jamesfairclear

A Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of the Consequences of Special Relativity Einstein's theory of Special Relativity Einstein's theory of Special Relativity predicts that for objects travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light time dilates. Experimental observations are in agreement with the predictions. For example ordinarily short lived particles such as Muons when at rest are observed by a stationary observer to exist for significantly longer periods when travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light. Mathematically Speed = Distance/Time As the speed of light is expected to be constant in any frame of reference (consequent to Maxwell’s equations) the mathematical conclusion for the increased lifespan of Muons traveling close to the speed of light would be that the values for distance and/or time have changed. In the Muon’s inertial frame of reference the distance travelled by the Muons has decreased. In the observer’s inertial frame of reference time has slowed down for the Muons allowing them to live longer. The difficulty with understanding such mathematically derived conclusions is that they are counterintuitive (which is not to say that they are wrong). Copious experimental observations illustrate clearly and consistently that clocks slow down when in motion precisely as predicted by Special relativity. Thus for example we can confidently predict that an astronaut travelling at near light speed for a year will return to Earth biologically younger than his twin brother by around thirty years. A typical explanation of Time Dilation is that time flows at a slower rate for the astronaut than for his twin brother on Earth. The analogy of time flowing conjures up images of water moving along in a river. But as time does not appear in any real sense to be a tangible identifiable substance like water can it truly be said to be flowing at different rates? The passage of time can only be measured indirectly in terms of a perceived interval between events. The most accurate measurement of time is currently in terms of the interval between 2 quantum mechanical conditions of a Cesium 133 atom. But what really is it that we are measuring when we state that we are measuring time? Does Time exist? Physics defines Time as “that which is measured by clocks”; that is all. There is no evidence to substantiate that time exists as part of the fabric of the universe. It is probable that human beings dreamt up the notion of time as a convenient way of 2 or more people being in the same location to share a task. For example an agreement for 2 people to meet for a hunt at sunrise on the bank of a river next to a large rock is in effect a synchronisation of the event of sunrise with 2 people and a unique geographical point on the planet. The human notion of time serves the purpose of accurately synchronising events for a species that owes much of its success to organised cooperative behaviour. Although today we would associate sunrise with a specific time indicated on a wristwatch (or more accurately an atomic clock) there is no "known" absolute benchmark of time in any inertial frame of reference. i.e. there is no "known" universal standard time anywhere in the universe with or without the relativistic effects of speed and gravity. Significantly the sunrise over our spot on the river will never be precisely at the same local time from any one sunrise to any other sunrise as measured by an atomic clock situated by the rock. This is due in part to perpetual changes in the orbit of the Earth and in part to the uncertainty of the location and velocity of quantum particles. Quantum observations suggest that it may be impossible to predict or measure the precise local time of any event in the universe. Without any direct evidence of its existence as part of the fabric of the universe it is perhaps more useful to think of time as being an imaginary interval between 2 events. Can there be a more intuitive way of explaining the observations predicted by special relativity? The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in one of the following two ways: Muons decay at the same rate regardless of their speed. The speed of a Muon causes time to slow down in its inertial frame of reference so that for a stationary observer for whom time is running faster a high speed Muon appears to decay more slowly than a stationary Muon. “Proper time” is the time experienced by the Muon in its inertial frame of reference being less than the time measured by the stationary observer calculated as per the following expression. Muons decay at a rate that reduces according to their speed relative to a stationary observer. “Proper events” is the reduced number of decay events experienced by the Muons in their inertial frame of reference as compared with the higher number of decay events observed by the observer calculated as per the following expression. The first interpretation founded on Special Relativity is based on the assumption that time is part of the fabric of the universe and that time literally flows at one rate for a stationary observer and at a reduced rate for the particles in motion relative to the stationary observer. The second (alternative) interpretation assumes that time is merely a human notion and is not part of the fabric of the universe in any real sense. In this case time dilation is no longer a plausible explanation for the increased life span of high speed Muons. Since time dilation can no longer be an explanation the inference is that the high speed Muons last longer than relatively stationary Muons as a direct consequence of their relative speed. Whilst Particles such as Muons are observed to decay into different particles it is not understood what exactly triggers the change but it is typically characterised as the spontaneous process of one elementary particle transforming into other elementary particles without any apparent external cause. There would seem to be 2 plausible interpretations: Quantum particles decay or transform spontaneously without any external influence. Quantum particles decay or transform due to the influence of quantum events in their vicinity. In the first interpretation the notion that a fundamental indivisible particle may transform itself with no external influence is both counter-intuitive and inconceivably difficult to conclude from experimental observation, which is not to say that it is necessarily incorrect. In the second interpretation, from the assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the rate of decay would be governed by the frequency of such quantum events. From the same assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the frequency of quantum events would be governed by the values of influential properties of the quantum particles such as angular momentum. Based on observations of particle decay being retarded in a highly predictable way according to the speed of the particles relative to a stationary observer we can further infer that the values of influential properties of quantum particles in a given inertial frame reduce with respect to the speed of the quantum particles. By considering the wave properties of a quantum particle the inference would be that the energy of the wave is reduced through dissipation over a longer distance. An atomic clock detects an arbitrarily prescribed number of changes between 2 quantum mechanical states of Cesium 133 atoms and registers this as one second of time. A moving atomic clock detects fewer changes than a relatively stationary clock. According to Special Relativity this is due to time slowing down in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock. However in this alternative interpretation where time is no longer considered to be a real variable the conclusion is that there are fewer quantum events occurring in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock as a consequence of its relative inertia. In any given inertial frame of reference the relative frequency of different types of quantum events would be expected to remain constant such that any specific measurement carried out within an inertial frame of reference would be identical to the same measurement carried out within any other inertial frame of reference. Thus for example the same values would be recorded for the average half life of a Muon at rest measured within any inertial frame of reference. Conclusion Special Relativity states that relative motion causes time to dilate. The observational evidence is that relative motion causes clocks to slow down and also causes a reduction in the frequency of all events within a moving inertial frame of reference. Thus whilst time is defined as “that which is measured by clocks” the consequences of Special Relativity do not hold clocks to be special. Although these observations can be characterised as Time dilation there is no evidence to substantiate the material existence of time and that which does not exist cannot dilate. This alternative interpretation is founded on the same set of observations that substantiate Special Relativity but without invoking the assumed variable of time and instead substituting a relative frequency of quantum events.

This is my first post and as you can see it does not contain the expression "So either light propagates at c or it doesn't" Is red shifted light travelling at a speed less than c? Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed c – v but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being detected at the destination. The difference between light detected from a stationary source and light detected from a receding source is that the latter is red shifted which means that its wavelength has increased and consequently that it is less energetic. But what does that really mean? One can visualise it as follows: A Quanta of light (Photon) is released from moving light source. The next quanta (Photon) is released at a distance d from the first. Thus a relatively stationary observer will observe a greater distance between each quanta than an observer in the same inertial frame of reference as the moving light source; this is manifested as an increase in wavelength or decrease in frequency. If the wave from a stationary light source has a length L then the wave from a moving light source has a length L + n. If we consider that the full energy of the photon only arrives at the crest of the wave then the amount of energy arriving per second from the moving light source is less than that from the stationary light source. It takes longer for a FULL quanta of light to reach a point A where the light source is moving in a direction away from A than light from a relatively stationary source. Although energy from each quanta of light will arrive in a continuous stream as its waveform unfolds it cannot accurately be said to have arrived until the whole packet of energy has been absorbed at the destination point. As an analogy a locomotive leaves station A and collects one mile of carriages in front of it on its way to station B. The first carriage being pushed by the locomotive may arrive at a station B at 09:00 but the locomotive doesn’t arrive until 09:03. The speed of each quanta should be more accurately calculated as distance/time where time is the interval between the FULL quanta being discharged at source and the FULL quanta being fully absorbed at the destination. As its wavelength increases there can be a considerable interval between the arrival of the front of the wave and the back of the wave. In conclusion red shifted light from a receding light source can be measured in terms of the quantity of energy transmitted and received per second as travelling at a speed less than c. There seems to be some cross wires here. Please can you state in your own words your understanding of my proposition.

My expression implicitly factors in the 2 frames of reference. With a receding light source and measuring a given quantity of light energy E emitted over a time T the distance D implicitly represents a known range of distances D1 to D2 that can be factored into the calculation with the same values at both source and destination thus effectively cancelling out to a simpler expression D.

Measured speed of light over distance D for time T1 = D/T1 = c (Based on the usual definition of speed d/t) Adjusted speed of light = D/(T1+t) < c (This is the proposed adjustment to the value obtained by d/t) You state "You need to tell the new definition of speed before incorporating it into an explanation of speed of light. " . I have been stating and re-stating this until I am blue in the face 😨 My proposition is an alternative approach to measuring light speed more accurately by making adjustments to the value obtained from d/t in order to account for discrepancies in rates of energy transfer between source and destination in the special case where there is relative motion between source and destination. You take the standard (first past the post) definition of speed and then make an adjustment to account for the discrepancy between the rate of energy emitted and the rate of energy received. You state "Your math is not just incompatible with physics of light and speed of light". This is a very generalised statement. Please can you be more specific. You state "Because your very first post concluded with: So either light propagates at c or it doesn't." NO IT DIDN'T

You state "All completely incorrect" without providing any explanation. It is abundantly clear from my proposition that I assume light (of any frequency) to be propagating at c. How have you interpreted this to be otherwise?

No there is no conceptual error. With a receding light source and measuring a given quantity of light energy E emitted over a time T the distance D implicitly represents a known range of distances D1 to D2 that can be factored into the calculation with the same values at both source and destination thus effectively cancelling out to the simpler expression D. On the basis that D1 to D2 are known fixed values and that the light energy once emitted is no longer affected by the receding emitter it is known that the emitted light energy E will travel at a speed of c to the destination and will arrive there in a less energetic form due to the Doppler effect. The quantity of light energy emitted E over time T will take a longer time (T + t) to be received at the destination. Thus the only relevant parameter to the adjusted speed calculation is the additional time t taken for the energy discrepancy e to be received at the destination.

What questions do you have about this analogy?

Quantitatively there is less energy per second arriving at the destination from a receding light source than light from a relatively stationary light source. Energy emitted per second = E Energy received per second = (E – e) Energy discrepancy e received in t seconds. Energy emitted in T seconds = ET Energy received in T seconds = (E – e) x (T) Energy received in (T + t) seconds = ET Measured speed of light over distance D for time T1 = D/T1 = c Adjusted speed of light = D/(T1+t) < c

😀

Stranger things have happened 😀 Yes indeed the apples and oranges do move at the same speed. I have never disputed this and have addressed this in more than one post e.g. "Light emitted from a light source moving away from an observer at a speed v would intuitively be expected to be travelling at a speed (c – v) but is in fact still measured to be moving at a speed of c. The measurement of speed is based on the time interval between the light being emitted and the light being initially detected at the destination." It is the fact that apples and oranges are not the same things that is relevant to my proposition to make a small change to the definition of speed.

Yes I agree, I am indeed proposing a small change to the definition of speed. I am not though aware of any legislation preventing me from making such a proposal 😀 I also agree with your statement "The source is further away when it emits the second photon. It has to travel a greater distance. That in no way means it’s traveling at a lower speed". I am proposing that the standard measurement of speed resulting in c is not an objectively accurate representation of speed where there is relative motion between the emitter and the destination because the light received (red shifted or blue shifted) is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the light that was emitted. One thing is emitted and another different thing arrives at the destination. In other words apples are being compared with oranges. As an analogy consider a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or some averaged time (say 13.5 seconds) between the 2 or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

I am proposing that the standard measurement of speed resulting in c is not an objectively accurate representation of speed where there is relative motion between the emitter and the destination because the light received (red shifted or blue shifted) is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the light that was emitted. One thing is emitted and another different thing arrives at the destination. In other words apples are being compared with oranges. This is the best analogy I can come up with at the moment to illustrate why it is in my view more meaningful to make corrections to the measured speed of light in order to account for the discrepancies in light energy transfer rates between source and destination. Consider a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or some averaged time (say 13.5 seconds) between the 2 or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

Interestingly if we look at your statement as to what you think is not a measurement of the speed of light "But that isn't a measurement of the speed of light. It is a measurement of ... well, energy transfer rate" and then write down what we think is a measurement of the speed of light we can arrive at one and the same definition. "We arrive at the the speed of light by measuring how long it takes a beam of light to travel a distance d in time t. A beam of light is a transfer of light energy from one location to another. Therefore the speed of light can be equally (and arguably more meaningfully) characterised as the rate at which light energy is transferred from one location to another." My proposal is an ALTERNATIVE method for measuring the speed of light in the special case where there is relative motion between the source and destination. If you read my proposal carefully you will see that it is not a measurement of energy transfer rate. It is an adjustment to the measured speed of light (which is nominally c using the standard approach) to take into account the discrepancy in energy transfer rates between source and destination. I repeat my analogy for further clarification: Imagine a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or some averaged time (say 13.5 seconds) between the 2 or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

If you read the full details of my proposition which is an alternative approach to measuring the speed of light in terms of Energy transfer rates you will see that there are no such violations. Light received from a relatively stationary emitter A is more energetic than light received at a receding destination from the same emitter A. It follows that it will take longer for a given quantity of light energy (E) emitted by A to arrive at the receding destination than it does for the same given quantity of light energy (E) to arrive at the relatively stationary destination. The measured time from the start of light emission (throwing the switch) to the first moment when light is detected (arrival of the first photon) at either destination results in a calculated speed of c regardless of there being any relative motion between the source and destination. This standard method of measuring the speed of light does not take account of any discrepancies between the rates of transfer of Energy at the source and destination respectively. I am proposing that the standard measurement of speed resulting in c is not an objectively accurate representation of speed where there is relative motion between the emitter and the destination because the light received (red shifted or blue shifted) is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the light that was emitted. One thing is emitted and another different thing arrives at the destination. In other words apples are being compared with oranges. Imagine a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

As far as I can see I did respond to your post on the topic of the relativistic Transverse Doppler shift but perhaps you anticipated a more detailed response? Current theory explains Red shift through classical Doppler shift and relativistic Transverse Doppler shift. In the latter case the calculations take account of time dilation in one of the 2 inertial frames of reference. For the purposes of relativistic calculations the speed of light is considered to be constant in all inertial frames of reference. From this it would be expected to follow that the rate of energy transfer from any light source (receding or not) will also be a constant as measured within a given inertial frame of reference. My proposition is based on the observational evidence that Red shifted light from a receding light source is less energetic at the destination than when emitted at the source. Whatever the cause/s of this though the widely accepted and well evidenced scientific fact remains that the light received is less energetic. I am more than happy to hear your Relativistic viewpoints on this topic.

I don't think you have understood my proposition. Figuratively speaking yes.

Apologies for any mixup in responses (I have only just started using this Forum). Both the classical Doppler shift and the relativistic Transverse Doppler can be causal factors in the Red shifting of light from a receding light source according to the distance. However this has no bearing on my proposition that Red shifted light can be characterised as travelling at a speed less than c in terms of the difference between rates of energy transfer at the source and destination. Unless of course you are inferring that the rate of energy transfer at the source is by virtue of the relativistic Transverse Doppler effect the same as that of the destination. I am proposing that any light received from any source that is measured to be red shifted (and thus inferred to be from a receding source) can be characterised as travelling at less than c in terms of the difference in energy transfer rates between source and destination. Clearly in the absence of any supporting evidence it would be entirely speculative to suggest that light/stars/elements are different in different parts of the universe. So no I am not suggesting that.

The relevant observational evidence from mainstream Physics is that red shifted light from a receding source is less energetic than non red-shifted light from a relatively stationary source. What further evidence would you consider to be required to substantiate the principal I have outlined? Is there a particular relativity issue that has occurred to you?

Perhaps yes. Just to further clarify my point: Light received from a relatively stationary emitter A is more energetic than light received at a receding destination from the same emitter A. It follows that it will take longer for a given quantity of light energy (E) emitted by A to arrive at the receding destination than it does for the same given quantity of light energy (E) to arrive at the relatively stationary destination. The measured time from the start of light emission (throwing the switch) to the first moment when light is detected (arrival of the first photon) at either destination results in a calculated speed of c. I am proposing that the standard measurement of speed resulting in c is not accurate where there is relative motion between the emitter and the destination because the light received (red shifted or blue shifted) is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the light that was emitted. In other words apples are being compared with oranges. Imagine a 100 metre race where a competitor leaves the start line with an average chest to back measurement of 40cm which then increases to 40 metres by the time the front of his chest trips the photoelectric cell at a measured time of 11 elapsed seconds. If his back crosses the line 5 seconds later than his chest it raises considerable doubt as to whether he has run the race in 11 seconds or 16 seconds or indeed if he is really the same competitor that started the race.

You state "The received light is actually less energetic as its frequency has decreased, and its wavelength increased.". Yes I agree that's correct and that's what I have said. You state "energy is frame dependent". How does this alter the fact that the red shifted light at the destination is less energetic than the light emitted from the receding light source?

"TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang" Time cannot be observed. Time is solely a human notion. The definition of time in Physics is “that which is measured by clocks”; that is all. It makes no sense to state that an unobservable human notion came into existence before humans evolved. Such characterisations of the Big Bang made by well known scientific figures such as Stephen Hawking have been interpreted rather too literally. Such statements are really just a convenient way of stating that nothing is known about the state of the Universe prior to the Big Bang and that we may as well characterise it as the beginning of time. Special Relativity probably led to the characterisation of time as being a fourth dimension but in reality space/time is just a convenient way of describing a region of space along with its local gravitational field. The measurement of time is simply the arbitrary quantification of a given set of events. There is a common misconception that time is something that actually exists as a fourth dimension independently to matter, energy and space and their various interactions (events). Time cannot be observed and there is no evidence that it actually exists outside of the confines of the human mind. When we measure time we are actually counting events such as the tick of a clock. The events are real enough but the interval of time we measure is best thought of as an imaginary interval between events. Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. He once wrote in a letter “ us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one”. This view suggests that Einstein himself was not at all sure that Time was existential. It is well known that clocks run at different rates according to the strength of the local gravitational field and the relative speed of the inertial frame of reference containing the clock. Gravity and relative speed affect not only the frequency of ticks of a clock but also the frequency of all quantum events within a given inertial frame of reference. In other words the lifespan of all matter is subject to gravity and relative speed. Whilst this variable lifespan of matter is typically characterised as the effect of time dilation it is more likely (in the absence of any evidence that time exists outside the confines of the human mind) that it is an effect on the forces acting between quantum particles.

Yes it would also imply that blue shifted light is traveling at a speed faster than c. The main thrust of my point is that the rate of energy transmission for a moving light source will be r whereas the rate of energy absorption at a relatively stationary destination will be r - x or r + x depending on the relative direction of travel.

Is it reasonable to characterise light as a continuous waveform whereby there will be less peaks of the waveform detected per second by a measuring device at the destination than the number of peaks per second detected by a measuring device at the receding light source that is co-moving with the source?