The SAGNAC Effect speaks Volumes ?, The SAGNAC Effect cancels Relativity ?

You "managed" to misquote QED (too bad, you quoted it correctly in an earlier post).The correct quote"

According to QED the photon has zero mass

The experimental limits you are referring to (good, things are starting to penetrate your prejudices) set an experimental limit of MUCH LESS than what you and AWT predict (m=hf). You and your AWT prdict m=3eV, the experimental imits are at 6*10^-17 and they are driven lower. Of course that we could never measure a zero, we can only approach it asymptotcally as we tighten the measurements error bars. (quick, check wiki on "error bars")

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Aug 6 2006, 03:55 PM

My quote is the exact quote of the source. I don't understand your remark, as the QED is part of standard model.

By my opinion you're don't know about physic too much. By your opinion, the "effective mass doesn't exist", "the photon has no rest mass", "quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model is invalid" , and you're evidently unable to distinguish between the efective mass and the rest mass of particles. Forthemore you're unable to compute the mass stored in the resonator by the photon absorbed.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 6 2006, 04:47 PM

Can you see the difference between your quote about the mass of the photon (no REST mass) and the official , scientific quote (no mass)? Apparently not.

Can you get the fact that it is a nonsense to talk about "photon rest mass"? Apparently not.

Personal attacks don't count as scientific arguments. You only resort to them when you lost the scientific argument.So, it looks like you lost.

No, this is the projection of your misunderstandings. In the case of the photon there is no such thing as "mass". Luxons are massless particles. Read QED and stop spewing nonsense.

You meant that I debunked your nonsense answer? You mean that I challenged you to show how you arrived to the result and you failed to show any calculations? Did you copy the result from somewhere? Any website that we know? Wiki?

You open with a personal attack and you close with one.Under the protective eyes of the moderators. Meaning that you lost.

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Aug 6 2006, 04:46 PM

I'm using the reference to the AWT to distinguish my private idea from the official science stance. I can see it as useful, because everybody has to possibility to decide immediately, whether is worth to believe in it or not. I don't like the presentation the mixture of official and personal stances as a fact.

Please consider, you're not approved to dictate the others, what can have and cannot do here. This is solely a matter of forum administrators. This forum is dedicated to presentation of private theories and the public discussion about it.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 6 2006, 04:49 PM

We decided, it is not worth. Too many mistakes, no predictive power, only philosophy with no model and no math. Read what TROC had to say.

The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:

1) the wave equation
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle

These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iterations can be done even on normal PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:



At the first glance, the AWT predicts, for example:

1. The Universe can be described by substitution of mass density of vibrating string by the energy density by E=mc2
2. The gravity field is manifestation of Aether density, the gravity force is tendency of Aether to level the energy density via diffusion of Aether
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
4. The vacuum has a 6D spongy structure composed from 3D bubbles recursively
5. The Universe is highly, if not infinitesimally recursive
6. The Universe is formed by black hole interior, filled by such spongy matter
7. The Universe collapses, instead of expansion with increasing speed like common gravity bounded objects without need of dark energy postulate
8. The supermassive black holes inside of gallaxies are the rest of quasars and these quasars were created by collisions of newly created vacuum mass during inflation
9. The observable mass was created from secondary condensation of energy radiated from quasars by adiabatic cooling
10. The dark matter was formed from non-condensed portions of such energy as the zone of more dense Aether surrounding the quasars and secondarily all the observable mass
11. The dark matter gradient is responsible for so called Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the Galaxy shape anomaly
12. The particles are created by dense aggregates of Aether foam by phase transition process
13. The spin of particles is formed by mutual composition of motion on the phase interface inside of Aether foam
14. The charge of particle is the result of helicity of such motion.
15. The photon is the result of interference of light wave with Planck size wave pockets, forming our vacuum.
16. The wave function is the Aether mass/energy density profile formed by the internal motion inside the particle, forming an wave pocket confined by the dense vacuum like by gravitational lens (blob).
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 6 2006, 05:01 PM

"3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR"


You refuted your theory again. Can you spot the gross mistake?

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Aug 6 2006, 05:08 PM

The constant speed of light was derived in 1895 by etherist Lorentz from equations of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light.

No other theory till now is able to derive the light speed invariance. The relativity theory just uses the result of Maxwell's theory as an ad-hoc postulate, i.e. the assumption without proof.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 6 2006, 05:15 PM

Repeating the same BS over and over doesn't make it fact

PS: You also got the part with Lorentz wrong.

Pupamancur et al,

I have a question relating to this topic:

If a photon truly has absolutely no rest mass (only relativistic mass), then doesn't that mean that in a frame relative to only itself, it doesn't exist? How can it both exist and not exist at the same time?

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 6 2006, 06:59 PM

The annoying part about trying to match up Newtonian physics with SR, is that the two only meet in the limit of low velocity. Since photons never travel "Slow" in any frame of reference, a lot of problems crop up when you try and use Newtonian physics.

For example, "relativistic mass" is not used by any SR course in university because it's built on the mistaken premise that you can make Newton and Einstein agree on things when v != 0.

For example, Newton gives p = m v and Einstein gives p = gamma m v (for massive particles). gamma is not naturally associated with with m or v. So when you associate gamma with m to get relativistic mass, you restore p = m v, and F = dp / dt, but NOT F = m a.

Likewise, m^2 c^4 = E^2 - p^2 c^2 is the true and "natural" relation between mass, energy and mass and momentum in SR. If p is 0, this reduces to m c ^2 = E, and if m is zero, this reduces to E = |p|c, and if both m and p are 0, this is E = 0. Since photon's are always observed at E > 10^-17 eV, then |p| > 0.

E = pv doesn't work for slowly moving, massive particles because a much better approximation is E = mc^2 + 1/2 pv, as follows from an approximation to Pythagoras. ( when a >> b, sqrt(a^2 + b^2) =~ a + b^2/(2a) , thus E =~ mc^2 + p^2 c ^2 / 2 m c ^2 = m c^2 + gamma ^ 2 m v ^2 /2 = m c ^2 + 1/(2(1-v^2/c^2)) m v^2

As for the photon in the box, the photon IN the box is 1) localized, and 2) has a specific energy. As localized photons do NOT have a well defined momentum (could be + or -, up or down, etc) the problem is best addressed in the energy domain. E_system = E_box + E_photon = m_box c^2 + h-bar f_photon. And since the box is going nowhere, E_system = m_system c^2, so m_system - m_box = h-bar f_photon/c^2 = 3 eV/c^2. This is not the same as saying the (relativistic) mass of the photon is 3 eV, since that's a fiction of math. If the photon had an ordinary Newtonian mass, then you could accelerate it so it would move either faster or slower than c.

Which brings us back to the Sagnac effect. Mixing Newtonian/Euclidean assumptions and SR will lead to contradictions ("paradoxes") and lead you down the path to error. Both Zephir's approach based on "pop science" explanations for Newtonian intuition and Pupamancur aggressive and insensitive postings based on the notion that Zephir is always wrong, are not helpful. A person is not always wrong, but a theory can be. Which gets us back to D=6 versus D=7.2569464048605767801... and the total failure of Kepler's conjecture in high dimensions.

ubavontuba, if the photon is indeed exactly massless, then you can't really speak of an inertial frame of reference for a single photon, as the Lorentz translations are singular, and instead of 4-dimension space-time it is actually zero-dimensional. Photons have no clocks.

In the extended real numbers, the Real Numbers are extended with + and - infinity. You can do some math with + and - infinity, and what ever real number you have, + inifinity is always bigger than it, just like the speed of light is always faster than a massive particle. (This is the rapidity transform of velocity, so the analogy is exact.) One of the things you can do with a real number that you can't do with + infinity is use it to transform your origin and recover the dynamics of the original reals. If K is any real, you can use K as 0. Because (A - = (A-K) - (B-K) = A - K - B + K = A - B + K - K, and K - K = 0. But infinity - infinity is undefined, just like 0/0.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Aug 7 2006, 12:52 AM

Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Please keep your postings to scientific issues. I don't need your evaluations. If you have an issue with the scientific part, I will be more than happy to discuss.

This post has been edited by Pupamancur on Aug 7 2006, 03:56 AM

rpenner,

That was an interesting answer, but here's what interests me about this concept.

Supposing the universe's expansion is accelerating as curently hypothesized.

Supposing this expansion leads to a FTL rate of inflation (relative to us) similar to the hypothesized early FTL expansion of space during the Big Bang.

If this happens, or is happening, mass must leave our observable universe at the farthest extremes of distance. What happens to the photons emanating from these masses as they pass the "perception barrier"? Do they decay into the hypothesized gravitons (similar to photons, only with less spin, as I recall)? Do they simply cease to exist? If so, at what point?

Sorry, the SR is based on two theorems: Lorentz transform (which can be derived from constant speed of light easily) and Lorentz invariance.

Both these theorems was derived by etherist Lorentz (from there is the naming), derived from quaternion form of equations, derived by another etherist Maxwell.

The SR did added to this concept nothing useless, just a "philosophy" - the formal part of theory was derived at least a ten years before. Despite of Einstein geniality, his significance should be targeted to the GR derivation instead, considering the well known fact, the English mathematician Hilbert would able to derive the same equations just a few weeks later.

From this point of view, the Einstein was pretty lucky.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 7 2006, 07:46 AM

Many thanks rpenner.

To get these approximations (and elesewhere) I suspect you are using power series expansions - for the less mathematically intuitive among us it would be really nice if you'd say which - partly so we can see what higher order terms have been dropped and partly because the concept is useful elsewhere as a general method of tuning nasty equations into 'nicer' ones.

best wishes,

-C2.