Half a theory of EM propagation, needs the other half!

Para 1
Assume there are two frames Fa and Fb. Assume now that information passes between them at the speed of light. Fb becomes aware of a change in Fa after t= c/s where s is the distance between the two points. Given the uncertainty principle the 'action' that can be resolved is limited.. this could appear as a variation in the observed magnitude (energy) which would violate all sorts of conservation laws OR as a variation in time.. which is not so strictly conserved. The proposal is therefore that E = h f and dE .dt >= h are manifestations of one and the same thing. For a single action there will be no identifiable frequency (except by definition). If the same action is repeated by many 'sources' and repeated many times (eg a radio transmitter) the uncertainty averages out to a constant probability which will depend only on how efficiently you collect the information from the source. If the total energy put into an aerial varies sinusoidally then the received signal will also vary sinusoidally but (obviously?) only if this is true.

Para 2
"Information passes" has conspicuously failed to address the mechanism of propagation. Conventional electromagnetic theory happily divides up the mechanism of propagation into E and H fields.. I suggest (without proof) that one or other of E or H can be detected but not both .. I further suggest that the illusion that one is creating the other is simply due to the way that both cannot be detected at the same time. As the probability of detecting the E component decreases the probability of detecting the H field increases .. the information from the source cannot 'hide' but it can be pretty sneaky about the way it shows itself. The initial mechanism is proposed to have the appearance of a fairly conventional E X H with the addition of the uncertainties specified above.

Para 3

Conventional EM theory doesn't exactly assume a Luminiferous Aether but it seems to 'happen' regardless.

Para 4

If one looks at a walkie-talkie transmitter at one end of a moving railway carriage and a receiver at the other there is the option of 'Dopplering' at the transmitter and UnDopplering at the receiver .. relativistic contraction of time and distance will keep the propagation time constant etc. We can live with a Luminiferous Aether until we send a signal across the carriage and find it doesn't dive off towards the back of the carriage. We can mess about with trapped Aether by opening and closing windows .. but it seems to me we need a better explanation of the mechanism of propagation of our 'information'.

Para 5

How information propagates in 'spacetime' is the half of the theory I haven't got. Any suggestions?

Comments welcome.

You can try to imagine, how the energy can propagate through some superfluid. The superfluid is perfectly movable, so that the common pressure waves cannot transfer any substantial energy. The only possibility is to employ the inertia of such liquid by making some torsion deformation in it. And this is an exact way, how the light spreads through vacuum.



The animation above illustrates the propagation of Aether deformations at the case of electromagnetic field generated by oscillation dipole as vector field. You can click to the animation below to see it at better resolution (cca 8 MB AVI video). It should be pointed out, the deformations are torsion recursively. It means, vacuum elements are moving along spiral path, not just circular (the light exhibits so called spin).

Zephir,

Many thanks for the post.

If we accept relativity (I think we do?) we have to agree that everyone (on or off the carriage) can triangulate in on the transmitter in the moving carriage and all would agree that the velocity of light is the same. This seems to exclude any fixed medium of any sort. Once a signal is injected into a superfluid it couldn't know whether the signal would be detected by a moving or stationary observer and it would be unable to adjust the velocity of propagation accordingly. Hopefully the 'across the carriage' result eliminates most of the obvious ways to slide relativity type results in without actually going for 'no compromise' propagation in 'spacetime'. Can your superfluid do that?

I didn't want to start off with this but if we take

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2 t^2

going for the completely weird..

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2 t^2 - relativity^2 = 0 (??????????????????)

As far as relativity is concerned everything is in the same place and there isn't really a mode of propagation at all. Just a thought .. there's a trick here somewhere. Don't know what it is though.

-C2.

In fact, the Lorentz transform can be derived just by using of common wave spreading model of light in vacuum (see the DHMTL applet and/or AVI video). The concept of superfluid is necessary just for explanation, why such waves cannot move together with observer reference frame (i.e. for explanation of the result of Michelson-Morley experiment). But such model is quite common in nature. For example, the energy can spread along water surface in form of capillary waves. It means, the underwater serves here as passive environment, as the carrier of surface (mem)brane, the motion of it doesn't depends on the speed or direction of surface wave motion and vice versa.



It's evident, the vacuum can be formed by the network of such surfaces (i.e. the foam), which are serving for capillary waves spreading. It means, whole the energy is spreading in form of surface transversal waves, thus fulfilling the requirements of compatibility with Michelson-Morley experiment results.

Looking at
http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika...ity/doppler.htm
If we imagine theses guys are doing this across a moving carriage do we not see the wavefronts drifting off towards the back of the carriage in a rather 'non-relativistic' way? I think you can make this sort of thing work most of the time .. but not all of it. All observers expect c = c at the same time.. whatever they are doing.

The constant speed of surface wave is common property of such wave at water surface. The speed of its spreading doesn't depend on the source speed or direction of motion, considering the fact, the location and/or local time of such observer can be only determined by the very same wave too.

Don't forget, during observation of waves at water surface you're using a different interaction (i.e. the light wave) for determination of surface wave speed and or direction. In vacuum such reference interaction isn't available, so you have to observe the object just by using of the very same wave, as you're using for distance/time interval measurements. Such restriction results in relativistic effects.

The light speed is invariant by its very nature, because we are using the light both for distance, both the time measurements. Try to imagine, you're measuring the water surface wave speed just using the surface waves as the only tool for determination of the surface wave location and time available. The international system of physical unit (SI) takes account into it and the light speed is constant by definition.

Please try to see that I am assuming there is no water for these waves to travel on or in and that all clocks are the same and interchangeable.

It is not a comment on the merits of the solution you suggest.. it is just not the solution I am looking for.

-C2.

Confused2:

AWESOME - graphic in your Post 4 JUN 2006 at 12:43 PM.

Just imagine putting a twist in the loops.

We might then have an image of how loops relate to helices.

One caution, the loops are more like to be ellipses rather than circles for the same reason that the Earth orbit is an eccentric nearly circular ellipse.

Gadfly,
That graphic came from Zephir .. all credit to him.

Zephir,
Can you extend your existing solution to encompass Gadly's suggestions?

-C2.

Of course, ellipses can always be normalized into circles, the real shape doesn't matter here. Just the principle is important.

After all, be prepared on the fact, in real particle all these fluctuations appears a pretty random at the first sight. Just the composition of it results in some quantized states of motion, the torsion field is just an steady state abstract by the same way, as all these pretty images of electron orbitals...

I believe the focal point of an egg/elliptical shape would be toroidal. Angular rotation of mass causes it to deform into such an elliptical shape, or alternately you might say elliptical shapes support the appearance of angular rotation.

The interesting part is that you don't necessarily even need an infinite number of them regularly arranged and nested in a multidimensional space ... you can take a single such manifold and have reflections within it automatically grow into having such fractal charatceristics and due to curved surface reflections have similar traits appear to repeat on various scales of size. So the universe could be just one shape (likely with toroidal characteristics) fractally repeated and even overlapping in space (for example two reflections can appear to come from the same physical space yet be physically separate and non-interacting though the fact that they would share a common path to you, as an observer indicates some interaction could still exist).

Things like faster than light gravity aren't a problem, because space need not be as massive as taking light from space multiplying it by X billion light years and assuming it travelled a straight path getting here. The object could be sitting right next to you acting as dark matter gravitationally but EMF and directional waves could echo around for a long time before reaching you.

Both the solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates, both the black holes are having a toroidal shape and LQG theory uses such model in form of spin network. I'm using a toroidal shape often for explanation of different aspect of particle properties, but I don't expect, such paradigm is quite common at Planck scale. It's just a relativistic high energy density approximation of inertia recursion topology inside the multidimensional quantum foam based on tensor and spinor formalism. The low energy quantum mechanic approach is based on wave deformation recursion, which I consider a more general.

This is part of the puzzle of the 'other half' of the theory. The first part of the theory (which is negotiable) attempts to eliminate the need for the EM wave to change as it propagates by (effectively) acknowledging only the equivalent of a pure TEM (EXH) wave which is subsequently subject to errors of detection to generate the illusion of a sinewave for a single photon and to build up a statistical (say) sinewave where the sinewave is a consequence of sinusoidal excitation and contains no information about the mode of propagation.

There are problems with the first part of the theory (it may well be wrong) and also the second part of the theory... I regret that I am not happy with an Aether based solution.

-C2.

I don't know, what's your problem exactly, but for explanation of local photon time the Aether Wave theory supplies a simple analogy, based on multidimensional phase interface formed structure of space time (i.e. the foam).

Well, suppose you're fisherman on the open sea and you need to measure time. The most primitive way is to count intervals, in which the surface waves sways your boat. But such time measure will definitely depend on the speed of your boat. And at the case, you'll move by the speed of surface water spreading, your relative time ceases to zero. And this is the local time of photon. The DHTML applet or AVI video illustrates the time paradox on laser clocks, drifting by different speed through Aether.