Word Clearing (old)

words3

Please see Word Clearing.

When there is confusion in the study materials, the first thing to do is to isolate the area of confusion and check the understanding of the words used to explain that area. Hopefully that would handle the confusion or, at least, narrow it down. This is because

Words and symbols form our basic understanding.

A word can have different definitions and many shades of them. The cause of the confusion is obvious when the definition of a word is not known. The cause, however, is difficult to trace when you know the definition but you don’t know that it is the wrong one. The context of the word may be such that it requires a definition, or a shade of definition, which is different from the one you are using.

It is the tendency of the mind to fill the missing definition by some preconceived projection. Therefore, it is very important to examine the standard definitions of the word. The following procedure helps determine the correct definitions for words in study materials.

1.    Determine the broad concept of the word.

See how the broad concept of the word fits in the present context. You may find the broad concept listed under ‘history’, ‘origin’, or ‘derivation’ of the word in a dictionary. The following broad concepts for some words are taken from “Dictionary of Word Origins” by John Ayto

The word STUDY comes from a Latin word meaning “eagerness, intense application”.

The word MATHEMATICS comes from a Greek word meaning “something learned”.

The word ARITHMETIC comes from Greek, ARITHMOS number + TECHNE skill, which means “number skill”.

2.    Look up the definitions of the word.

Look up the standard definitions provided for that word in a good but simple dictionary. Visualize the definitions as you look them up. You may sketch diagrams on paper, or make models with bits and pieces, or even make detailed models with clay.

To get a better idea you may bring up the images for that word on the Internet. Make examples of different definitions to understand the differences, and demonstrate them to obtain clarity.

Use the word in your own sentences to get further clarity on a definition. Relate the different definitions to your experiences to make them real.

4.    Look up words in definitions as necessary.

If a definition contains a word that is not quite clear then look it up per this procedure. This may sometime get you in a chain of words. List the words as you look them up, and cross them out as they are cleared up. It is okay to look up the same word many times. Each time you look it up you may pick up a new dimension to its meaning.

5.    Determine the definition that fits the context.

Once you have understood the basic concept and have adequately examined all the definitions of the word, determine the definition that fits the context the best. Then review that area to see if the confusion has cleared up.

Keep examining the definition of words in that area until the confusion clears up fully. Continue with the next step of subject clearing.

.

April 24, 2017 – 8:24 PM Categories: Education | Comments (1)

Einstein’s 1905 Paper on Relativity (Part 2)

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

This version is obsolete.

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

This is continuation of the examination of Einstein’s postulates underlying his theory of Relativity, specifically, how these postulates were translated into his mathematics.

Einstein’s 1905 paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#tex2html1

.

I. KINEMATICAL PART – § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

“Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the ‘stationary system’.” 

Einstein takes up a system of co­ordinates in which equations of Newtonian mechanics hold well. These he calls inertial frames in which a body remains at rest or moves with constant linear velocity unless acted upon by forces. This property of a body is called inertia.

Inertia represents the resistance to change in motion of a body in space. When this resistance is overcome there is acceleration. We have assumed all along that space is completely permeable to matter. This is not so as evidenced by inertia.

Therefore, matter is ‘stationary’ relative to space when there is no acceleration. All inertial frames in “uniform motion” are actually stationary relative to space. This we identified earlier as the space reference frame (SRF).

“If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.”

A particle is essentially a disturbance propagating through space. This particle of disturbance has a configuration. As the complexity of this configuration increases, the inertia of the particle also increases, and its speed of propagation decreases. A light particle has the simplest configuration and its speed of propagation is ‘c’. An electron is a particle of complex configuration, whose speed is less than 1% of the speed of light. A neutron is a still more complex particle whose speed is thousand times still less.

Einstein’s “material point” refers to a matter particle that has a configuration more complex than that of a neutron. In its most complex configuration a matter particle shall have a speed that is infinitesimal compared to ‘c’. Euclidean geometry and Cartesian co-ordinates apply only to this extreme case of a matter particle. They do not apply to light particles.

All motion considered by Einstein is in reference to matter. This we identified earlier as the material reference frame (MRF). MRF represents a limiting case of a more general SRF that addresses a much wider range of particle configurations.

“If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by ‘time.’ We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, ‘That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,’ I mean something like this: ‘The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events’.”

The natural speed of propagation in space then depends on the complexity of configuration of a disturbance as particle. This we perceive as motion that is balanced by the inertia of the particle. Any change in this balance is perceived as acceleration. Acceleration implies presence of force.

Motion is described by the property of TIME. Time essentially describes the sequence of change. A change is referred back to the previous step in the sequence. Thus, time lies in the continuity of a sequence, and it is unique to the configuration of that sequence.

To compare two time sequences in terms of simultaneity they must have comparable configurations. This is reflected in comparability in terms of inertia of the particles. The property of time shall then be a function of inertia. The “time” that we are used to is tied with the material level of inertia. In other words, our experience of time depends on the inertial characteristic of MRF (material reference frame).

The “time” associated with light shall depend on the configuration of the light particle or its inertia. To consider simultaneity of time for matter and light particles, their relative inertia shall have to be taken into account.

“It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of ‘time’ by substituting ‘the position of the small hand of my watch’ for ‘time.’ And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.”

The “time characteristics” of particles of different inertia shall be measurable from a “particle” that has no inertia.  Such a particle may be postulated as “undisturbed space”. We can then assess the “simultaneity” of two particles by determining their “time characteristics” in terms of their inertia.

The complexity of configuration, and thus the inertia of a particle may be measured in terms of “disturbance levels” as described earlier in The Disturbance Theory. On this scale the disturbance level of zero is a frequency of 1. The disturbance level of 77.6 represents a neutron. All higher disturbance levels represent matter. Earth has a disturbance level of about 235.

At the disturbance levels of matter the wavelength, period and speed become infinitesimal; and the sinusoidal variations in time and space become imperceptible. Time and space then acquire an appearance of constancy that does not exist at electrodynamic and quantum levels.

“We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.”

The idea of observer basically represents the characteristics of the reference frame that is being used to interpret motion. The time measured by Einstein’s clocks follows the inertial characteristics of matter. To combine the velocity of light with material velocity would be equivalent to assuming light to have same inertial characteristics as matter. Any mathematics that combines the velocity of light with material velocity using simple addition or subtraction shall lead to erroneous results. It would be like adding a penny to a dollar and calling it two coins of same magnitude.

Unfortunately, Einstein’s mathematics does just that in the rest of this section. We shall skip this mathematics and focus on those aspects of Einstein’s theory that make correct predictions of physical phenomena. Hopefully, a closer look at such aspects will provide better insight into Einstein’s thinking.

[To be continued…]

.

April 19, 2017 – 10:02 AM Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

Einstein’s 1905 Paper on Relativity (Part 1)

17992213_10101196502121958_5555825604982154806_n

This version is obsolete.

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

This examination of Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity (see the link below) is being carried out to see if Einstein’s original postulates can be modified to bring better consistency among the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics.

Einstein’s 1905 paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#tex2html1

Please note that the indented text below is from Einstein’s paper.

.

INTRODUCTION

“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.”

This introductory paragraph from the paper mentions asymmetry observed in the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor. This asymmetry occurs in the reference frame of the lab, which results in different interpretation of the same phenomenon.

This “asymmetry” disappears when we use the magnetic lines of force, which are attached to the magnet, as the reference frame. The conductor moves relative to these lines of force the same way in either case producing the same result.

“Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.”

This paragraph states that no motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium” has been discovered. This is incorrect because the very fact of radial acceleration due to inertia is a proof of motion relatively to the “light medium”.

This “light medium” is the space itself as established by Maxwell’s equations. The very fact that the speed of light is determined exclusively by the permeability and permittivity of space establishes space as the “light medium”. Light is a disturbance in space.

It was assumed that space could not be a medium because it could not be rigid to electromagnetic waves, while being completely permeable to matter. It was not realized that space puts up resistance to motion relative to it in the form of inertia. Thus space is not completely permeable to matter. Space resists the motion of matter. This resistance shows up as inertia.

Any motion relative to space requires force and it is accompanied by acceleration. Moons are always accelerating toward their planets.  Planets are always accelerating toward their stars. Stars are always accelerating toward the center of their galaxies and so on. There may appear to be no acceleration in the direction tangential to an orbit. But there is always a radial acceleration toward some center. When there is no force or acceleration, there is no motion relative to space.

There is no uniform motion without acceleration that travels in straight line. All Newtonian or Einstenian inertial frames are actually a single frame, which is at rest relative to space. This nicely explains the Principle of Relativity.

Any motion in this single frame is resisted by inertia. A fixed velocity in this frame shall result from a balance between acceleration and inertia. The velocity of light is finite and constant because there is a balance between an electromagnetic push of disturbance and the inertia of disturbed space.

If a Michelson-Morley experiment is conducted to compare the speed of light in the direction tangential to earth’s orbit and also normal to it, it is likely to observe a difference due to the centripetal acceleration of earth. Einstein’s assumption that there is no motion of the earth relative to the “light medium” is not fully justified.

An absence of inertia may be used as an absolute rest point from which to measure motion. This would also be an absence of electromagnetic frequency. Any motion relative to space will manifest some force due to inertia as acceleration.

The phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics, has inertia as a property common between them that can be referenced from the idea of undisturbed space.

Einstein postulates as the Principle of Relativity: “The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.”

This postulate assumes that light has same magnitude of inertial characteristics as matter. This assumption is not justified.

Einstein makes another postulate: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

This postulate assumes that there is no property shared by light with the body that emits it, which control their respective velocities. This assumption is also not justified because the velocities of light and the emitting body are related by their respective inertia relative to inertialess space.

“The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.”

Essentially, Einstein uses RIGID MATTER as its reference frame. We may call it the Material Reference Frame or MRF. This reference frame does not properly account for the inertia associated with light and sub-atomic particles. It actually considers inertia of light particle (photon) to be zero.

The proper reference frame would however be SPACE. We may call it the Space Reference Frame or SRF. This reference frame shall account for the inertia associated with light and sub-atomic particles. It would not represent space by rigid coordinates. The SRF coordinate system shall take into account the varying characteristics of inertia of the particles being considered.

[To be continued…]

.

April 17, 2017 – 10:18 PM Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

The Disturbance Theory

dl10c

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

On June 9th, 1952, Einstein stated in the preface of the 15th edition of his “Relativity–The Special and General Theory”,

“In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic viewpoint. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept of “empty space” loses is meaning.”

The Disturbance Theory is based on the postulate that space, when disturbed, breaks into electric and magnetic fields. In other words, when space and time come together they transform into energy of disturbance. This transition is seamless, meaning that space, time and energy are intimately related. They show up as wavelength, period and frequency of the disturbance.

The electromagnetic spectrum represents increasing state of disturbance, which ranges from low frequency radio waves to high frequency gamma rays. The disturbance starts to condense in the range of gamma rays until it transforms into matter. In this sense, space, time, energy and matter are fundamentally related.

All stages of the electromagnetic spectrum may be found in the structure of an atom, if we consider the atomic boundary to extend all the way to space. The most condensed disturbance forms the nucleus of the atom.

Atoms may be looked upon as tiny whirlpools in the sea of electromagnetic field of disturbed space.

The above shows that not only space, time and energy are intimately related, the energy appears as mass at very high disturbance levels.

.

The Disturbance Levels

The undisturbed space has no bounds or form. It acquires a form only when it is disturbed. The disturbance appears as a dynamic electromagnetic field that has gradients of disturbance levels. A gradient of disturbance levels has the form of acceleration, force or gravity. Within a uniform disturbance level there is stillness or constant velocity.

The disturbance levels are defined by their wavelength, period and frequency. The wavelength and period maintain a constant ratio ‘c’. The frequency is the inverse of period. This may be shown symbolically as

λ / T  = c

f = 1/T

Where,   λ is the wavelength associated with space;

               T is the period associated with time;

               c is a universal constant referred to as speed of light;

 and,       f is the frequency associated with energy

The electromagnetic spectrum covers a large range of frequencies as radio and micro waves, infra-red, visible and ultra-violet light, X and Gamma ionizing radiation, and subatomic particles. These frequencies may be expressed more conveniently on a logarithmic scale of base 2. The logarithmic form of frequency is referred to as Disturbance Level (D).

D = log2 (f)

DL-Freq

DL Chart1

So we have a fundamental relationship among space, time, energy and matter.

By equating space-time with energy-mass, the Disturbance Theory hopes to bring about an interpretation that makes the theory of relativity consistent with quantum mechanics and Newton’s theory of motion.

.

Space, Time & Reality

We live on a material plane, and so we view space, time and energy from the viewpoint of matter. Our reality is the fact of matter.

Matter appears at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is highly condensed disturbance. If we look at the wavelength of disturbance as the unit of space, it is infinitesimal at the level of matter. Similarly, the unit of time as period of disturbance is also infinitesimal at the level of matter. This makes the calculus of space and time possible. But this is so at the level of matter only and not at other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. There is continuity at disturbance levels lower than matter but it is of a different sort. At these parts of the electromagnetic spectrum the wavelength and period is finite and the  reality can be very different, but we do not get to experience it ordinarily.

We live on earth. We are connected to matter all the time. Therefore, we perceive space and time in infinitesimal increments. This brings smoothness of continuity to our physical senses. It forms the basis of our knowledge. Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics has its basis in it.

But how is it out in the interstellar space? How does one experience space and time away from matter—even away from the matter of the spaceship that carried us there, or away from the matter that constitutes our bodies? What is space and time like when its units in terms of wavelength and period are no longer infinitesimal?

How do we visualize an electromagnetic field spread over vast interstellar space in which finite wavelength, period and frequency are changing dynamically. Here the gradients in frequencies bring about the sense of acceleration, force or gravity. It is like living within Faraday’s lines of force that come together, and then spread out in an eternal cosmic dance.

Like a blurred vision, the location in space and time gets blurred far from material surface of a planet. A location can be defined with pin-point precision on a material surface only. The GPS signals that travel to a satellite and back require relativistic correction. This is because the location of satellite is a bit blurred relative to the locations on earth.

The theory of relativity gets it right about the blurring of the very nature of space and time.

Dark energy and matter in the interstellar space has no reasonable explanation at the moment. The concept of disturbed space might be able to provide an explanation.

.

Mathematics

Relativistic mathematics of Einstein is based on MRF (material reference frame). The Disturbance Theory proposes mathematics based on SRF (space reference frame).  SRF math is yet to be developed. It should lead to similar space-time correction in case of the GPS signals.

MRF math uses the concept of velocity, which is applicable only for a specialized view of space and time near the surfaces of planets.

SRF math shall use the concept of disturbance levels, instead of velocity.

The concept of disturbance level is applicable to all locations near or far from planets.

.

April 8, 2017 – 11:52 AM Categories: Science | Comments (3)

The Inertial Frame and Space

Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

The Inertial Frame

In 1632, Galileo Galilei first described that in a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary. This is a nice description of an inertial frame.

An inertial frame is one in which Newton’s first law remains true. In other words, in this frame, an object stays either at rest or at a constant velocity unless a force acts on it. A non-inertial frame shall be experienced inside an accelerating rocket. In this frame Newton’s first law will not hold true.

In short, all inertial frames are in a state of constant, straight line motion with zero acceleration. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to the measurements in another by a simple transformation.

For example, suppose two cars are moving side by side at the speed of 60 mph in the same direction. The driver of each car will see the other car to be practically still. The speed of a car relative to the other would be the “algebraic difference” of their speeds: 60 – 60 = 0. If the two cars were approaching each other at 60 mph, a driver will see the other car approaching at 120 mph [60 – (–60) = 120].

NOTE: The individual speeds would have to be measured in a common reference frame, such as, earth for the above transformation to be valid.

This simple transformation shall also apply to the relative speed of disturbances moving through a medium. Here the medium stays still while the disturbance moves through it. The speed of the disturbance relative to the medium is determined by the properties of the medium.

For example, suppose a ripple on the surface of water moves at speed, R based on the properties of water. We see two ripples approaching each other, each moving on the surface of water at speed R toward the other. Their relative speed shall be: R – (–R) = 2R. The transformation is the same as in the case of cars in the previous example, because individual speeds are measured in a common reference frame of water.

Sound travels in dry air at 20°C at a speed of 343 meters per second. If two waves of sound are approaching each other, their relative speed shall be 343 x 2 = 686 meters per second. This is because the medium in which these waves are traveling (air) provides a common reference frame. By no means is this relative speed “supersonic”, because this speed is not relative to the medium.

If two beams of light were approaching each other in a medium that provided a common reference frame, similar consideration shall apply. In other words, their relative speed shall be “2c” where c is the speed of light relative to the medium. This shall not violate the limit placed by the medium on the speed of light.

In the 19th century a medium called “luminiferous ether” was postulated for light, but it could not be found in terms of its postulated mechanical properties. The absence of a mechanical medium resulted in the assumption that the relative speed of two light beams approaching each other would also be ‘c’ instead of ‘2c’. This was because no common reference frame existed in the form of a medium. This resulted in a mathematics that led to the ideas of ‘length contraction’ and ‘time dilation’.

Why couldn’t we find any medium for light? Were we looking for the wrong thing?

.

The Ether

In 1873, Maxwell’s effort to determine the relationship between electromagnetic theories and the Newton’s theory of motion resulted in the amazing discovery that light was an electromagnetic phenomenon.

Maxwell wrote in the preface to the first edition of his book A TREATISE ON ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM:

“The most important aspect of any phenomenon from a mathematical point of view is that of a measurable quantity… I have therefore thought that a treatise would be useful which should have for its principal object to take up the whole subject in a methodical manner, and which should also indicate how each part of the subject is brought within the reach of methods of verification by actual measurement… before I began the study of electricity I resolved to read no mathematics on the subject till I had first read through Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity.

“As I proceeded with the study of Faraday, I perceived that his method of conceiving the phenomena was also a mathematical one, though not exhibited in the conventional form of mathematical symbols. I also found that these methods were capable of being expressed in the ordinary mathematical forms, and thus compared with those of the professed mathematicians.

“For instance, Faraday, in his mind’s eye, saw lines of force traversing all space where the mathematicians saw centres of force attracting at a distance: Faraday saw a medium where they saw nothing but distance: Faraday sought the seat of the phenomena in real actions going on in the medium, they were satisfied that they had found it in a power of action at a distance impressed on the electric fluids.

“When I had translated what I considered to be Faraday’s ideas into a mathematical form, I found that in general the results of the two methods coincided, so that the same phenomena were accounted for, and the same laws of action deduced by both methods, but that Faraday’s methods resembled those in which we begin with the whole and arrive at the parts by analysis, while the ordinary mathematical methods were founded on the principle of beginning with the parts and building up the whole by synthesis.”

It is interesting to note that Maxwell finds Faraday’s “lines of force traversing all space” to be mathematically equivalent to other mathematician’s “centers of force attracting at a distance”. Maxwell notes, “Faraday saw a medium where they [other mathematicians] saw nothing but distance”.

Space is not “nothing” because it has the electromagnetic properties of permittivity and permeability. These properties of space determine the speed of light per Maxwell’s equations. This fact alone should be enough to convince that space is the medium through which light travels.

Why is space not considered to be the medium of light? Why can’t space be that mysterious ether?

.

The Space

According to Maxwell, light travels in space as an electromagnetic wave. This wave has the following properties.

  1. A changing electric field produces a magnetic field of force

  2. A changing magnetic field produces an electric field of force

The frequency of the electromagnetic wave is determined by the rate at which the electric and magnetic fields are interchanging back and forth in space as the wave propagates.

Let’s make the following postulate, which is quite reasonable.

“Space, when disturbed, breaks into electric and magnetic fields.”

This is similar to the observation that water, when disturbed breaks into peaks and valleys; or air, when disturbed, breaks into high and low pressure areas.

In case of the ripple in water we see the movement of peaks and valleys, but not that of water. In case of sound we see the movement of high and low pressure areas, but not that of air. We may say that in case of light we see the movement of electric and magnetic fields but not that of space.

The above postulate provides a seamless continuity from space to electromagnetic fields. How does this compare with the 19th century consideration of “luminiferous ether”?

The “luminiferous ether” was required to be elastic enough to allow light to travel. This requirement is met when we consider light to be a disturbance in space, we can see this disturbance to propagate when changing electric and magnetic fields generate each other. The problem of ether being “rigid” to electromagnetic fields is thus resolved.

But it was perceived that “luminiferous ether” was  permeable to matter, because matter could move freely through it. This “fact” was actually seen as contradictory to ether being elastic. This created confusion. Is this confusion resolved when we see space as the medium of light?

The truth seems to be that matter cannot move freely through space.  Matter encounters resistance when pushed through space. This resistance is INERTIA.

Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:

“The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.”

Maxwell states in “A Treatise On Electricity & Magnetism, Vol1, Art. 5”

“If, as in the astronomical system, the unit of mass is defined with respect to its attractive power, the dimensions of [M] are [L3T -2].”

These dimensions of mass may be looked upon as “(area) x (acceleration)”, which agrees with Newton’s description of inertia as “innate force of matter.”

The context of light as an electromagnetic wave may be expanded from low frequency radio waves to very high frequency gamma rays of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays are produced in the disintegration of the nucleus of an atom. The de Broglie frequency of the  nucleus places it well inside the gamma range. The electrons surrounding the nucleus have frequencies at the beginning gamma range. Beyond these electrons we may visualize the lower parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond that spectrum is space.

From space to the nucleus of an atom we seem to have the whole frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Space seems to represent the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum as frequency reduces towards zero. Mass seems to represent the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum as frequency increases towards infinity. The increasing frequency throughout the spectrum seems to represent an increasingly disturbed state of space. The nucleus of an atom then represents a highly disturbed state of space, which appears as mass.

When we visualize mass as “a region of high frequency”, It is like intense disturbance moving through undisturbed space, there shall be a high frequency gradient at the boundaries of this “region”. As mass moves through space, the undisturbed space in the path of mass must cross this high gradient of frequency. It must go from undisturbed to a highly disturbed and back to undisturbed space after the mass has passed. Obviously, there would be resistance. The greater is the mass, the higher would be this resistance. This is inertia.

There is an illusion of space being permeable to matter because we see matter gliding through space. But in those moments, matter is moving at a constant velocity.  That motion is relative to other matter and not relative to space. Motion relative to space is accompanied by acceleration.

It is very possible that light propagates as a disturbance through space. Space imparts elasticity to electromagnetic fields, which then appears as inertia.

.

Space as a Reference Frame

When we look at space as the medium of light we find it consistent with the following excerpt from Wikipedia,

In classical physics, light is described as a type of electromagnetic wave. The classical behaviour of the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell’s equations, which predict that the speed c with which electromagnetic waves (such as light) propagate through the vacuum is related to the electric constant ε0 and the magnetic constant μ0 by the equation

speed

Thus, from classical physics point of view, when two beams of light approach each other, their relative velocity can be ‘2c’, and this would not violate the limit on ‘c’ as postulated by Einstein. We may also define ‘c’ as the “wavelength to period” throughout the electromagnetic spectrum that includes mass at its upper end.

For matter both wavelength and period are infinitesimal. Therefore, space and time are experienced as absolute and independent in the reference frame of matter in which we live. Thus,

In a more fundamental way, ‘c’ is the ratio of Space to Time.

The inertial frame of Galileo and Newton uses matter as its basis. It may be referred to as the Material Reference Frame (MRF). The more general inertial frame identifies space as the basis. We may refer to it as the Space Reference Frame (SRF).

The inertial frames of Galileo and Newton are based on the reference frame of matter. Matter represents a special case of a more general reference frame of space.

The SRF (space reference frame) provides consistency throughout the classical physics in a fundamental way. It offers a very simple and elegant explanation for INERTIA.

.

The Ultimate Basis

This bottom line in my view is — If light is made up of moving particles (like bullets from a gun), then no “medium” is required. We just have discrete particles. But if light is moving as a disturbance among particles then there is a medium, which is seen as a continuum.

So, the question becomes,

“Is light consist of moving particles, or is it a continuum of disturbance?”

In other words,

“Is light connected throughout, or does that connection gets broken intermittently?”

And ultimately…

“Is reality fundamentally continuous or discrete?”

We can see discreteness emerging from continuity, but not the other way around.

.

April 6, 2017 – 12:21 PM Categories: Science | Post a comment