Implications of the Michelson-Morley
Experiment
Dear Dr.Siepmann,
I am probably not the only one who has said that you are
performing a great service for the world on behalf of science, but I want to
add my voice to this chorus.
A large proportion of the visitors to my web site,
www.aquestionoftime.com, come
from Journal of Theoretics, as well as from search engine inquiries about
“Michelson-Morley” and “Lorentz Transformation”. I get this information
through a service called Nettracker available from Hostcentric.com. It shows
me that the visitors come from all parts of the world – from China, New
Zealand, India, Russia, etc. etc. That people are still uncomfortable with
the topics that led up to Einstein’s Relativity Theories, is remarkable, but
also encouraging.
That leads me to propose the following for the ‘comments’ section:
We should not let ourselves be confused or diverted by the details of the
Michelson-Morley (M&M) experiment. The fact that the light was sent back and
forth in perpendicular directions to check the interference pattern, that is
not the issue. The fact that the experiment was designed to verify that
light is carried by a medium, is important. The fact that this experiment
could not verify this assumption is the critical point.
The essence of what M&M can teach us is that light and sound must be treated
differently – that there is no carrier for light as there is for sound. The
Lorentz Transformation is an attempt to rationalize the M&M result, to make
it conform to 19th century thinking, by inventing a contraction of matter
based on speed. Einstein makes incorrect use of Lorentz’s device (which
works only for a round trip of the light) and substitutes his second
principle of relativity for the presumed carrier of the light waves. (That
amounts to the same idea, as far as the derivation of the Lorentz formula is
concerned).
The negative result of the M&M experiment impacts the derivation, and
calculation, of the Doppler effect for light. This, in turn, impacts the
conclusions about the nature and age of the universe. Cosmologists are
drawing false inferences about the character of the universe from the
incorrect Doppler formula.
My hope is that your journal can maintain its high standards, but at the
same time be open to ideas that are needed to counteract the narrow, and
some times incorrect views of the tradition bound academic community.
Sincerely,
Hans J. Zweig, PhD hjzweig@aol.com
Hubble's Constant
An interesting derivation of Hubble's
constant that requires no knowledge of gravity or physical constants (G,
for instance) is as follows:
1) Define Hubble's constant as H
= (Volume-dot)/Volume, or the derivative of the Universe's Volume with
respect to time divided by the Volume of the Universe. This gives the
expansion rate of a sphere with respect to time (sec^-1).
2) Assume the Universe is a sphere, or Volume
= 4/3*pi*r^3, where r = radius of Universe
3) Find Volume-dot as follows: d(Volume)/dt =
d(Volume)/dr * dr/dt
4) Assign dr/dt = speed of light, c as this
is the speed of the edge of the Universe.
4) Using the equation for Volume in 2),
d(Volume)/dr = 4*pi*r^2
5) Then, (Volume-dot)/Volume = [4*c*pi*r^2] /
[4/3*pi*r^3] = 3c/r, which is the same order of magnitude as c/r which is
the definition of Hubble's constant. The factor of 3 may exist because our
current expansion has been somewhat non-linear (due to inverse-square law
of gravity and inflation) over time.
Anisotropic Space
Until now I studied the Theories of Relativity. I saw that
if the universe is an isotropic space, then the theories of Relativity will
be valid. But if the universe is an anisotropic space, they won't be valid.
Anisotropic spaces will destroy them.
Sincerely,
Ozan Hasimi Oktar
javaquant@lycos.com
More than Genetics
When a sperm fertilizes an egg, is it the first sperm to
arrive that is successful? Is it the hardest working sperm that is
successful? Or is it simply the first sperm that the egg allows to enter?
Can the egg tell the difference between a male producing sperm and a female
producing sperm? Other species have direct or indirect control over the
proliferation of a particular sex at all or most times. How different are we
in this regards? I'm sure you will all say this is not the case with humans,
but I also would think it fair to say has anyone really looked for
something? It has to be some form of analogue consensus (sociologically
driven) that is in the best interests of the human race that would drive
this subtle manipulation of what appears to be a random choice. Suppose most
of the time it is random - IE: the egg is programmed to not be fussy about
gender. But in certain sociological situations there will be a leaning
toward one gender over the other, programmed into the egg. Suppose stress
programmed self-esteem needs towards a particular gender could be programmed
into the physical makeup of the females egg. Some women prefer males to
females in regards to sociological superiority. I'm not referring to
homosexuality, I'm referring to respect and the basic need to please
sociologically and ...er....well, tomboy versus debutant for a very poor
example. Some women may have had bad relationships with either males or
females growing up. This may force them to develop a preference for a
particular sex in a subconscious stress induced self-esteem manner. I don't
have time to explore that logical algorithm for this just now, but I thought
it was worth putting out there as an idea in this basic form.
Glen Angus Graham
redshift@senet.com.au
Dr. Siepmann responds:
Over the last couple decades we have actually discovered that genetics is
not the sole determinant of the phenotypic (the observable characteristics)
human. For example during famine, children will be born that have more
fat cells. So there is some self selection of the ova and sperm that
are more desirable for the environmental characteristics at the time of
conception. This may include higher sociologic characteristics but I
doubt it. It seems only logical that the environmental effects that
are being experienced by the parental body can affect the egg or sperm, but
I don't see how mental stresses/desires can be directly related. At
best, a general physiologic effect could, but not something such as personal
desires, and so on. Also I am not aware of any research along
these lines as it would be very difficult to do because of trying to
separate out innate sociologic characteristics versus those taught by the
parents/environment.
Some things such as intelligence follow a bell curve though
and are not affected by environment. Even if we had a society of
idiots, it could not be translated into intelligent egg/sperm being
selected. Granted two intelligent parents have a much higher
probability of having an intelligent child but this is because their average
egg/sperm "IQ" is let's say 120. Even for two such intelligent people
they have the same potential of having a child with an IQ of 80 as one of
160, though the most likely would be 120 (following a bell curve
distribution).
Defining Science
I'd find it useful to define SCIENCE as MACHINA consisting
of input, processing mechanism and output, where MACHINA defined as a
logical, goal-oriented SYSTEM
where SYSTEM defined as a SET of interrelated VARIABLES with a certain
amount of possible NOISE
where NOISE is a collection of unrelated (independent) variables
where SET and VARIABLES are fundamental math tools.
How It Works :
SCIENCE uses SCIENTIFIC METHOD to take in information about related sets of
unique objects, repeating patterns and their behavior at the input and
reprocesses it into LAWS of their interrelation and interaction at the
output so that end users by applying those LAWS would be able to replicate
patterns and behaviors (phenomena) for their convenience, or be able to
predict or prevent them.
THEORY is a mechanism-constructor used by SCIENCE to create
its main product - LAWS.
SCIENCE ask questions about its subject of interest, THEORY attempts to find
answers and if successful returns them back to SCIENCE as building blocks of
a LAW.
Thus, based on this definition we might classify ASTROLOGY, FORTUNE TELLING,
MARXISM-LENINISM as sciences (although false, since they have no use for
SCIENTIFIC METHOD), and Shakespearology, Deskology ( science about desks and
tables), Theology - NONSCIENCES, i.e. SYSTEMS (but not MACHINAE) for
organizing knowledge into useful taxonomies but without producing any LAWS.
George Doudy coupons@web.de
A Question of Matter and Energy
To whom it may concern,
I'm a student at NIU with a question on a topic I am not all too familiar
with. I came about this idea of energy being matter itself in a philosophy
discussion. I'm curious if there might be any supporting evidence in this,
even relating to an experiment done in a semi-perfect vacuum with large
accumulations of energy "chunks" creating matter? Moreover, are nuclear
explosions an exception to matter not being able to be created, or
destroyed? Or any exception at all, especially in a theoretical realm.
Please respond to this email address if anything comes up.
Thankful for you time,
Charles Bintz
otherdayz@hotmail.com
Dr. Siepmann responds:
Your right that E=mc^2 is an exception to matter not being created nor
destroyed (an old axiom). Also it is the proof that matter is nothing but
confined energy. Also when an atom releases energy it minutely loses some
mass and this can be measured. Also we freely use energy as a standard unit
for minute mass.
On Electromagnetic Radiation
Wave/Particle duality is the commonly held description of
electromagnetic radiation. Detailed analysis of data collected in many types
of experiment, mainly the two slit experiment, lead me to interpret it as
follows.
The photon state is the
particle state and the probability state is the phenomena that delivers the
observable wave dynamic or nature of EM Radiation across the whole EM
Spectrum. The two slit experiment clearly shows that a wave dynamic
can be observed when a single photon passes through the two slit experiment.
This is an attempt to explore the relativistic nature of this quantum
phenomena.
Let's start by trying to
describe what the probability state could possibly be. I think of it as
being an omni-directional shadow of EM Force dynamics, propagated by the
free particle state photon. In other words, the photon is essentially like a
perfect light bulb that sends its own ‘DNA Shadow’ in all directions at
once, the very instant it is emitted. The same very instant, this
probability shadow finds the ‘nearest’ compatible point of absorption and
sets up a closed circuit or (vibrating?) path for the photon to travel
along.
I call it a vibrating path ONLY
because I suspect the frequency shift of Doppler motion occurs purely due to
the fact the pre-determined destination alters in regards to relativistic
distance changes between the time of emission and absorption when Doppler
frequency shift is recorded or observed.
IE: Think of a violin string. The closed circuit probability state that
exists once a destination is determined is just like a chosen note on the
violin. Dragging the bow across the string makes it vibrate. This vibration
creates the note we can hear. The note we can hear is the equivalent of the
photon state of the vibrating string probability state. The note is not
‘real’ in our physical world, it is however a representative state of the
‘real’ vibrating string.
With EM Radiation we have to
reverse that concept a little. The photon becomes the ‘real’ state of
existence and the probability state closed circuit (vibrating string) is now
a state that is essentially not ‘real’. Doppler frequency shift is like
sliding your finger along the string against the fingerboard. It changes the
wave harmonics and frequency as it travels along that string and so changes
the note we hear in the same way that motion induced Doppler shift changes
the photon we see.
Doppler frequency shifts in
light cannot be caused by photons bunching up together or stretching out
apart due to relativistic variable motions. Relativistic light speed
couldn’t exist if this were the case. Doppler frequency shift must be
caused by the changing distance the photon must travel between point of
emission and point of absorption. If the photon is the EM Force equivalent
of a musical note, we need to theorize how the probability state could
possibly deliver the EM Force equivalent of a violin string.
The rate of propagation of the
probability state appears to occur outside that of a measurable time frame.
We see it propagate ‘instantly’ across ‘the whole universe’ in order to
locate a suitable point of absorption. But like sunlight into deep water,
unless the light source is radiating very brightly, there will come a point
where no more light photons can be seen because they have all been absorbed.
Providing the matter they pass through is dense enough.
Frequency, or the analogue
waveform we use to represent the frequency/amplitude of EM radiation can
also be said to be a 2D representation or ‘graphical plot’ of and orbital
path. It is a 2D map of a 3D ellipse. The fundamentals of Binary EM Force
exist at all stages of Relativistic Matter as well as Quantum Matter.
The emitted photons
frequency/amplitude dynamics must have been programmed into it, whilst it
was one with the emitting electron residing within the atom (from our
real-time perspective). When an electron absorbs a photon its energy
‘volume’ sometimes becomes too large for it to remain where it is. EM Forces
‘squeeze’ it into a smaller radii state with higher energy – just like a
blue-shifted free-photon. When the electron emits a photon, the electrons
energy volume is reduced such that EM forces ‘squeeze’ it back out to a
larger radii with a lower energy – just like a red-shifted free-photon.
If you imagine an emitted
photon/probability state to be like a copper wire extrusion now (instead of
a violin string), once the photon has been emitted, it has a set ‘energy
volume’ compatible with the travel distance at time of emission. If the
distance increases, its like re-extruding a set length of 2.5mm2
copper wire so that the total volume of that wire will stretch to reach the
new, further located intended location. This is what happens red-shifted
light. Each emitted photon has a predetermined energy volume that ‘knows’
how far it is traveling. When the distance increases, the total energy
volume gets stretched out like copper through an extrusion die.
When the distance decreases,
obviously the opposite happens in order for that light to Blue-shift. The
energy volume gets compressed into a shorter length. A 2.5mm2
copper wire becomes a 2.7mm2 copper wire and so on.
This is a very similar dynamic
to that which drives the quantum leap of electron within an atom. This
is a very similar dynamic to that which drives the orbital dynamics of
matter around a star or planet. Only due to our real-time perspective,
we only see it occur as a quantum leap due to time dilation and
stabilization or averaged out (super-positional) energy fluctuations.
Glen Angus Graham
redshift@senet.com.au