This doesn't mean that other properties don't exist. It also doesn't mean that you can have pure energy suspended in thin air that does nothing and has no other properties. It just means that energy is the only property that is common to all particles in the Standard Model. I'm not sure what you mean here. In the case of a moving source and a stationary detector, my model predicts the same equations as SR for the doppler effect. In the case of a moving detector, it does not. All of these predictions are laid out in specific detail in my paper. The equation for the difference in energy due to the doppler effect in the case of a moving detector is on the very bottom of page 32: Where h is Planck's constant, gamma is the Lorentz factor, f_s is the frequency of the light source, and v is the velocity of the detector. The equation for the difference in the measured velocity of light is on the middle of page 46: Where c_v is the measured velocity of light, and v_x is the velocity of the measurement device in the direction of its light.

@swansont I think the gist of my paper is "what if we treat energy as a substance", and not a property. I show that what follows is actually quite remarkable, in that it implies time-dilation due to velocity and gravity, that all matter is a wave with a wavelength equal to the Compton Wavelength, and some interesting little results regarding information theory itself. The reason I think it makes sense to view energy as a substance, and not a property, is (1) energy is a necessary property of all things; and (2) there is significant experimental evidence that energy can be reasonably viewed as a substance. Regarding (1), all particles in the Standard Model of physics have some energy associated with them, even massless particles like the photon and gluon. For massive particles, E=mc2 tells us the particle necessarily has mass energy. Therefore, at a minimum, we can say with certainty that energy is a necessary property of all particles in the Standard Model. If you go through the other properties, such as charge, mass, spin, etc, I believe you'll find that none of them are necessary properties (i.e., they can take on a zero value for at least one particle). As such, energy is the only necessary property of all particles in the Standard Model, which must always have a non-zero value. I view this fact as a reasonable basis to treat energy as a candidate for the primary underlying substance of all particles in the Standard Model. Regarding (2), there is also a substantial body of experimental evidence showing that mass and energy are interchangeable, as is of course assumed to be the case in Einstein's celebrated equation E = mc2. The most compelling experiment in my mind is the light by light scattering experiment performed at SLAC (the 144 experiment I linked to above). In that experiment, photons collide, thereby producing an electron-positron pair. There are three conserved quantities in the 144 experiment: net charge, momentum, and energy. If we ask, what is the "stuff" that is present and conserved on both sides of this interaction, then it has to be one of these three quantities, since each of these three conserved quantities are conserved on both sides of the interaction. As noted above, momentum and charge can have zero values in some cases, and so, it would be awkward at best to say they constitute the "stuff" of this interaction. In fact, in this case, the net charge is zero. This leaves energy as the only candidate for the "stuff" of the interaction, since it necessarily always has a non-zero value, and is always conserved. That is, I view this experiment as demonstrating that energy can be viewed quite reasonably as the underlying substance of the interaction, that is conserved, and simply changes states, beginning as the energy of two photons, and ending as the energy of an electron-positron pair. Putting it all together, I think the fact that energy is the only necessary property of all particles, that there is substantial experimental evidence that energy can be viewed as a substance, and that assuming this is in fact that case implies the correct equations for time-dilation, momentum, velocity, and the wavelength of a particle, together constitute compelling evidence that my model could in fact be correct. I do not treat electric and magnetic fields (the paper is already 65 pages), but I do treat gravitational fields given that they generate time-dilation. I do have plenty of ideas on these topics, and I'm happy to discuss them, but they are not "fully baked" enough to be included in my working paper, as the rest of the paper stands on its own as a complete work on time-dilation. The difference in photon energy predicted by the Doppler shift equations in my model and SR varies with the frequency of the light and the velocity of the detector (the equation for a moving source in my model is identical to SR, and so there is no difference between my model and SR in that case). For even substantial frequencies and velocities, the difference would be on the order of 10^-6 eV. For small velocities and low frequencies, it would be even closer to zero eV. As far as I'm aware, no one has tested this particular phenomenon to this degree of accuracy, for the simple reason that no one had any reason to expect any difference between the cases of a moving source and a moving detector, given the incredible success of SR generally. A Mössbauer absorber should be able to measure differences in energy on this order of magintude, so it should be possible to test my prediction in a reasonably well equipped lab that has a Mössbauer absorber. My prediction is that there should be some extremely small deviation from the exact value of c when the two-way velocity of light is measured using a device like an interferometer on the surface of the Earth. Other devices might not be subject to these same results (the structure of the device measuring the velocity of light is relevant in my analysis). The deviations from c predicted in this case could be so small that even a modern interferometer could struggle to detect them. However, I am not familiar enough with state of the art interferometers to say conclusively whether this is a practical experiment. My limited familiarity with the technology suggests that it is probably not a practical experiment as a general matter, but perhaps could be done in a high-end lab with an extremely precise interferometer. --------------------- @Mordred The wiki link you sent notes the possibility that the neutrino obeys SR, but that "velocity differences predicted by relativity at such high energies cannot be determined with the current precision of time measurement." That is, we don't have the technology to detect such small differences in velocity. The argument in the wiki article, based upon my understanding, is not the accepted view. In fact, the very paper you sent over begins with the clear statement that the velocity of a neutrino is EXACTLY c. Here's a nice summary of experiments from wiki. You'll note they all come in slightly above or below c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed

I think you've misunderstood my point, and the paper you just referenced. The confusion surrounding neutrino velocity related to observations that the velocity of a neutrino was greater than c. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly The paper you just sent me asserts that the velocity is exactly c. Just read the opening paragraph:

I understand, and I actually propose two experiments that would distinguish my model from SR. Further, my model allows for particles that have mass to travel at a velocity of c. SR does not, yet we all know this is what neutrinos actually do.

You are simply restating the house view. I understand that my model asserts a non-traditional view of energy. The point is that this non-traditional view of energy implies the exact same equations for time-dilation as the special and general theories of relativity. My model views energy as a wave, not a "solid". I use the word substance to indicate that energy is the primary underlying property of all particles. This is exactly what my model asserts.

@StringJunky Do you have suggestions as to the most recent / precise measurements of the velocity of light? It seems to me that experiments stopped after the definition of the meter was changed. @swansont I think we both agree that momentum is not a substance, but is instead a property. I am not saying that photons have energy and no other properties. I am saying that the substance of a photon is energy, and that it also has momentum, which is a property. A photon also has wavelength. But the wavelength of a photon is not its substance. My model asserts that the energy of a photon is its substance. I propose two simple experiments. One is using the Doppler effect, and should be easy to perform in a lab. My model predicts that the classical Doppler equations would apply, as adjusted to account for time-dilation. This means that there should be a very tiny difference between the frequency of light measured by a detector when the detector is moving and the source is stationary, versus when the source is moving and the detector is stationary. The other experiment involves measuring the velocity of light with extremely high precision. While simple in concept, it is the more difficult of the two experiments, since it would require an extremely sensitive interferometer.

I was reading Maxwell's treatise on electromagnetism, and on Page 3 of Volume 2, he does a bit of dimensional analysis on the units of magnetic pole strength, using the following formula: f = (m1 m2)/l2, where m1 and m2 are the strengths of two magnetic poles, l is the distance between the poles, and f is the resultant magnetic force between the two poles. The full treatise is available here (see page 3): https://archive.org/details/electricityndmag02maxwrich Let F denote the units of force, L denote the units of meters, and m denote the units of magnetic pole strength. Maxwell notes that, F = m2 / L2, which implies that, m = L√F. Because force equals mass times acceleration, it follows that F has units of (kg L)/T2, where kg is kilograms and T is seconds. Therefore, m = L√((kg L) / T2) = (L3/2√kg) / T. Interestingly, Maxwell's treatise was published in 1881, prior to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which was published in 1905. Armed with the fact that E = Mc2, we can continue Maxwell's analysis. Let J denote the units of Joules. It follows that, m = √(J L). That is, this analysis implies that the strength of a magnetic pole has units of the square root of Joules times meters. Has anyone come across similar analysis on the units of magnetic pole strength? What are the accepted units of magnetic pole strength?

@Strange Given your rather unserious responses, I'm not going to expect much in the way of insight from you, but I'll just note that kinetic energy is the energy of motion, and heat, both of which are generated by electromagnetic radiation. I'll then direct you to the quote that appears in your own call sign: