geistkiesel

Swansont - the model QM presents here makes no sense . Electrons do not glibly separate into two halves and then make an orderly reformation and produce th interference pattern. The "wave aprticle duality": is a *stop-gap " term conveniencing the experimentors that want to move along and away from the two slit experiment. The electron has never been measured other than a near point particle. QM is on an analogous trrack , but frightfully as long a way from the correct description as one theory can get. What is occuring is the + and - spin states of the electron are oscillating in time so the electrons are demonstrating +-+-+-+-+-+- for the spin state history of the prepolarized electron. . When one hole is open only, the polarized electron (and the polarized observed state either (+ or -) ) must take one of the holes. When two holes are open the nonobserved state transitions through the extra hole to merely providuing navigation input for the electron that is rapidly adjusting its intrinsic vibration motion to an equilibrium state. The unobserved element location in a parallel trajectory has a broader range of adjustment input to the electron, as opposed to trailing the electron down one hole only. The electron is evolving from a massive chaotic vibration mode to the ordered complex mode as demonstrated by the scinitillation pattern. The electron provides its own STern-gerlach transition environmjent by creating an inhomogeneous magnetic field when the electron charge distribution reflects off the surface containing the hole in the screen, Yess the electron picks its own hole. Look at the physics: the electron is predeeded to the hole by its own varying geometry distribution charge distribution and the recoil of the electron as it compresses the charge distribution tend to push the electrion back in the direction of its origin, but hallelujahjah!!, the electron senses a potential well in the volume over the hole where there is no reflected charge distribution to impede the electron motion. When the space where the charge distribution did not reflect from the wall of he screen. Where there is no repuslive force there is a natural hole that the electron enters long before it arrives at the screen. As the charge distribution is changing in time from reflection and the ever closer to the screen of fthe eklectron.proividing ean impulse through one of the allowed trajectory routes from hole exit to the screen. Th electron is doing it to itself in the hole during transition; after the electron leaves the hole the electron is polarized and all internal adjusments have been completed. (defined by the pattern on the screen) . Likewise, the spin state of the electron is intrinsic to the electron which provides the on/off attributes of the spin states. on/nonlocal -l/nonlolocal + nonlocal - nonlocal + nonlocal None of the sdtates get turned off like a wall light switch, Thje spen states come and go as observed or and unobserved where the + and - states have observed status with eqalitarian perfection.and fairness..

To all who dare: This thread is not a disertation claiming any QM inclusion. The topics are QM in scope and there are many obvious similarities in problem recognition, but this isn't QM, so I will not be responding to QM responses unless critically relevant. Nonllocal force centers are localized in the chasnnel obstructions of Stern_Gerlach segments when performiong standard S-> T -,> S trransition experiments. The following is part instructional (we all need to pseak the same lanuage) and part formal descriptioon of physical systems. The transitions are seen in the sideview of the segments (3rd and 4ty figuress_ segment. However, for those unfamiliar with SG transitions, The first two figures indicate the transition of the first and second expression below,: S-> T -,> S, S-> T + B-> T and S-> S + B --,> S The Rules of transition can be verified in Feynman's "lectures on physics" Vol III chapter 55. We differ only in the interpretation of the totality of the description of the science. The first transition shows the S to T to S transition where the particle state is first polarized into one of three possible T spin states and when exiting the T segment the particle reforms to the +S state. The segment spin state of the particle returns to the +S state, say we are using +S as a test vehicle.Then the T state must contain some information about the prepolarized state of the particle before entering the T segment. Now the particles move in one of three directions, wrt the T z-axis: up, down or horizontally wrt the T segment z-axis. Some describe this transition as if the "wide open" segment was not present. This 2nd transition is identical to the first with the exception that the 2nd T segment has obtructions inserted in the middle and lower channels. In words the first trahsitons says the +S state particle is polarized to a T state when entering the T segment and reforme to the +S state when exiting the Tsegment. The second is almost the same except the added + B signifying the additions of blocks, or obstructuions. The particle state will become a permanent T state when passing through the plane of the obstructions. It is the obstructions that causally determine the permamnet change of state of the spin particle. But as the particle that survives does not directly contact the causal agent obstructions, the action on the resultant state of the particle is considered due to nonlocal/local force exchanges. We will use this language until proved that the causal elements were indeed local only, just obscured don't count in tthis., The S --> S + B-> S is identical in physics to the S -> T +_ B -> T. In both cases the polarized state of the particcle in the Alien to domestic transition and domestic to domestic transiton of the S -?> S experiment are preserved permanently as the particle passes through the plane of the obnstructions, Withiout the obstructuions the particle state resolves to the original +S state. when exiting the T segment in field free space. Unlike the magnetic compass needle uising the force of the earth's maghnetic field to reorient the pertubed needle, thr spin 1 particle retuirn to e the pre-polarised state in field free space. Therefore there are unobserved existence critical elements of the observed spin state that are not expressed in the state vector function Y(S) = +S. There nmust be the reference to the nonlocal existenece critical elements of the S -> T transion (the nexess. nonllocal existence critical spin elements) The figure below is largely instructionsal but uselful in udenstanding SG state transition rules thag have no analogue in QM, Again:this ain't QM. The last two figures are introductory rules of transitions that are very simple as the number of various states are limited.. Once learning the drill, thye use of the proper transition rules find applicatuion in viertually every aspect of physics not touched by nonlocal modeling attributes,. Remember the whole point of this threrad is the decription and location of nonlocal force centers. I will discuss the falsity of assuming the spin states of the partiucles are generated in the heat of the tungsten filament and also the revival of the modified rigidly attached randomly oriented spin state vector model discarded from incosistrency wrt SG tyransition results. [/size] Here is a ghraphics rich, math poor descripton of the most basic trasnsitions. The spin states are the oriented magnetic spin vectors, The particles have to be polarized to the whim of the SG segment, and then the gyroscopic activity returns when the original spin state reforms or when a new state is formed after discarding the old.

Johnny5, Thank you for the comments. I wanted this to be a two, three paragraph proof but it got away from me. I had intended a contraqdiction proof, by assuming that no localized point in space could be determined then show the converse. Let's do that. There is no unique point in space that is possibly invariant as defined by the location of physical processes. Two photon are emitted in opposite directions from each other at t = 0. As the photons are moviong at the same speed they move the same distance in equal times. Likewsie, as the distance to P from both photons is the same the point P is defined continuously as the midpoint of the photon wave fronf expanding as independent photons. As the photons move in a straight-line until acted on by an external force, and no external force being found here the trajectory of the two photons will be maintained along the same straight-line. The distances traveled also being identical establishes the invariance of the point P. If after moving a distance ct the left photon say is reflected back to the zero point and the initial photon vector, while p has moved from the original point of emission. If the photon reflects back on the same trajectory , which by definition is a straight line, then the continued straight line must be invariant as any deviation from the straight line would mean the constancy of direction is not maintained and the straight line woul d be broken. The return to the starting point of the initial velocity vector is a return to the emission point defined as P. But P was assumed to have moved, which, by the laws of light motion the straight-line trajectory is preserved the invariance of the point P along any line drawn through the midpoint except on the photon trajectory, If motion of p was along either of the two photon;s uniique trajectory space, then at least one of the reflected photon will overrun the moved pont P before arriving back at at the start of the initial photon vector. However, the simultaneously reflected photons each equal distance from the point P must necessarily arrive back at reflected photon emission point. An invriant straight line plus the equality of equal motion in equal time insists the point P is determined for all time remaining in the universe. Even perturbations of the photon trajectory will only obscure the location of the point, bot nothing wll move the point. hence the assumption that the point P is variant is diosproved and the invarianc of the emission point of the photons is maintained. QED[/indent]

The proof of the absolute zero velocity inertial frame is focused on the simple statement that the inertial frame should be proved invariant in absolute space and time for some delta t > 0. This proof is not subject to agreement by any number of scientific thinkers as the proof is transcendent to the mental dynamic of the signifcance of any "acceptance" protocol. The use of two widely understood postulates of light iare incorporated in the proof First is the postulate that the motion of light is independent of any motion of the soutrce of the light and second, the speed of light is a constant c measured form any inertal frame of reference,and included in these postulates are the understanding that, an emitted photon will travel in a straight-line trajectory, potentially eternally, or until acted upon by and ouitside force and likewise, light travels equal; distance in equal times. As stated above we need but discover some delta t where a localized point in space is spatially invariant for sonme delta t >0. Two photons are emitted simultaneously in opposite directions from each other. The motion of each photons expanding wave fromt moves frome the emission point P such that P remains the continuously defined invariant point P. In deep space far from perturbations of nny kind, the P remains defined for the duration of the longevity of the invariant straight-line trajectories of equal length of the two photons motion distance. One of the photons, say the one moving to the left, wrt P, is reflected after moving a distance ct 180 degree back along the outgoing trajectory. After the completion of this second ct leg of travel, the L photon has arrived back at the point P and if the Right moving photon R were reflected at the same time as the L photon the photons would arrive at P sinmultaneously. However, either , or both of the photons can be used to localize and find P at any time. Assume the frame is moving, wrt the embankment, and coincidentally moving wrt P. The reflector/ clocks are located equal distances from P on the Left and right ends of the inertial frame. When the photons are emitted simultaneously from the emission point the L photon heads to the in coming L clock and is recorded arriving at L after moving a distance ct, wrt the point P . L is reflected back another distance ct and is located at point P instantaneously and is located a distance 2vt (v unknown at this instant) from the physical midpoint of the photon sources which is heading away from L (P is also 2vt from the physical midpoint at the same instant L has moved 2ct) After the initial distance of ct traveled by the R photon it is located the small distance 2vt from the R clock as the L photon was later after moving a distance 2ct. Here R is heading towrd the on coming physical midpoint of the moving frame a distance 2vt + 2vt' from the physical midpoint (L is 2vt away from the physical midpoint here where both photons have moved a distance 2ct wrt P. containing the reflector and emiission point and finally the photons converge simultaneously at the physical midpoint measuring the total time difference of the round trip of the photons as t' wrt the stationary and moving conditions of the test. It is coincidental that the point P can be referenced in the moving or stationary frame of reference withouit changing the results of the photon motion tests.The small distance the photon must travel crossing the 2vt distance, that added on vt', accounts for the final frame motion after moving the inital distance 2vt when the photons were moving the distances 2ct each. The coordinated motion of frame and photon are classically derived and beautifully coordinated. Rememebr the t' and v expressions are all measured on the moving frame. All motion and times are measured wrt the constant invariant motion of the photons moving in the directions indicated, or when the frame was at rest wrt the embankment. What is the measured velocity of the speed of light wrt to the physically constructed zero velocity emission point P, as maintained and accounted for in space and time without error or deviation? The answer is the speed of light wrt P is c, eternally, at least in the local conditions observed here. What could a moving observer O have to consider to vary the results stated here? Absolutely nothing. O sees events as they unfold, not before. Therefore , any considerations that O might have regarding the state of motion of the moving frame is purespeculation and will have to wait until the significant data is gathered in one spot and analyzed. First, O sees the simultaneous emission of the photons at the physical midpoint of the frame and nothing else, yet. Because he is unable tio distinguish any motion in his train compartment (or space ship) his assumption that he is at rest wrt to the embankment is premature at the instant the photons were emitted. The photon arrives at L before the R photon arrives at R, by a time t'. This data only reaches O after the photons arrive back at the physical midpoint of the moving frame, simultaneously. The data is time tagged with the arrival times at L and R as well as the arrival time of the photon a time t' greater than that when the test is done in the stationary frame of reference. the t' s derived from ct' = 2vt + vt' the distance the photon has to cover to arrive at he moving clock froma a distance 2vt from the clock. t' = t(2v)/(c - v) If t' = 0 there is no motion, If t' > 0 motion is assured. This shows a measurable delta time for velocities much less than SR could ever hope to measure, Likewise, the classical t' here is much more selective than the SR time dilation formulae in units of velocity. This is seen in the v/(1 - v) factor that increases in the t' expression (assuming the unit speed of light) faster than at lower velocities than the SRT gamma. Velocity ,then is seen as v = ct'/(2t + t') A reminder to every one still with us here right now: the postulate of light that assures us of the independent motion of light, assuming no velocity components of the moving frame of treference and the measurment of the realtive velocity iof the speed of light with respect to the interial frame of reference the zero velocity of the invariant point P. are the attributes of light motion that allow for thias omple classic analysis of light motion.. Now what does any observer have to do with changing these results? Nothing,absolutely nothing. All earth bound meaurements of relative velocity of object and embankment always is preceeded by an intial acceleration of the object, never the embankment, that provides the velocity later termed as the 'relative motion' of object and frame and embankment. For massive objects the embankment refrerence frame is a perfect absolute zero velocity reference frame. Motion measured wrt to any point on the surface of the planet can be used as reference point. Any measurment of frame andf photons wrt the embankment can be cnducted with any degeree of accuracy desired or budgeted for, The motion of all points on the surface of the embankment can be corrected for in any measuremnt. A point moving on the equater for instance is moving at a speed of .464 km/sec. A photon of light that is measured wrt the moving earth frame will have it turning motion 360 degrees /(24x 3600) or at a rotation rate of .004 degrees/sec. Any error due to acceleration effects of the embankment can easily be detected. Rotational motion without acceleration affects do not distract from the inertial characterstics of the rotating frame of reference, as there are no acceleration effects measurable on the embankment surface. and similalry for the orbiting SATs that can and are treated classically as if the frames were purely inetial. Likewise, in accord withe zero velocity frame of reference described her in simplicity all planetary motion significantly affecting any physical result can be corrected for by eliminating the acceleration affects due to earth motion when and if such accelerations are ever found. The plan was to describe a reference frame in no measurable motion v > 0 as defined by the independency and constancy postuilates governing the motion of light. The emitted photons moving in a straight line wrt P at constant and exactly equivalent speeds proves the invariance of the point P wrt anything in the universe. P i s a unique position in space to the exclusion of all other points in the physical universe. That the rest motion is defined by the motion of light itself will incite some to claim the negation of the absolute zero velocity of the point P. But these are the lost sheep we return to their classical fold. Here is a summary below of three gedankens discussed in the literature not in terms of the Sagnac effect, but as a bases for supporting the SRTin terms of simultabneity for the most part. Those assumptioon of frame at rest is the bugaboo of SRT. The ssoner one sees theat SRT is purely a negation of the conceptf physical motoons. How else to meaure the relative sopeed fliught of ftrame and motion as C when the frame us preseumed at rest, i.e. the motion is negated by SRT theory. I am especially fond of the example B whre the moving Observer sees the forward photon before the one arriving from the rear. Like the desciption in the example of the proof the Observer can make no rational conclusion regarding the assumptions of the moving observer's frame of reference.. We assume the moving observer has conducted thousands of tests like the one described here so we aren't going to allow some technically ignorant geek to make the assumption of motion before the datas is acquired. This is a basic protocol of experimenntal physics . Physical conclusions are made form the experimental results of physical data. acquisition. Be aware that the example gedanken below are constructed with a shorthand in miond. The last stage of the photon moption in case A is expanded to indicate the physical nature of vt, vt' and ct and the invariance of the point P. Like some have suggested in this forum, study the classical view and you shall be free.

I have no major quarrel, however, look at the overall meaning of the paper. The orbital motion of the earth is not measurable as affecting the motion of light, in that an orbital Sagnac device is doomed to failure regarding relative motion of the earth orbiting frame. This finding goes beyond SR and the Sagnac Effect as it describes a restricted application of orital motion. It is as if the orbital motion is confined to etxraterrtrial events and that the local earth frame can be considered ether based in the sense of the earth gravity affect on the motion of the light and of coure the accelration affectws dueing launch of the SAT. Even considering the claims of light speed variation in some planetraty transmision experiment, with in any local volume the light speed variations are insiginificant. Check something for me on this Swansont. Miller claimed a sun velocity of 208 km/sec in a general southerly heading. If we assume the numbers are fairly accurate (there are simlar figures for different dirctions reported by others) then the orbiting velocity vector is tangent to the orbit trajectory which is basically orthogonal to the sun motion. The rotational motion imposes a daily oscialltion on the orbiting motion. Now when we calulate the net velocity vector of the earth considering the three modes of motion we have v2 = 2082 + 30.64[sup ]2[/sup] or a 44192 + 920 =45120 and taking the square root, the net velocity vector is 212.4 where the direction is approximately 8 egrees off the sun direction of motion rotating around the sun trajectory. Calculating distance we use the sun velocity of 208 km/sec x 31558464 sec = 6.56 x 109 for the sun yearly linear distance. The orbital distance in one year for the earth is 30 x 31558464 =.946x 109. the angle in the distance difference is tan--1.946/6.56 or approximately 8 degrees that checks with the velocity vector. Now, if Su is correct in the statement that the orbital motion is not measurable on the earth bound light motion then clearly the orbital dynamics are uniquely exterior to the earth bound light motion. The huge difference in orbital and rotational speed does not resolve the issue. One would think, linearly, just the opposite is true and that the orbital motion ovewhelms the rotational motion that might be seen sporadically depending on the accuracy of the measurements. If all this be true, even without the assumed 208 km/sec sun vel;ocity dragging all the planets along in a helical evolving trajectory a for all the planets enclosed by Neptune on the outer fringes as the hierarchy of enclosing planets decays stepwise down into the geneal helix. Methinks gravity as we normally consider it is a grossly misplaced concept. If for nothing else the helical sgtructure of solar systems moving helically do not jkbe with a mass centered attraction model of gravity., nor of GHR model of the yrved forceless universe. Agreement , "everyone" is insignioficant. Using this line of reaoniong no phsicaltheory would ever suffer amendments and we are sitll agonizing over this 'political thread" in the mainstream of science today. Agrrement has nothing to do with it.just ask Giovani Bruno and the Maid d' Orleans. See my latest thread proving the absolute zero velocity inertial frame of reference using the postulates of SRT. Hatch is a major technical leader in the company he works for, NavComTech, GPS is his business. You spend much time discussing the linear Sagnac effect as not equivalent to the rotaional Sagnac, yet you say right here and now that the SATs and th receivers are both moving in noninertial frames of reference and that these motions are SRT relevant? It sure seems like a convenience of platforms excuse here is developing. This rotating frame does, another doesn't "include SR, what is the unambiguous rule? . Sounds like a double standard of convenience of sorts here . Some rotating frames are inertial wrt SRT some are not? Hmmmm.. Take your laser into the 30 k km radius orbit and deterrmine the measured variation from straight-line motion of the SAT. Or measure the curvatuire of the earth, home bound. You know don't you thagt the measured surface of the earth is flat? No you are in error. he says the measurments of rotaing fromes and linear ones are identical. It was Einstein that suggested "unfoldiong "the rotating circular Sagnac. Here is a Kelly quote: "Yet another test, done by Michelson [9] (1913), confirms that light travels in relation to the laboratory. In this test he bounced light beams off rotating mirrors, which were rotating at 1800 rpm. He proved from the resulting fringe shift that: (1) the light does not bounce off such a mirror, as would a tennis ball bounce off a moving racquet. (2) light does not take up the movement of the mirror; that is, the velocity of the source of the reflected beam coming off the rotating mirror does not have any change in its velocity, caused by that moving mirror. (3) the light actually ignores the whole rotating apparatus. It moves solely with respect to the laboratory. This test is a clear confirmation that the conclusions in this paper in respect of Sagnac-type tests are correct. The accuracy of the Michelson test was 1:50." and another "During the Michelson & Gale test, the earth turned through an orbital angle of 2.3 x 10-10 degrees. So, this rotation is less by 10,000,000,000 than the frame acceptable in the H & K case." and another, " it is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line;….if we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2tv2/c2 second slow. Even though the effect he described is infinitesimally smaller than the Sagnac effect it is the argument of application, from a straight path to a curved path, that is of interest here." and another, testing the Swansont statement regarding inertial frame definitions. "In the original Sagnac test the earth would have turned 2.8 x 10-13 orbital degrees during the test. During a GPS test around the globe at the equator, the earth would have turned by 10,000,000 times the amount it turned during a Sagnac test. Pretending that SR does not apply to rotation, while at the same time applying it daily to experiments like the Global Positioning System, that has a far greater amount of rotation than the Sagnac experiment, is indefensible. We could be forgiven for saying that this is a very biased selection of what is termed an 'Inertial Frame'." and the last for now: "A recent ingenious test by Wang et al. (2003) [23] shows that the Sagnac result is also got by sending out light in a straight line portion of the light path and back again. This is what this author claimed above, but it is so much more convincing when an actual experiment has shown the same thing. Wang achieved the seemingly impossible, by reversing a light beam sent out on a straight line on a moving platform and measuring the difference in time to return." Akso. Kelly amkes the point that many derivations of the Sagnac mathematical models are shape independent. and That the observers can be on the rotaaing disc or the lab, frame the resutls are the same. Your statements regarding the "inertial frame " misunderstanding of Kelly is misplaced. I was absent for a few days so I thought I would catch to sppeed, no pun, up with some varied answers to your post.

Swansont, you do realize that we are not going to resolve the issue of the integrity of SRT by the comparitive posts we have been exchanging? Like Miller confirmed MM, were you aware of this? How do we analyze the MM analogue experiments like the one that was done in a balloon high in the atmosphere? We are treating the issue as if SRT was on trial for murder, when it isn't on trial. I have attemted in the opening post of this thread, to deascribe a system void in Sagnac and. or SRT rhetoric and/or effects. I haven't been succesful so far, . I have just completed some serious thinking on the matter and I believe I have arrived at a solution that is neither , SRT , nor Sagnac. I will be posting shortiy.