Time-Dilation and Information Theory

[MigL]

Other than the differing opinion that energy can be treated as a 'substance' ( and not a property ) which makes no sense, the biggest stumbling block seems to be that energy is frame dependent. Your treatment doesn't take that into consideration.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting approach.

I haven't read your paper, but, can information be made frame dependent ?
I mention this because information is a conserved quantity in QM, but it is not in Relativity.

If your treatment could be made frame dependent, it might give further insight of links between GR and QFT, and possibly provide a way towards a quantum gravity theory ( could your 'chunks' of energy be equivalent to the loops of LQG ??? ).

[Feynmanfan85]

Hi @MigL

Information is actually a conserved quantity in my model as well. And I present a theory of time-dilation due to gravity that is consistent with the general theory of relativity. However, my model of gravity is due to quantized "chunks" of energy interacting with systems. I think of my model as a potential "bridge" between SR, GR and QM, and if you have expertise in QM, I would greatly appreciate your insight.

I'm not sure why energy or information has to be made frame dependent, so if you could expand upon that a bit I think it would be helpful Also, though I understand your initial skepticism, I think by actually reading the paper you'd find that assuming that energy is a substance explains quite a bit, though it may seem odd initially.

@swansont

I think this is the core of our misunderstanding:

Quote

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.

In my model, energy is a substance that contains information, it doesn't simply exist on its own. It's analogous to a unit of memory that contains information. Each "chunk" of energy is like a tiny writable disk. The properties coded for in the energy of a particle characterize the properties of the particle overall. So for example, in an electron, there will be some number of "chunks" of energy, each of which contain the information that characterizes the overall properties of the electron. This means that the chunks of energy within an electron will collectively code for charge, causing the electron to have charge.  In that sense, all other properties are in fact properties of energy, but not in the traditional sense. Rather, these properties exist because the information contained in the energy of a particle causes these properties to manifest. If we "flip the switches" on the codes within an electron, it could turn into some other particle altogether. This is how my model views particle decay, photon photon collisions, and electron positron annihilations - in each case, the codes within the energy contained in a particle changes, causing the properties of the particle to change. It's like rewriting the information on a disk - the program / particle will behave differently, and have different properties, after its code is changed. Another analogy is DNA: the energy of a particle is its DNA. If you change the DNA, you change the particle. The amount of energy in a particle is, in my model, really just a measure of the amount of information it contains.

 

Time-dilation in the case of particle decay occurs because it becomes less likely that these codes change as a particle gains kinetic energy. This happens because the particle's kinetic energy, which codes for motion, uses up the particle's "bandwidth", slowing down the processing of the particle's own information (which is contained in its mass).

Quote

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.

That's if we use the relativistic momentum - I just meant that the two formulas become consistent if you swap v with c, using the classical momentum of a particle.

 

Quote

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

I'd state the formula from my paper, but it will look like nonsense without reading the rest of the paper. The gist is there's some minimum quantized energy in my model, just like there's a minimum quantized charge. Let's call this minimum energy E_0. If m is the mass of an electron, then it's mass energy is E = mc². Assume the electron is stationary, with a kinetic energy of zero (motion is not relative in my model, so this means it literally has no kinetic energy). The number chunks of energy in my model is simply E/E_0. That is, you take the mass energy, and you divide by the minimum energy, and that gives you the number of chunks. 

Since each chunk of energy contains the same amount of information, the amount of information contained in an electron is given by M E/E_0, where M is a constant I discuss in my paper. This is the amount of information you need to "produce" an electron, generating a particle with the right mass, charge, spin, etc.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
typo

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

I'm not sure why energy or information has to be made frame dependent

I have asked you about this several times. It is pretty obvious that energy is frame or observer dependent.

Let's imagine an observer looking at an object moving past with a speed of 2 m/s and a mass of 1 kg. They will calculate the kinetic energy to be 2 J.

Now imagine a second observer travelling at a speed of 1 m/s past the first observer (in the same direction as the object). They will calculate the KE as 1 J.

Now suppose there is a third observer moving at 2 m/s (in other words, not moving wrt to the object). They will say that the kinetic energy is 0.

How does the object know how much energy it has and hence how much "processing" it has to do to get the corresponding time dilation?

[Feynmanfan85]

@Strange

 

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

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

Also, motion is absolute in my model

What evidence do you have for this? How does one determine absolute motion?

What is the the reference for "absolutely stationary"? How do you know that? How fast is the Earth (or the galaxy) moving with respect to that reference?

How do you explain that all tests for Lorentz violation have not found any such thing? (To ludicrous levels of accuracy, in some cases.)

[Feynmanfan85]

@Strange

 

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

[studiot]

That is an interesting conversation you are having with Strange, and to a lesser extent with swansont.

What do they have that I don't, especially as your current conversation has a bearing on that question of mine you keep avoiding.

Perhaps you only read the current page here and don't check if there were any replies since you last visited, but I spelled out the question yet again in the last post on the previous page.

So please check back and answer the question.

 

[MigL]

I am not slamming your ideas as downright delusional, but as Strange points out, energy IS measurably frame dependent.
That, and the notion of an absolute frame, need to be amended.

I don't know how more 'constructive' I can be.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

It is not necessarily Lorentz invariance that needs to be tested

It is, because your hypothesis violates it.

1 hour ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

The differences from SR would be very, very small, and as far as I'm aware, well beyond the precision of any experiment that has been conducted to date.

How small? How about 10^-35? Is that good enough for you?

Or, I guess, you don't really know how small. You just hoped that it is too small to test so you can't be proved wrong...

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@Strange

 

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

 

 Haven't you figured out, we heard this statement the first time. Simply repeating tgis statement does not make your model work. Nor does it mean energy is not frame dependent. 

 Nor does it mean there is an absolute frame. The onus is your responsibility to qualitatively prove GR and SR is wrong about those two criteria.

 The proof on our behalf exists in far too many tests to even list them all. GR has an incredibly high sigma confidence level that its nearly impossible to consider as being inaccurate on the two points above.

 You also ignored my statement that the relativity based equations you posted DO NOT SUPPORT your model. So they do not work with ypur descriptives. 

 Did you never hear of a mathematical proof before conducting actual tests? Prove your formulas will do what you described then do actual tests on their validity. 

 For example.

HOW DOES YOUR MODEL NOT TREAT ENERGY AS FRAME DEPENDANT AND YOUR FORMULAS USE DOPPLERBSHIFT ????????? DOPPLER shift itself is a frame dependant application......

 Do you even understand your own formulas yeesh. It is an am influence on a signal measurement due to the motion of the emitter compared to the receivers frame of reference.....

So if energy isn't frame dependent then why the blooming bugger did you include a doppler formula ?

A frequency change is a change in energy to an observer if this were not true there would never have been a need for the Doppler formula in the first place...

 There your paper has just been proven wrong as your premise is incorrect.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

@Strange

There is a specific set of criteria that have been developed for testing Lorentz violations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension

I am saying that testing my model is much simpler, and requires only that we move a detector towards a light source. This is not a sophisticated experiment. 

If SR's predictions for the observed frequency are closer to the actual observed frequency than my model's predictions, then I'm probably wrong. However, this experiment has never been performed (to my knowledge) to the accuracy required to test my model.

Your "10^-35?" has no units, so I can't answer that question.

For substantial velocities, and substantial frequencies of light, the difference between my model and SR is on the order of 10^-6eV in the case of a Doppler shift. That is the range of accuracy that is required to test my model, which is certainly doable given current technology.

 

@MigL @Mordred

 

In Newtonian, and Relativistic physics, the quantity that you can't measure is velocity. That is, if you're in a given inertial frame, you can't know your "true" velocity, since all motion is relative. This has been the assumption for a long time, and I am very aware that it predates even Newton. In my model, energy is the "hidden variable" that generally cannot be measured. In contrast, I propose a method for experimentally measuring absolute velocity, by measuring the velocity of light, that makes use of time-dilation. This is set forth in Section 5 of my paper.

Also, note that your statement that energy is "measurably" frame dependent is only true because you are using equations that assume energy is a particular function of velocity or heat. My equation relating energy and velocity is very abstract, and allows for different particles to have different relationships between their energies and their velocities, all using a single equation. For example, the velocity of a photon is fixed, regardless of its energy. This is generally not the case for most particles in the standard model. 

@studiot

Apologies, I'm getting a lot of "dings" on this thread. What question would you like me to address?

 

@Mordred

 

Quote

HOW DOES YOUR MODEL NOT TREAT ENERGY AS FRAME DEPENDANT AND YOUR FORMULAS USE DOPPLERBSHIFT ????????? DOPPLER shift itself is a frame dependant application......

Not in my model, it's simply dependent upon the observed frequency of light. If you're going fast towards a source, you will objectively experience a shorter amount of time between wavefronts. This is simply common sense prevailing over philosophy. If waves come in towards a beach once every second, and you run out into the water, towards the waves, you will get hit with wavefronts at a frequency that is greater than once per second. My model takes this same, common sense approach to light waves, and generates equations that are nearly identical to SR.

I would suggest you just read Section 3.5 of my paper, as it is only a 5 or 6 pages long, and contains the bulk of the information that relates to your questions.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Feynmanfan85
expansion; clarification

[Mordred]

I reead your paper as written the physics section is garbage lmao. Everyone is telling you your errors while you keep parroting not in my model, yey you don't mathematically define any of the required physics to support your model for testability.

 doppler shift is only one form of redshift what about gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler or Cosmological redshift. The causes may be different but the effect is identical.

 Are you going to throw out those too because they will not work with your supposed lack of model.

What about the electromagnetic coupling constant that the photons mediate? Does your non standard energy and mass terms work with tbose? 

 Is your model of any use whatsoever with its incompatibilities wirh standard physics?

 Can you even calculate the amount of work done by a sysyem with your non standard energy ?

 Statimg that the frequency of light is observer dependent and stating its energy is not when the energy of a photon depends on its frequency is absolutely foolish. Try actually studying what is involved in in the formulas you posted from standard models first and foremost.

 ie the following relations 

[latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex]

 Quantum information theory is an excellent model it pays close attention to actual physics and its definitions. Its incredibly diverse in its applications. Its readily usable particularly with QFT.

 Your model however does not.

 Go ahead try to prove me wrong in my assessment of your paper...

Edited May 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Feynmanfan85]

@Mordred

To quote you:

Quote

I reead your paper ...

Yet you also say,

Quote

 doppler shift is only one form of redshift what about gravitational redshift or the relativistic Doppler

I address both of these topics, so you obviously did not read my paper. In fact, the relativistic Doppler shift is addressed in the same section as the general Doppler shift.
 

I've tolerated your uninformed belligerence, but going forward, I'm not going to respond unless you have something of substance to say, written in some comprehensible human language, and not the gibberish you've been spouting so far.

 

That uninformed, anonymous people like you are allowed to pretend to be experts on anything at all is a serious problem for the dissemination of information online, because unlike me, most people would probably take you seriously.

 

 

[Mordred]

Well my master degree in Cosmology and Bachelors in particle physics states differently try again. You even have another poster telling you your incorrect with a PH.D

[Feynmanfan85]

It is not the alphabetical characters that purportedly follow your name that concern me, it is substance that is missing from your words.

 

You obviously lied about reading my paper. Why bother responding, just go do something else.

[Mordred]

ppI have read your paper, enough to know how wrong it is. However don't believe me it matters not to me.

Here is the mathematical proof for Doppler shifts, this is the level I asked for you to perform the other day.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1HAM.pdf

its not the greatest paper the textbooks tend to have better but it will suffice

Though this one is a typical classroom lesson plan

https://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2130/phys2130_sp12/lecture_pdfs/class08_Lorentz_transformation velocity addition.pdf

 I prefer the one done by Islam in Msthematical methods of Cosmology but I don't feel like doing a bunch of latex tonight

Though if I recall Master Geodesics paper has a good write up let me check 

Have you done that Plot I asked for on infinite energy yet????

Edited May 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

Your "10^-35?" has no units, so I can't answer that question.

That was deliberate. To match the vagueness of your claims.

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

For substantial velocities, and substantial frequencies of light, the difference between my model and SR is on the order of 10^-6eV in the case of a Doppler shift. That is the range of accuracy that is required to test my model, which is certainly doable given current technology.

What is "substantial"?

You could check if any of these meet your goal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

Not in my model, it's simply dependent upon the observed frequency of light. If you're going fast towards a source, you will objectively experience a shorter amount of time between wavefronts. This is simply common sense prevailing over philosophy. If waves come in towards a beach once every second, and you run out into the water, towards the waves, you will get hit with wavefronts at a frequency that is greater than once per second. My model takes this same, common sense approach to light waves, and generates equations that are nearly identical to SR.

So are you saying that the energy of a photon is not related to its frequency?

 

7 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

In contrast, I propose a method for experimentally measuring absolute velocity, by measuring the velocity of light, that makes use of time-dilation. This is set forth in Section 5 of my paper.

I assume you mean section 4. 

This appears to be the standard Michelson Morley experiment. This has been repeated to increasing levels of accuracy over the years (see the link above for details). How much more accurate do these need to be?

[swansont]

On 5/9/2018 at 1:00 PM, Feynmanfan85 said:

 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.

So what you are saying is that the frequency will be different for a moving source vs moving detector. If an atom absorbs light while it's moving, the frequency of the absorbed light and re-emitted light is going to be different. What happens to that energy, or where does the energy come from (depending on the direction of the photon)?

 

[Mordred]

I still don't understand why he uses gamma for time dilation but specifies in his paper he doesn't include length contraction lol. Far too many oddball ideas in the paper to deal with them all at once.

 Can't see how that can work lmao. Not on a coordinate basis.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

12 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@studiot

Apologies, I'm getting a lot of "dings" on this thread. What question would you like me to address?

 

12 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

In Newtonian, and Relativistic physics, the quantity that you can't measure is velocity. That is, if you're in a given inertial frame, you can't know your "true" velocity, since all motion is relative. This has been the assumption for a long time, and I am very aware that it predates even Newton. In my model, energy is the "hidden variable" that generally cannot be measured. In contrast, I propose a method for experimentally measuring absolute velocity, by measuring the velocity of light, that makes use of time-dilation. This is set forth in Section 5 of my paper.

Also, note that your statement that energy is "measurably" frame dependent is only true because you are using equations that assume energy is a particular function of velocity or heat. My equation relating energy and velocity is very abstract, and allows for different particles to have different relationships between their energies and their velocities, all using a single equation. For example, the velocity of a photon is fixed, regardless of its energy. This is generally not the case for most particles in the standard model. 

 

 

This second quote was not addressed to me but seems to me to be the most coherent and cogent statement you have made here.

It begins to address my question about your use of the term 'velocity', which I will reproduce yet again for your convenience.
It also introduces some useful thoughts for comments to help you communicate since I am beginning to get an idea of what you are talking about.

But please answer my question since I believe you are using some terms in an unconventional way and confusing many responders including myself.

I have emboldened the original question but reproduced the quote where I added further explanation.

On 09/05/2018 at 9:31 PM, studiot said:

Thank you, but

That was not the Physics question I asked.

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

On 09/05/2018 at 7:44 PM, 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.

 

[Feynmanfan85]

@swansont

 

Quote

So what you are saying is that the frequency will be different for a moving source vs moving detector. If an atom absorbs light while it's moving, the frequency of the absorbed light and re-emitted light is going to be different. What happens to that energy, or where does the energy come from (depending on the direction of the photon)?

 

That is exactly right. Energy is conserved in all cases, it is just a consequence of the frequency with which light is incident upon the detector. If the source is moving towards the detector, in the direction of its light, then the wavefronts will be compressed, causing a Doppler shift up in frequency. This doesn't change the amount of energy ejected by the source over any interval of time, it simply changes the rate at which energy is incident upon the detector (in my model each wavefront carries the energy of a lightwave).

If the detector is moving towards the source, the same reasoning applies. That is, since the relative velocity of light is not fixed in my model, a detector that is moving towards the source will get hit by wavefronts at a faster rate, causing an increase in the observed frequency. This is consistent with the classical doppler effect, and therefore, my model makes use of the classical Doppler equations, even in the case of light waves.

However, my model also implies that time-dilation will occur both in a moving source, and a moving detector. In the case of a moving source, the rate at which energy is ejected by the source will be decreased. That is, if the source ejects E Joules of light energy per 1 second when stationary, then it will take (1 + s) seconds for the source to eject E joules when moving, where s is the amount of time-dilation that corresponds to its velocity. The result is that the frequency of light ejected by the source is downshifted.

A moving detector will also experience time-dilation, and the analysis is similar to a moving source. In the case of a moving detector, the rate at which energy hits the detector is obviously unaffected by time-dilation, since the motion of the detector has absolutely no effect on the source. However, I assume that the rate at which energy is exchanged by the atoms within the detector is affected by time-dilation, in the same way a moving source is affected. That is, it takes longer for the energy that hits the surface of the detector to make its way through the detector,  since the atoms within the detector exchange less energy per unit of time, ultimately resulting in a lower observed frequency.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Feynmanfan85

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

That is exactly right. Energy is conserved in all cases, it is just a consequence of the frequency with which light is incident upon the detector. If the source is moving towards the detector, in the direction of its light, then the wavefronts will be compressed, causing a Doppler shift up in frequency. This doesn't change the amount of energy ejected by the source over any interval of time, it simply changes the rate at which energy is incident upon the detector (in my model each wavefront carries the energy of a lightwave).

It is not clear from this if you are still maintaining the (very well tested) relationship between energy and wavelength of photons or not.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

@swansont

That is exactly right. Energy is conserved in all cases, it is just a consequence of the frequency with which light is incident upon the detector. If the source is moving towards the detector, in the direction of its light, then the wavefronts will be compressed, causing a Doppler shift up in frequency. This doesn't change the amount of energy ejected by the source over any interval of time, it simply changes the rate at which energy is incident upon the detector (in my model each wavefront carries the energy of a lightwave).

 

If a moving atom absorbs a 1 eV photon which has some frequency, you seem to be saying that the moving atom emitting the photon from that same transition, will do so at a different frequency.

There's only one photon here. There is no "rate of photons" to worry about. I don't see how energy is conserved.

 

 

[Feynmanfan85]

Quote

If a moving atom absorbs a 1 eV photon which has some frequency, you seem to be saying that the moving atom emitting the photon from that same transition, will do so at a different frequency.

There's only one photon here. There is no "rate of photons" to worry about. I don't see how energy is conserved.

My model treats light, and all particles generally, as waves. A photon is in my model a discrete set of wavefronts in series. Put informally, it's a "horizontal particle" that consists of some finite number of wavefronts. The tighter the wavefronts are packed into the photon, the greater the frequency, and the greater the total energy of the photon (each wavefront carries an equal amount of energy). To analogize, if you were standing at a beach, and a series of 10 equally sized waves in row all hit you, and then no waves followed afterward, that would be similar to what happens when a photon hits an atom in my model. It's a discrete amount of energy, but it's not all delivered at once, but is instead delivered over a very short period of time.

So if, as in your example, an atom absorbs a single 1 eV photon, it means that a finite series of wavefronts with a total energy of 1 eV have smashed into the atom. If that atom is moving, then it can still eject all of that energy, but not as a single photon. That is, it will eject all of the wavefronts from the incoming photon, but over a longer period of time than it would have if it were stationary. As a result, the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy, but the amount of time it takes for the outgoing energy to get ejected is longer than it would have been if the atom were stationary. As a result, the frequency of the outgoing photons is lower than the frequency of the incoming photon.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Feynmanfan85

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Feynmanfan85 said:

My model treats light, and all particles generally, as waves. A photon is in my model a discrete set of wavefronts in series. Put informally, it's a "horizontal particle" that consists of some finite number of wavefronts. The tighter the wavefronts are packed into the photon, the greater the frequency, and the greater the total energy of the photon (each wavefront carries an equal amount of energy). To analogize, if you were standing at a beach, and a series of 10 equally sized waves in row all hit you, and then no waves followed afterward, that would be similar to what happens when a photon hits an atom in my model. It's a discrete amount of energy, but it's not all delivered at once, but is instead delivered over a very short period of time.

So if, as in your example, an atom absorbs a single 1 eV photon, it means that a finite series of wavefronts with a total energy of 1 eV have smashed into the atom. If that atom is moving, then it can still eject all of that energy, but not as a single photon. That is, it will eject all of the wavefronts from the incoming photon, but over a longer period of time than it would have if it were stationary. As a result, the incoming energy equals the outgoing energy, but the amount of time it takes for the outgoing energy to get ejected is longer than it would have been if the atom were stationary. As a result, the frequency of the outgoing photons is lower than the frequency of the incoming photon.

So E = hf is wrong, according to you?

You're contradicting a whole lot of physics, with no actual experimental evidence in sight