The speed of light and its incongruent function

[Meneghin]

My proposition stands on the assumption that Time and Space are physically created by an electromagnetic process of expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum.

With reference to the speed of light used as a term in linear and non-linear equations, I would now like to submit for further evaluation what I have here rightly or wrongly called <incongruent function>.

Let us then see first what happens in the radiative field of the Scottish mathematician James Clerk Maxwell. In the linear field, all electromagnetic radiations are characterized by the linearity of the field which does not posses a binding energy and which runs transverse to the non-linear field; that is, to the process for the creation of time and/or space. This is clearly shown in the description of the photon, viz.:

and in general in all equations describing telecommunications and in those that handle linear optics, for example:

where “t” is the transit time of a light ray through a given substance “x”, and “n” is the refraction index of that substance.

In the non-linear field we see nothing of the kind; that is, it does not exist the so-called ray of light, what we do have instead is the gravitational field or, to put it rightly the other way around, the field where the electromagnetic process for the creation of Time and Space is operative. Moreover, in this field or else in the non-linear field, the adoption of the speed of light “c” with its implicit meaning of distance runner it does not express what is actually happening in the physical action described by a non-linear equation and it is, one might say, altogether theoretically misleading and otiose. To come to the aid of my discourse, I shall now recall the mathematical relations:

 

putting thus in relief the difference that exists between the radial speed we see in the most famous equation and in the Schwarzschild radius on the one hand and the linear speed of light of (1a) and (1b) on the other, and point out their different physical meaning, and underline as well that their physical function does not explain the fact that they are today, and always were, mathematically treated on the same footing.

As for the physical function of that “c” symbol, I would like to make clear that a ray of light may be stopped, bent, or bounced back by a common mirror for domestic use. As we all know, and as experience tells, an ordinary sheet of lead can stop, in the linear field, X-ray radiations; radiations which are much more energetic of those characterizing a ray of light.

For example, the relevant scientific literature has often represented and represents, for the benefit of the specialists and non, the sketch of a ray of light, in a candle-like re-entry towards a black hole, or if you prefer, becoming bent by the gravitational force exercised by a black hole. This sort of exercise, as I have just said, may be done by a plain mirror. There is no need, I say, we necessitate not a black hole to do it. The spectacle that a black hole would offer, if it were to exist, it would be to compress and therefore to shorten, up to invalidate the non-linear field or, what comes to the same thing, the process of temporal expansion and/or spatial extension. This would simply mean to render null and void the physical creation of our universe which is expanding in time and extending in space at the point (celestial coordinates) where it is supposed to exist a black hole.

In order to define equation (2a), I shall say that usually the total nuclear mass is always less of its own constituent particles. If, for example, we bombard with gamma radiation and split a deuterium called also deuteron or heavy hydrogen ₁²H whose molar mass is 2.01355 g mol⁻¹ into a proton and a neutron, the sum of their respective masses (proton and neutron), that is: 1.00728 and 1.00867 is 0.00240 g mol⁻¹ less than the nuclear mass as a whole. As a matter of fact, the noted difference in energies may be conveniently ascribed to the left-hand side of equation (2a) which for convenience I shall now put in a clear quantitative form, viz.;

 

where ΔE_b known as the binding energy, can be thought of as the change in internal energy needed to split the nucleus. In defining equation 2a, I wanted to put in relief how the speed of light, which can go from here to the Moon in less than a second, has been incongruently employed within the radial energy of the nucleus of an atom. What is, I may ask, its physical function with respect to the force of attraction of two or more protons inside the nucleus of an atom? How can we explain that to know the force required to separate two protons we must multiply their binding energy by the speed of light squared (c²)? The linear speed of light in the nucleus of an atom, inside this <invisible niche> makes no sense, no sense at all. It would make a lot of sense though if, and only if, we can change the deceiving semblance of that c² and clothe it with its rightful physical nature, with its radial non-linear function which in the case under consideration is rightly operating inside of a nucleus whose energy becomes weaker and weaker as we move out and away from its core.

To round off for the closing, my argument shouldn’t leave any doubts in our mind that the physical action of the “c” symbol that we see in (1a) and in (1b) and the one that we see in (2a) and (2b) is not the same. In other words, the speed of light in the form we have inherited it from the days of Maxwell, and with its linearity tag acquired and promoted by relativity, it does not belong in equations operating in the non-linear field.

When all is said and done, it is not hard to see that the speed of light as a distance runner is not the same speed of light used since the beginning of last century as the gravitational potential. While the former is an expression of electromagnetic radiation whose constant energy is frequency-dependent and which runs transverse to the physical process for the creation of time and space; the latter is the process itself covering the full range of frequencies and the physical make-up of which is characterized by bonded energy which can never be shielded by a sheet of lead or by a whole planet made of lead. A binding energy alien to any electromagnetic signal the way it came down to us, as a mathematical construct, from Maxwell.

The speed of light, or what may be rightly called the radial speed of the physical process of creation is another thing altogether. Here, we see strength, we feel a push, we perceive a display of might, we sense an energy progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength. This is not just an amorphous ray of light, we are talking about. This is a mechanism of creation for the expansion of time and the extension of space. This is a physical electromagnetic process with a reality of its own; it exists in free (optical) space <universal expansion>, it coexists in matter <E=mc²> and it is therefore the prime constituent of all there is in the universe.

[JCS]

I suspect that you are on track with the proposed relationship between electromagnetic radiation and the creation of time-spacial dimensions. A model of my own leads to similar conclusions. I should point out (if this will help any) a major discovery made by Louis De Brogle that I later rediscovered independently involving the ever so popular energy equation. This finding, if you are led to argee with it, will most assuredly effect your model in many positive ways.

 

It involves the c² component, and the phase velocity of light. Without going into great detail, I will show the values and permit you to draw your own conclusions.

 

phase velocity :V, group velocity:c, photon momentum:P, photon mass:M, energy:E, wavelength:W, frequency:v, planck's constant:h

 

V=W * v, P=Mc, P=h/W, E=h * v

 

thus;

 

V= W * v, P= h/W, (W * v) * h/W = h * v = E = V * P, P= M * c

 

meaning that;

 

thus V *(M * c)=E, not M * c²

In other words, E=McV, not Mc²

Louis De Broglie's equation was E=P*V, of which equals McV.

 

The reason why E=Mc² still works is due to the fact that c (determined by the measured group velocity of EMR) will always equal V (the phase velocity of EMR) when EMR is traveling through a vacuum. (And most physics equations set the value for c at the speed in which light travels in an empty medium.) This falls into error when light isn't in an empty medium. Under such sircumstances, the EMR group velocity will slow, while the phase velocity will increase. It will generate the same value as c² in vacuum but for different reasons. In my own work, there are two forms of time-space that in combination create "phasic" time-space (name derived from a vector with spin, called a phasor.) I attributed the group velocity of light "c" as a function for linear time-space, and the phase velocity of light as a function for "curved" or angular time-space.

 

Such a model divines many rich conclusions that are observed to be physically true and yet still considered to be anomalous in nature by present day physics.

 

I originally wasn't going to explain as much, but I couldn't help it.

Edited March 23, 2011 by JCS

[Meneghin]

The reason why E=Mc² still works is due to the fact that c (determined by the measured group velocity of EMR) will always equal V (the phase velocity of EMR) when EMR is traveling through a vacuum. (And most physics equations set the value for c at the speed in which light travels in an empty medium.) This falls into error when light isn't in an empty medium. Under such sircumstances, the EMR group velocity will slow, while the phase velocity will increase. It will generate the same value as c² in vacuum but for different reasons. In my own work, there are two forms of time-space that in combination create "phasic" time-space (name derived from a vector with spin, called a phasor.) I attributed the group velocity of light "c" as a function for linear time-space, and the phase velocity of light as a function for "curved" or angular time-space.

Hello JCS,

First I must apologise for the delayed answer, I was off the air for a few weeks. Secondly, I thank you for pointing out de Broglie’s work, I knew about it and some of it comes from his 1924 Phd work. My own experience is that getting into details it gets you nowhere. You can see it yourself. You have put the accent on the paramount importance of linear speed as against radial speed. They ignored you. Nobody commented. Some because don’t know and some others prefer to keep on talking of linear speed inside the atom and even worst inside the nucleus.

Tomorrow I am going to post something interesting, something to do with E=mc², something to do with the speed of light running linearly in metres per second while working inside the nucleus. If you have some time on hand, let me know please what you think about it.

Don’t forget JCS, in 1907 it suited Einstein and his theory to dismiss the ether and promote the “vacuum” which is Latin for empty, wanting, vacant. More than a century later, the last fifty years of which have seen space to be not empty, they are still talking of “vacuum”. What does it mean “energy of the emptiness”? That’s the way the cookies crumble, my friend. Meanwhile I am an outsider and an outlaw.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Meneghin

[JCS]

I'm quite anxous to read more of your own work in greater detail. In the study of electromagnetic radiation's radial non linear field, you have clearly exceeded my own depth of present study.

[Meneghin]

I'm quite anxous to read more of your own work in greater detail.

 

Hello JCS,

I have read you with pleasure. Would you now please have a look at my cone-like figure in my thread <the most famous equation of them all> here in the “Speculation” forum. Notice that all radiations (linear field) run orthogonal to gravitation (non-linear field) or, if you see it the other way around, the expanding/extending field (again non-linear field). In my view, this is a grand step towards resolving the unified field theory or theory of everything which Einstein tried to unravel a hundred years ago and which modern Physical Science is unable to solve. You are a theoretical physicist, JCS, take my simple idea, elaborate on it, amplify it and tell the world with a mathematical language why the four forces of nature cannot be unified.

[JCS]

Indeed, the challenge has been presented and the pathway carefully laid out before me. Like standing at the base of Mount Everest before the climb, this journey will be a difficult one.

[Meneghin]

Hello John,

I am glad to hear about your working plans laying ahead of you. With reference to the nonlinear field, for the experts out there it only means a second power transformation such as t = (tʹ)²/(1−v²/c²)^½ where intervals between events given for example by the ticking of a clock in a new frame will not be equally spaced as they were before transformation. John, my view is that one needs first a perspicacious mind to probe into the meandering secrets of mother nature and then apply to it the mathematical language. To be a physicist you need the first, to be a mathematician you need the second, and to be a successful physicist you need both.

[JCS]

I am endeavoring to obtain those goals. It may be the math portion that I am weakest at. I have to fully comprehend mathematical concepts, or I feel like I don't understand them at all. I did come across the explanation of a nonlinear field being a second power transformation in Hermann Weyl's "Space Time Matter." This was one of the first true physics books that I came to acquire. It would do well for my self to study this book in greater detail.

Edited April 14, 2011 by JCS

[Meneghin]

Hello there,

Yes, John, I think it’s a good idea to get stuck into that book. I have myself the first American printing of the fourth edition (1922). Weyl together with Hilbert were the two great mathematicians of their time. In principle I always thought that the closer you describe nature the less maths you need.

[JCS]

Wow, that's an intriguing thought. On the inverse side of it, I came across a comment somewhere that the equation for describing all things is zero. (or something like that) I suppose if one were to combine all values of all number sets (rational, irrational, real, imaginary, transcendental, etc) perhaps it would indeed equal the very least complex value possible. Perhaps the value of zero represents the simplest equation for the ultimate mathematical problem. Or would it besomething else like the infinite root of infinity?

 

The answer would likely involve infinite symmetry of all values. Perhaps it's the degree of the question, that's really in question.

 

 

Sorry about all of that, I'm just thinking out loud.

[Meneghin]

JCS,

Was off the air, I had to make 2 overseas family trips. Thinking aloud alerts the brain, methink. Mathematical wanderings help to construct the physical concept which in most cases is determinant.