Time-Dilation and Information Theory

[Feynmanfan85]

Quote

First off energy is not a physical substance. It is the ability to perform work. This is a basic defintion that still applies today.

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.

 

Quote

 Secondly all particles are field excitations. They do not have any corpuscular (solid) portions.

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.

 

Quote

 They exhibit pointlike and wavelike characteristics but this does not mean they are little balls or bullets.

This is exactly what my model asserts.

[Mordred]

Doesn't matter what your model asserts it matters what it can qualitatively prove.

 Prove energy is anything other than the ability to perform work....

 Under GR all frames are inertial there is no absolute frame.

 Those two claims require further evidence and proofs. You will never get past a peer review without them.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

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.

[Mordred]

Neutrinos do not travel at c, they were found to have slight mass and thus travel at slightly less than c. The CERN statement otherwise a few years ago was found to be a systematic error. Neutrinos gain slight mass via the Higgs field.

 Mass being resistance to inertia change...

Here is a recognized peer review test on the upper bounds for neutrini speed compared to c

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.04328

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

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:

Quote

"A cornerstone of the theory of relativity is that there is a single limiting speed, the speed of light in a vacuum c, which cannot be exceeded. Observations of neutrinos from SN1987A[1–3] and accelerator experiments[4, 5] have set limits on the difference between the speed of neutrino propagation and that of light, all consistent with v = c. "

 

[Mordred]

No reread the paper. what do you think they mean by the fractional speed means to the constant c ?

 The fractional difference between the neutrino speed and the speed of light is determined to be [latex] (v/c−1)=(1.0±1.1)×10^{−6}[/latex]

Here is a wiki explanation that also mentions that paper...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurements_of_neutrino_speed

 Please note if a particle has invariant (rest mass out of date terminology lol) it must travel less than c otherwise it would require infinite energy.

 The relevant formula to test that youself is on that page.

 Am I to understand that you never studied SR enough to understand that massive particles cannot travel at c for precisely the reasons given above and shown in the formula on that link?

 It is tested via the LHC that particles gain mass if they have invariant (rest mass) and to reach c would require infinite energy.  They gain variant mass (old terminology relativistic mass) How else do you think accelerating two protons and smashing them together can generate particles with greater invariant mass than the combined mass of the two protons ? When you get right down to it the formulas of SR and GR are tested millions of times daily....

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

I am saying that the substance of a photon is energy

How can it be when the photon doesn't have a specific energy. The energy depends on the observer. As does time dilation, so it can't be due to some internal "processing" in the particle.

The fact you continually ignore this point suggest you realise you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

 

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. 

Why is energy a substance while momentum is a property?

What of the electric and magnetic fields of EM radiation?

 

Quote

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.

How much of a difference?

Quote

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.

What is your prediction for c?

[Feynmanfan85]

@swansont

 

Quote

Why is energy a substance while momentum is a property?

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.

Quote

What of the electric and magnetic fields of EM radiation?

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.

 

Quote

How much of a difference?

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.

 

Quote

What is your prediction for c?

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

Edited May 9, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
correction; expansion

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@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.

How does that stack up against the good evidence that we have (e.g. in matter-wave diffraction) that all matter is a wave with the deBroglie wavelength?

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

You are still stuck with the inability to have energy without any other properties. You can't have this energy without momentum, either linear or angular (spin), or the EM radiation's E and B fields.

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

Seems odd that a substance is a conserved quantity. What other substances are there at the fundamental level? What makes an electron an electron, or a neutrino a neutrino, other than energy?

 

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

What's the equation for the other case?

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

In SR it doesn't matter which reference frame you use. 

50 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

Once again we're lacking an equation and a specific prediction.

 

[Feynmanfan85]

 

@swansont

Quote

How does that stack up against the good evidence that we have (e.g. in matter-wave diffraction) that all matter is a wave with the deBroglie wavelength?

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).

 

Quote

You are still stuck with the inability to have energy without any other properties. You can't have this energy without momentum, either linear or angular (spin), or the EM radiation's E and B fields.

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.

Quote

What's the equation for the other case?

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

Once again we're lacking an equation and a specific prediction.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
clarification

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@swansont

---------------------

@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

Ok so here is a challenge then.

 

Run the equivalent equation you have in your article with the neutrino mass and tell me you won't get infinite energy lmao.

 

If your proposing otherwise you cannor use the lorentz equation as you have in your article. In other words you cannot use an equation directly from SR then state your model describes something other than what is described by relativity.

 Secondly tbe accepted view by the professional physics community is precisely what rslativity describes. Nothing moves greater than c no particle with invariant mass can move at c.

 That is the accepted view. If you believe otherwise then provide the matbematical proof that it is possible. No SR formula nor GR formula will provide that.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

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.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
correction;

[Mordred]

I dont care what you think your model states unless you can prove it under mathematics. The formulas you have in your article will not suffice to back up what your model states. Physics pays attention to the mathematics not incorrect interpretations of those formulas.

 Secondly why pray tell did you not use the relativistic Doppler formula ?

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

Quote

I dont care what you think your model states unless you can prove it under mathematics. 

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.

 

Quote

The formulas you have in your article will not suffice to back up what your model states. 

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.

 

Quote

Physics pays attention to the mathematics not incorrect interpretations of those formulas.

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.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
typo

[Mordred]

It should be obvious what I am stating take the equations you have and do a plot showing that the equations you have can produce greater than c velocity without requiring infinite energy for a particle with ANY invariant mass.

 If the equations you have cannot do so then you do not have a model....

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

@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.

  

[Mordred]

We know what you have stated we don't accept those statements as valid without further proofs.

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

As I noted above, my model is more general than SR, so a neutrino can have mass, and a velocity of c,

 

Considering you had to ask about magnetic poles along with your stated background,

and I am still waiting for you to reply to my helpful answer to your question there,

you seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of Physics.

Considering the above, what do you mean by asserting the velocity of a neutrino is c?

Do you mean the same thing that Relativity means in respect of light?

On 09/03/2018 at 5:24 PM, Feynmanfan85 said:

In my analysis, I use concepts such as the information entropy, Kolmogorov complexity, and computable functions.

Do you really understand these things?

In particular do you understand the link between information entropy and statistical mechanics?

Is it not because of this link that some of your equations come out the same as those of statmech?

Edited May 9, 2018 by studiot

[Feynmanfan85]

Quote

 

Considering you had to ask about magnetic poles along with your stated background,

and I am still waiting for you to reply to my helpful answer to your question there,

you seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of Physics.

 

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. 

 

Quote

 

Do you really understand these things?

In particular do you understand the link between information entropy and statistical mechanics?

Is it not because of this link that some of your equations come out the same as those of statmech?

 

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.

[studiot]

Well I did ask you  a serious question about Physics.

How about an answer?

 

Thank your for the information, additional to your original posts in this thread.

The point about the link between statmech and information theory is that they use they are analogs, in that they use the same mathematics (for somethings anyway).

The difference is that information theory refers to something abstract (it could be the arrangement of marks on a pice of paper) whilst statmech refers to the arrangement of concrete things.

 

(I am using abstract and concrete in their proper English language context here.)

 

The commonality is in the mathematics of the arrangements, so it is not suprising (to me at least) that some of the results carry over.

 

But what I am asking is do you know enough about the physical world to distinguish where they do and where they do not?

[Feynmanfan85]

 

Quote

 

But what I am asking is do you know enough about the physical world to distinguish where they do and where they do not?

 

 

 

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.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

Total energy? In what frame of reference?

 

1 hour ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

Also, please keep in mind we were discussing the neutrino velocity, which, according to all experimental evidence, is exactly c

No. It is consistent with c, not “exactly c”. Importantly, it is also consistent with less than c, within experimental error. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

 

@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).

A particle moving at a speed approaching c would have momentum approaching infinity and a deBroglie wavelength going to zero. There will be a point where the deBroglie wavelength is smaller than the Compton wavelength

We have chunks of energy now? How many chunks of energy in an electron?

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

 

You can certainly have energy and no momentum, just consider any stationary particle.

We are discussing photons, primarily, since you claim they are "pure energy". How can a photon be stationary? 

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

Well, yes, I agree. It's a property. You were arguing that it is a substance.

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

And I'm fine with that. 

But when you say it's a substance, I want to know why it has to have these other properties. Because then it sounds like these other properties have to be a property of energy, but as you have noted, these properties are not common to everything, so they are not properties of energy. Which leads us back to what is pure energy, without any of these other properties.

 

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

Yes, I understand that. I was asking for the one that is not the SR doppler effect equation.

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

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.

 

Thank you.

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

 

 

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.

Thank you, but

That was not the Physics question I asked.

I will repeat it since the question mark seems to have escaped you.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Considering the above, what do you mean by asserting the velocity of a neutrino is c?

The as measured velocity of a rocket ship (particle) whose velocity is approaching the magnitude, c,  behaves differently from the as measured velocity of light.

This is confirmed by physical observations.

So please answer the question in the context of your hypothesis.