Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

70 pages of earth shattering plenty. Now I just have to wait for everyone else to catch up. Recently I learned:

 

1. Relativity has very few agreed upon terms. It's the wild west of terminology.

2. Time dilation has about as much to do with time slowing as length contraction has to do with shrinkage. They're both figments of relativity of simultaneity.

3. Relative velocity is an illusion of perspective. There is no relative motion and there's no absolute motion. There is only an intermediate common reference frame and it can even be the background stars or the surface of the earth.

4. The doppler shift ratio is neither due to time slowing or relativity of simultaneity. It has to do with the rate of info coming from a clock.

5. The sun does not revolve around the earth nor does the earth revolve around a proton in the LHC. These are myths of relative velocity.

6. Distance does not convert into time in the equation ct'² = ct² - x². Space is invariant.

7. Minkowski diagrams are a fraud. They are a manipulated coordinate semi-rotation designed to make c look constant from all perspectives (which it is anyway without his fraud).

8. I've learned how the muon example really works.

9. Much more to come now that I have a potential source of information. I haven't been kicked off yet and once that guy WillO becomes less of an a**hole, then I'll know I've made it.

Edited January 9, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Anyhoo Victor, I can ask the same question of you. What have you discovered in these 71 pages? 

[ralfcis]

Einstein used light signals to synchronize clocks in a frame to the same time no matter the distance separation between those clocks to come up with some kind of perspective present. But can the opposite be done? Can you use light signals from clocks in different frames to calculate what your proper time present was when your twin paradox twin sent you a light signal with his proper time indicating the moment he sent it?

Here is a Minkowski diagram 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ijVZpdTsQjQ7Wkk98

of a twin paradox example for Alice doing a round trip at .6c. Bob sends out a pink light signal to her when his proper time is 2. She receives it when her proper time was 4. She wants to figure out what was her proper time when he sent it.

From her perspective, Bob's light signal is sent when she is 2.5 and Bob's 3 Bob yr light signal was only 1.5 Alice years long from the time she's 2.5 until she receives it at 4. So her proper time was 4 - 1.5 (light travel time) - .5 (the relativity of simultaneity from when Bob actually sent the signal to when she saw him send it) =2. Her proper time was 2 when Bob sent the signal so we draw a green proper time line of simultaneity to signify the answer.

Now I can figure out the rest of the answers for each light signal from Bob and Alice but my math method is not appreciated here. I'm wondering if relativity has a method to calculate proper time simultaneity using light signals from each year in the diagram. You don't even need to do every year just from Bob =5. The answer I get is Alice's proper time was 4.5 when he sent his light signal when his proper time was 5. The reciprocal also seems to be true, that if Alice sends out a signal at 4.5, Bob's proper time was 5 when she sent it.

 

 [1]: 

  [2]: https://photos.app.goo.gl/xk827qa2Pw84pEgx9

  [3]: https://photos.app.goo.gl/GrXfhREG9Qv62ScM6

Edited January 12, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So my last question was answered to my satisfaction on the PSX. I was told to separate the concept of simultaneity, from a half-speed perspective of proper times between frames, from the idea that this can be called "proper simultaneity" and the subtraction of those proper times can be called "proper age difference". Proper times are invariant within a frame and once they are viewed from outside, they become variant to perspective and are by definition no longer proper but coordinate time. So, finally I can ask my next question with all the terminology correct and my path to world domination of relativity no longer obstructed by terminology. 

[ralfcis]

After looking for synonyms for the word "half-speed" I came upon the answer to my question. The Loedel reference frame is the frame of reference in which the velocities become equal speeds in opposite directions.   So the term I have been searching for to replace "half-speed" is Loedel velocity, Loedel simultaneity, Loedel perspective and Loedel age difference. No one knew that but so far no one is objecting to my revelation. Maybe they've lost interest in answering this and any further questions. Unfortunately the PSX did not answer the 2nd part of the question on how to use light signals to tell time in the twin  paradox example. I've been working on that daily and it turns out to be a very deep and difficult problem. Figuring this out will be the most important proof of the last 71 pages (if anyone is still reading this thread).

Edited January 16, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

Anyhoo Victor, I can ask the same question of you. What have you discovered in these 71 pages? 

 

That you are persistent, but I dunno whether or not I consider you correct, you have some points but other things I think you are incorrect about. You have a unique view of Relativity.

Edited January 17, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Yes I have been incorrect and I've corrected them but what main points are still incorrect? Anyways I'm working out the wrinkles on the PSX. It's funny with them, if they don't understand something they just ignore it rather than ask for clarification. You have to get the terminology just right.

[ralfcis]

In the twin paradox, can light signals be used to determine your perspective time when they were sent?

 

I've come up with my own method to determine this based on 2 questions I asked earlier. I'm wondering if relativity has its own method since it already uses light signals to sync clocks, why wouldn't it be possible to use a reverse process to tell time on those clocks. Here is a Minkowski diagram on how to determine the duration of a light signal from the stationary, moving and Loedel (half speed between moving and stationary) perspectives.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/j3mQvhJUPW9ikAuC9

 

The pink light signal is 3 yrs long from the stationary perspective's blue lines of simultaneity. From the moving perspective, the light signal began at t'=2.5 and ended at t=4 so it was 1.5 yrs in duration. But from the Loedel perspective's (1/3c) green lines of simultaneity, the light signal was 2 yrs long for both Alice and Bob. This Loedel simultaneity will make it easy to determine the duration of the light signal for both Alice and Bob and then convert that into light duration from either perspective. From the above example, the Loedel perspective of the light signal duration was 2 but Bob's perspective was 3 and Alice's was 1.5.

 

Here is a Minkowski diagram for a round trip journey for Alice going out 3 ly at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9qURVRzsfEAtLV1j7

 

Here is the Loedel diagram representation.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lu6ALxpToPtxGVtDA

 

You can follow the discussion using either one but I find the Loedel easier to follow. 

 

In the bottom and top triangles outlined in purple, the Loedel lines of simultaneity agree that 1 yr duration for Alice is also 1 yr duration for Bob. So the pink and yellow lines sent from t=2 are 2 yrs duration from Bob or Alice's from the Loedel perspective. But if Bob, on the left, sends a signal out at t=3, it will cross a boundary where the thick part of the light signal takes 1 yr for Bob or Alice from the initial Loedel perspective to a 2nd Loedel perspective where Alice ages only half a year for every year Bob ages. So Bob's side of the Loedel perspective will see a 2 yr duration of the light signal and Alice's side will be only 1.5 yrs. Alice receives the light signal at t'=4.5 and you subtract 1.5 from that and her Loedel age was 3. But her age, from her own perspective was 3.75 when the signal started. Hence, the duration of the light signal from her perspective was 1.5 - .75 = .75 yrs.

 

To figure out Bob's age from his perspective, it's easier to use the Minkowski diagram. From his perspective, he was 3 when he sent the signal and 5.625 when Alice received it so the light duration was 2.625 yrs whereas his Loedel perspective of the light duration was only 2 yrs. Yes the terminology is initially confusing as it's important to distinguish between Bob's perspective of the light duration (2.625) and the Loedel perspective of Bob's light duration (2). It's even more confusing for Alice as you need to subtract her share of relativity of simultaneity (.75) from her Loedel light duration (1.5) to arrive at her perspective of the light duration (.75).

 

The gift is you can now see how time is lost for Alice after her turnaround using light signals. She loses a half year for every Bob year until the light signal from her turning point reaches Bob and establishes their new constant relative velocity and at which point their Loedel age difference will remain constant where Alice will be 2 yrs younger that Bob from the Loedel perspective.

 

Ok, Loedel is not used much in relativity and the classic assumption is that age difference does not progress but comes on as an instantaneous lump sum swing at the turnaround point. Relativity actually makes it impossible to draw that conclusion. Nowhere, except for the Rindler metric,  will you find a sanctioned method to mathematically determine how age difference progresses after the turnaround point. I'm presenting this algebraic method and I have a 2nd more complex backup method that arrives at the same answer the light signals give me that doesn't use light signals. Sure both these math methods could be flukes, that's why I need to see whatever way relativity answers this question. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Banned from the PSX for my last question. No interaction so I deleted it and was banned. No biggie, I figured out the answer on my own on how to use light signals to determine the time from both perspectives when the signals were sent and how long it took for them to travel. Math really scares people and they don't like it is the only reason for my banishment. Well, home sweet home, impossible to get banned from here.

[ralfcis]

I just finished my analysis of using light signals to tell time in the twin paradox and have discovered it's impossible to do so using Minkowski perspectives as opposed to the Loedel perspective (which can). The Epstein perspective already showed that math affects conclusions drawn from relativity as Epstein diagrams do not support the 45 degree slope of c to be the same from all perspectives. The problem using Minkowski with light signals is that the results point to a future that hasn't happened yet so how could that possibly tie when the light signals were sent from both perspectives. I don't think the PhD's on the PSX consciously realized this fact but I think they had an instinct of doing the math from the Loedel perspective would introduce physical results not supported by relativity. Hence, they continue to block my question about what to even call the  Loedel perspective for fear I am introducing a personal theory (which I am). 

 

On the bright side I too have made mistakes on how to label the axes in the Minkowski diagram. Their math only works with their labelling and the fundamental construct of basing it on Einstein's clock sync method. The Loedel math is not based on this, it is based on telling time via the universal accuracy of atomic clocks. The physical predictions from both methods do not jibe in some instances. Who is right can be determined by testing those scenarios. Anyway, I think I've come up with a compromise labelling method that will satisfy both Loedel and Minkowski. It'll probably take a couple of months to explain all this in detail. 

[ralfcis]

How are light signals used to tell time rather than set time? If Bob sends Alice a signal, what was her clocktime  when Bob sent it in his clocktime? I'm going to define the term clocktime as the time on the clock that one remains next to in one's own frame. Is there another term I should be using?

 

Initially I thought I could figure out Alice's light travel time from her perspective and subtract that from her clocktime when she receives the signal to calculate her clocktime when the signal was sent. Bob's clocktime would be in the message when he sent it. I'll explain why this didn't work out at the end.

 

However, I have found a method to use light signals in a way that makes physical sense. The rule is simple; when light signals are sent out simultaneously from one perspective, they will arrive simultaneously to the other perspective. The light signals allow the construction of the lines of simultaneity from one perspective to the other. From this framework it's possible to determine what time in each frame a signal was sent.

 

Here's how to use this technique to calculate Alice's clocktime when Bob sent his light signal from his clocktime. .6c is their relative velocity. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HGKo3n4V9HAb2VX88

 

I use the terms Y (gamma), t, t' and t'' in the following ways. t=Yt' where t is the stationary (Bob's blue line) perspective of Alice's clocktime t'. t'=Yt'' where t' is the moving (Alice's red line) perspective of Bob's clocktime t''.

 

Bob sends out a pink light signal at t=2 and he has pre-arranged with Alice that she will send out a yellow light signal at t'=1.6. Both signals will be simultaneous from Bob's perspective even though they are separated and there's no way he can observe them as being simultaneous. From Alice's perspective, she will calculate that Bob sent his signal at t''=2 when she was t'=2.5. They both disagree on their perspectives of simultaneity but that's ok.

 

The light signals, sent simultaneously from Bob's perspective will be received simultaneously from Alice's perspective. He'll calculate Alice's light signal took 1.2 Bob yrs to get to him and she'll calculate his light travel time is 1.5 Alice yrs. These conclusions are wrong even though they look right. Subtracting Alice's perspective of the light travel time from the time she receives the signal is 4-1.5=2.5 which agrees with her line of simultaneity which calculated that Bob's time was t''=2 and her's was t'=2.5 when the signal was sent. Bob's duration of t"=1.2 when multiplied by Y is 1.5 so they both agree on the light travel time when Bob's yrs are converted to Alice yrs from her perspective. The flaw in this reasoning will be seen in the twin paradox example. 

 

 

Now we're going to do the calculations of Alice coming in to Bob at -.6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/VVWSYzKUBCsWtgZFA

 

Now I have several objections to this standard Minkowski diagram. 

 

1. There is an implied sync to where both clocks start at zero and there is no justification for that. The number 0 is special in that multiplying it by anything will yield zero. It's placement must be carefully considered.

 

2. In fact I would place zero at the top where they both re-unite to signify their clocks must read the same if they occupy the same space and time. 

 

3. Placing zero at the top means the numbers below must be negative. Choosing them as negative will make the arithmetic much easier when calculating time dilation from either perspective.

 

4. All of these changes will sync the clocks at the correct values of t=-5 and t'=-4 at the start.

 

Anyway, back to how Minkowski did it.

 

This is a little more difficult to explain as Bob's future is in Alice's present. However, let's just say when Alice receives Bob's message from t=3 which she receives it at t'=3 must mean she started at t'=1.5 simultaneously (from her perspective) when he sent his signal. Alice would also need to calculate the release of her yellow signal at t'=2.4 in order to match Bob's simultaneity of when he sends his signal. Bob's light travel time is .75 from his perspective and 1.5 from Alice's perspective. Alice's light travel time (yellow signal) is 1.2 from Bob's perspective and .6 from hers. This is quite different from how light travel time is calculated in the last scenario.  Again it's wrong even though it seems to give the right answers. All that matters here is how the light signals construct Alice's lines of simultaneity from Bob's.

 

Let's join the two diagrams into one:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/UBrtVyFJk8Uwxbp7A

 

and try stitching the two together using light signals:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/cUbu7wP9wDr7AUw87

 

The black lines show where the method I outlined above want Alice's lines of simultaneity to be. But let's see why relativity's method of drawing Alice's lines doesn't work in the top half.

 

Let's look at t=3 first because it straddles the turnaround point where the Doppler Shift Ratio (DSR) jumps from 1/2 to 2.  Alice receives the pink light at t' = 4.5 sent from Bob at t''=3. Alice's time when Bob sent the signal was t'=3.75 according to her line of simultaneity. So the light must have travelled .75 Alice yrs for her to be t'=3.75 when Bob sent the signal at t''=3. The numbers are correct but the light travel time from Alice's perspective seems too short compared with the pink light line sent from t''=2. But we don't know yet because, well, perspectives can really skew apparent lengths. So put this aside for now. 

 

Now let's go a little further to t''=3.2. That's simultaneous from Bob's perspective to the turnaround point t'=4. The light travel time was .6 Alice yrs from her perspective. The light travel time seems excessively short but at least we have Alice's line of simultaneity to say her time was t'=4 when Bob sent the signal at t"=3.2. There are no more reasonable Alice line's of simultaneity from this point on.

 

Now let's jump to t''=4. This is a no man's land where the turnaround point causes a wide swing from t=3.2 to t=6.8. If the turnaround point is not instantaneous, t'=~4 can be any value of t within that swing. Now the pink light signal doesn't care about that. It goes out from t=4 and hits Alice at t'=5. According to her line of simultaneity, Bob has sent the light signal from the future when he is t=7.6 which is nonsense. From Bob's perspective, he is t=6.25 when Alice receives the light. So the light travel time is 2.25 Bob yrs which must convert into something less than 1 Alice yrs. Why, because 5-1 = 4 and the turnaround point has already been spoken for that the light came from Bob at t''= 3.2. We have no red line of Alice's simultaneity to link her age to when Bob sent his signal out at t"=4.

 

So what do we do? We stick with how the simultaneous light signals from Bob's perspective construct Alice's true lines of simultaneity in the no man's land. The first black line of Alice's simultaneity is constructed from Bob's blue line at t=2.5. The pink line hits t'=4.25 and the yellow line hits t''=4. So now we know when Bob sent his signal at t''=4, Alice was t'=4.25. Relativity had no viable answer to this. You can check the math for the next 3 black lines for which relativity also has no answer. Here is a more complete answer for all the conversions to Alice's new lines of simultaneity for the twin paradox:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/vYpPVkpN3Najeh7s9

 

 

Yup the slopes of the red lines change during the transition between the turnaround point to when Bob gets notification of that change at t=8. There is no instantaneous swing where Alice's t'=4 can be any Bob value from t= 3.2 to 6.8. She ages at the rate of .5 Alice yr for every .8 Bob yr. Before the turnaround, she was ageing .8 Alice yr for every Bob yr. from Bob's perspective. After Bob get's the news of the turnaround, this ageing rate will resume. Time dilation is not affected by the sign of the velocity but DSR rate is flipped. Bob's DSR remains at 1/2 until he gets the news of the turnaround while Alice's DSR flips to 2 immediately at the turnaround. 

 

The reason why light travel times can't be used to calculate what Alice's time was when Bob sent his light signal can be seen in this last Md. Right after the turnaround point, the light travel time form Alice's perspective is very long compared to the difference in time between when she receives Bob's signal and to when her line of simultaneity says Bob's signal was sent. The opposite is true after Bob receives news of the turnaround. Alice's perspective of the light travel time is short compared to the difference in time between when she receives Bob's signal and to when her line of simultaneity says Bob's signal was sent. Maybe something can be done with the fact that as the yellow lines shorten, the pink lengthen and vice versa. Perhaps the two in tandem can establish meaningful light travel times but it's no longer important if they can.

Edited January 31, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I have completely edited my last post as the previous version was dead wrong.

[ralfcis]

Here's an accompanying question from before that I've edited down:

 

Can the Loedel reference frame be used as the basis for establishing “Loedel age difference” as a viable term? 

 

When I first posted on the PSX, I kept using the term "age difference" as meaning something other than the term "reciprocal time dilation". It turns out that age difference here means the coordinate time difference between where a perspective's line of simultaneity intersects the two velocity lines. Basically, it means the same as reciprocal time dilation.

So at .6c if Bob's line of stationary simultaneity intersects his velocity at t=4 and Alice's at t'=3.2, the age difference is 4-3.2=.8.

But from the Loedel reference frame, which is defined on wiki as the frame of reference in which two collinear velocities become equal speeds in opposite directions, the Loedel velocity of 1/3c lends a perspective and Loedel lines of simultaneity where the Loedel age difference is 4-4=0 according to this Md:

The Loedel reference frame's lines of simultaneity join coordinate times that match the time labels of proper time. In conjunction with this question here, the Loedel age difference gives a picture of how age difference progresses for proper time coordinate labels (but not proper time itself as that is invariant of perspective more info why here).

So my question is whether "Loedel age difference" can be used as a valid term distinct from the term "age difference" used here?

[ralfcis]

Is there a physical (non-time based) ruler that allows one to directly measure length contraction? I've explored this question before here and tried to use the femtosecond resolution of a Raskar photography frame to measure how many frames shorter a long bullet fired from a high speed rifle would appear as opposed to a stationary bullet. This approach failed because the frame resolution was not high enough to see the change in bullet length.

However, the original question I'm editing now did show that the parallax measurement (which is independent of time) of a distance to a star from a moving ship does give me that physical ruler to directly measure length contraction. The parallax measurement would show the distance to the star contracted because of the ship's velocity.

This to me is the first conclusive proof that length contraction can be physically measured in real time. It's equivalent to having some impossibly high tech equipment to actually measure in real time how much cars on a road contract as they speed towards you.

Now I define reality as being persistent and although length contraction can now be measured in real time, it is still not persistent once the velocity disappears (like a mirage disappearing when the conditions that caused it fade away). It is also a figment of the relativity of simultaneity so I still consider it an illusion of perspective. However, before I asked this question I did not believe it was even measurable in real time.

 

The whole thing can be explained as purely due to the illusion of time dilation without any need for the involvement of length contraction.

 

PS. Although the parallax measurement shows in real time your velocity has seemingly contracted the distance to the star, it cannot be that your velocity has had the power to contract all of space between you and the star and has physically pulled the star nearer to you. Only relativists believe in this impossibility because that's the mantra they are taught to recite. Length contraction is an illusion of perspective, there is no physical phenomenon behind it no matter what wiki says.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ralfcis

[Mutex]

 

Is there a physical (non-time based) ruler that allows one to directly measure length contraction? I've explored this question before here and tried to use the femtosecond resolution of a Raskar photography frame to measure how many frames shorter a long bullet fired from a high speed rifle would appear as opposed to a stationary bullet. This approach failed because the frame resolution was not high enough to see the change in bullet length.

However, the original question I'm editing now did show that the parallax measurement (which is independent of time) of a distance to a star from a moving ship does give me that physical ruler to directly measure length contraction. The parallax measurement would show the distance to the star contracted because of the ship's velocity.

This to me is the first conclusive proof that length contraction can be physically measured in real time. It's equivalent to having some impossibly high tech equipment to actually measure in real time how much cars on a road contract as they speed towards you.

Now I define reality as being persistent and although length contraction can now be measured in real time, it is still not persistent once the velocity disappears (like a mirage disappearing when the conditions that caused it fade away). It is also a figment of the relativity of simultaneity so I still consider it an illusion of perspective. However, before I asked this question I did not believe it was even measurable in real time.

 

The whole thing can be explained as purely due to the illusion of time dilation without any need for the involvement of length contraction.

 

 

"Is there a physical (non-time based) ruler that allows one to directly measure length contraction? "

 

Yes, but only one that is relatively easy, and that is light.

 

Light is a measure of length, that is separate from time (it indicates a length of space), this is because light has a constant speed.

 

Light does not have a frequency, it only has a wavelength, you can calculate a frequency by counting the number of photons (length) end to end over a distance. 

 

So light at 10Mhz is 10 million wavelengths of light that makes up the distance that light goes in 1 second (about 30 meters wavelength).

 

So Frequency = speed of light / wavelength 

 

wavelength = speed of light / frequency. 

 

The lower the frequency the longer the wavelength.

 

This is how me measure space length changes ('contraction'), in Doppler shift and in Einstein shift, which is what you are asking for.. 

 

 

This to me is the first conclusive proof that length contraction can be physically measured in real time. It's equivalent to having some impossibly high tech equipment to actually measure in real time how much cars on a road contract as they speed towards you.

 

The problem is that it is VERY difficult to measure small changes in length of space (or size of objects) at a distance, but we can measure the length of the light that is emitted from that size. So the only length that is relatively easy to measure is the length of light. 

 

Also LIGO measures the differences in the length of space (and the LIGO instrument that is in it), so you can measure small values of length but it is very difficult.

 

Time dilation is much easier to measure because you can accumulate the length differences over time, but even then you need atomic clocks and long time baselines. The difference in time (length) is small therefore the difference in space length is small (speed of light is constant after all). 

 

I think I roughly worked out that the length of time on a GPS satellite compared to the surface of the earth is something like 8 meters in 24 hours. So you can compare that to how far light goes in 24 hours to how long it takes for light to go 8 meters, a very, very small amount.

 

I see you are having problems with simultaneity, and the twins paradox. I think two problems is that you are trying to justify it in terms of Special Relativity, and the assumption that what the clocks say relates to 'future' and 'past'.

 

The actual number displayed on the clocks does not really matter.

 

I think I will do a bit of a dump on this subject, but I might start a new thread to address them, so we can resolve some of these paradoxes..  

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mutex

[ralfcis]

I guess I'm done with the PSX. I'm banned for lack of clarity. Usually I'm banned for being a dick or for trying to push a personal theory which is what I was partly trying to do (except I don't view pushing new math as pushing a new theory). But their heads are so far up their asses my posts look like hieroglyphics to them (except for Dale who is open-minded but has disappeared). I laid all my cards on the table and they had no idea what the numbers meant or what hand I was playing. How can people deal with the most complex math on the planet and not understand algebra? I can still interact somewhat but what's the point, they have no information for me. Even this place, a total cuckoo's nest, influenced my quest greatly. I changed my views a lot here which usually led me back to my original path which I hope is near the final final end. This last piece of the puzzle on how to use light signals to tell time was huge and a total surprise to me. I don't think there are any pieces left (although I've said that many times before).

Edited February 2, 2020 by ralfcis

[Mutex]

(I had your quote here Flummoxed, it's gone now... 

 

 

I'm impressed Flummoxed (not so much Flummoxed I think), without a new thread, as you appear to be thinking somewhat in line with me on this I will accept that as you helping my confirmation bias!    (I new thread on the nature of light would be good, but ill address my views quickly here)

 

 

The idea of frequency of a single photon as always bugged me, especially when trying to visualize how it must move through space. 

 

Would you ascribe an amplitude to a photon as well as a wavelength? ie Lower frequency implies less energy > longer wavelength implies less energy therefore reduced amplitude.

 

 

It's bugged me too, especially how it must move through space, what it is and how you would visualize it if you could see it and were travelling next to it and looking at it.

 

As a kid I was into electronics and radio in the 70's building crystal radio's, CB's (27Mhz HF) and Amateur radio and such (later becoming Navy Radio/electronics tech/eng).

 

It's all about electrons for me, they are amazing (whatever they are), electrons are the 'interface' between matter, energy and space and time! I love those little guys.

 

Electrons make matter stable, they bind protons and neutrons together to give up atoms, and bind atoms as molecules, and molecules as solids, or liquids and gases (bound to lesser degrees), and not bound at all in plasmas. (and deeply bound in BEC, Bose-Einstein condensate).

 

Electrons also do things in an electric field, and do other things in a magnetic field, they also create electric fields and magnetic fields.

 

So electrons interface between energy and matter, and matter and matter.

 

So back to radio, if you build a radio transmitter (or oscillator) (radio is light), you deal with voltages and currents, so what you do to create light is manipulate voltages (the electric force, EMF electro-motive force), and you manipulate currents.

 

Electrical current creates a magnetic field, so now you have the electric field and the magnetic field as both being a product of voltage and current, and you can create light/radio by carefully matching current and voltage AT AN ELECTRON in a specific way.

 

The simplest oscillator, is a resonant circuit like a LC 'tank' circuit, that is a capacitor and an inductor connected in parallel, what happens when you get that to oscillate is you continuously transfer energy from a magnetic field (in the inductor) current, into an electric field (in the capacitor) voltage. The frequency of this oscillator is how long that transfer takes, it's a function of time.

 

So back to the electrons, we know you can accelerate electrons with electric field, that's how old TV cathode ray tubes work for example, and we can also rotate or precess  electrons in a magnetic field (it's the 'g' value that makes quantum mechanics so 'awesome'!!).

 

So back to light, to create a photon of light you (at the same time, over the same time), you drive an electron through two forms of motion, you accelerate it with an electric field, and you rotate it with a magnetic field.

 

To process works in reverse as well, if the electron experiences an electric field and a magnet field it will accelerate and rotate (and generate a voltage and current).

 

So a photon is a COUPLED electric field (transition) and a magnetic field transition, they are coupled because both were created by the single electron.

The amount of time it takes for this transition to take place represents the wavelength of the photon.

 

So a photon of light is a 'standing' transition of an Electric and Magnetic 'wavelet' that are coupled together in space and time as they are created from the same source at the same time (the mighty electron).

 

So if you could visualise electric and magnetic fields and you were flying next to a photon you would see a transition or the electric field and magnetic field and it would be static and stationary. It would have a length and therefore a size, but it would not be moving in any way (excepting going at a speed of light).

 

 

 

Would you ascribe an amplitude to a photon as well as a wavelength? ie Lower frequency implies less energy > longer wavelength implies less energy therefore reduced amplitude.

 

That is an excellent, excellent question! For me it is THE question because, you are on to the very nature of light, matter and energy.

 

What I think about this is that it takes the SAME amount of energy to move an electron over these two modes of motion (velocity and rotation, Electric and magnetic), but that amount of energy is applied over different lengths of time.

 

Lower frequency, or better yet longer length is the same amount of energy over a longer period of time, and shorter wavelength is the same energy over a shorter period of time.

 

You are still doing the same amount of work, So of course, if you have the same amount of energy over different lengths the 'size' or amplitude of that coupled electric and magnetic field will be proportionally larger or smaller.

This makes sense to me because that reduced amplitude is less interaction or motion but over a longer time.

 

Once you get into longer lengths of photons, they do not have enough energy to be significant to a single electron, so the EM transition many electrons and creates a useful voltage and current to be detectable.

 

Visible light is in that very narrow band of energy lengths that can impart that energy into a single or very few electrons to be separately detectable (by a single electron) and can by itself create an amplitude of current and voltage (EM amplitude) that can be detected.

 

Even short wavelength light imparts too much energy to the electron (in too short of a time), and you get into ionising radiation, where the photon rips the electron off the atom or molecule. 

 

The shorter the wavelength of light (size of the photon), the higher the resolution you can get when you look at an object, you get electron level resolution! With longer wavelength light it will be spread over a larger area over more electrons, so you lose resolution, especially when you get to long wavelength light you need large detectors (big/long antennas) to detect a slight interaction over many, many electrons.

 

That's why we see visible light, it gives us the highest resolution without breaking atoms, and we don't need large size detectors to get that energy.

 

 

 

Would it not be safer to assign a photon an energy level, rather than any link to frequency or amplitude.

 

Yes, see above, a photon is the amount of energy required to move an electron through two modes of motion established or a consequence of an electric and magnetic force distributed over a length of space.

 

 

A spinning blob of energy moving through space might be a better analogy?  Perhaps a frequency can be assigned if the photon moves via absorption and emission between points in space?

 

Not spinning, not moving (except at c), not wiggling, not a packet or energy incased in a particle, it's just a coupled electric field transition and magnetic field transition (rate of change), created by the motion of an electron over a period of time AT THE POINT OF CREATION, (the length of time when the photon is made), and as light goes at constant speed the time it requires to move the electron through this motion the amount of time it takes to creates is the length of space that it takes (its length, wavelength).

 

We also know from Faraday rotation that the polarisation of light changes with light moves through matter (electrons) that is in a magnetic field, and from 'g' in QFT of the precession of an electron in a magnet field.

 

Magnet field is current, it processes electrons, Electric field is voltage, it makes electrons move (rotate and move, at the same time, coupled motion).

 

 

 

 

I am tending to opt for variations off Bohemian explanations of the double slit experiment, 

I'm not a fan at all of the conclusions of the double slit, I've not looked at other explanations but I can think of a few myself (particularly edge effect, diffraction or some other matter/electron light interaction.

 

So not a duality fan, photons do not interact with other photons, they just don't, a magnetic field or an electric field does not interact either. You can't bend a magnetic field with another magnetic field.

 

If light interacted with light in space, it would be a mess! you would get mixing and cancellation and it would be crazy town! (kind of make seeing things impossible).

 

It's when light is in the form of electric voltage and magnetic current in matter is where you get voltage and current interaction (that's what electronics does), and that is how you get mixing, cancellation and odd effects, if you don't built your transmitter right you get odd effects and 'spurious emissions', because you create spurious voltages and currents.

 

 

 

due to the recent proof of non locality. Do you reject non local effects between entangled particles?. 

 

Yes, I think I do, I also don't really think non locality or even entanglement is confirmed, I can however accept particle entanglement (but probably not separate photons of light). I think the entanglement of particles is information at the point of the creation of the entanglement, that information goes along with the particle and is not a function of the other particle at a distance (non-local). I'm more 'gloves' in boxes, than gossamer strands..

 

** possibly some cut and paste thing happened, so this many have some massive repeat in it or something... sorry about that... 

 

Thanks for your comment... 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mutex