Re: An Alternative Interpretation of the Light Postulate - Part II
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:34:05 GMT
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192766436.324598.68330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Oct 18, 8:10 pm, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LIGHT
: > POSTULATE - PART II
: >
: > The first part of this topic contained an argument that
: > suggested an explanation for the existence of the
: > nonsimultaneity effect described in Einstein's railway
: > carriage thought experiment, that involved the proposal
: > that light, in the form of a single photon, contains more
: > than one focus of propagation at the same time, and that
: > it possesses a focus of propagation, with its spacetime
: > trajectory, in the reference frame of the railway carriage,
: > that is distinct from a separate focus of propagation, and
: > a separate spacetime trajectory, in the reference frame
: > of the embankment.
: >
: > Simply proposing such an explanation, of course, is not the
: > end of the matter, because there are immediate implications
: > regarding the intrinsic nature of such photons that must be
: > considered. There is obviously nothing special about the
: > two reference frames in the example above, so that, if a
: > photon has two distinct foci of propagation in the two frames,
: > it must be supposed to have distinct foci of propagation in
: > all possible reference frames at all possible relative velocities
: > less than the velocity of light. In other words, it must have an
: > entire spectrum of foci of propagation, together with an entire
: > spectrum of trajectories associated with such foci of
: > propagation. If, despite this, the photon is to remain as a
: > single entity, that can still be regarded as a single photon,
: > all these foci of propagation, and their trajectories, must
: > necessarily be connected together in such a way that, together,
: > they can constitute a single entity. I think that the easiest way
: > in which this might be thought possible is to postulate that
: > they all form part of a single geometry of the photon in space
: > and time. That is, a photon will be considered to project, into
: > space and time, a geometry, belonging to, or internal to itself,
: > within which all its foci of propagation, and their trajectories,
: > will be defined, determined, and connected together to form
: > a single reality.
: >
: > In such a scenario, it is important to understand what might
: > be meant by a 'focus of propagation'. Does it mean, for
: > example, that a photon occupies many different locations at
: > the same time? I would say that the answer to that would have
: > to be in the negative, in order to avoid possible paradoxical
: > misconceptions of the reality involved. Instead, it would be
: > more satisfactory to suppose that the foci of propagation of
: > the photon are merely features of the photon's own spacetime
: > geometry, that define the locations at which, alone, the photon
: > is able to be detected. If, then, a particular focus of propagation
: > is selected for the detection of the photon, the photon will
: > manifest at that location with, at the same time, the withdrawal
: > of its entire, internal spacetime geometry, along with all the other
: > foci of propagation, and their defined trajectories.
: >
: > The above is obviously merely a brief sketch, but I think that
: > it is sufficient to at least indicate the feasability of a viable
: > alternative explanation to that of Minkowski spacetime. That is
: > not to say that it will not have problems that will have to be solved,
: > but I don't see any obvious impediments that would prevent it
: > being adopted as at least a working hypothesis that could form
: > a basis for further consideration.
: >
: > It is worth remarking, here, that, in the above explanation, there
: > is no spacetime rotation of inertial frames, and space and time
: > axes remain parallel, as they were always thought to do in the
: > former Galilean era.
: >
: > The above proposal regarding the nature of light is strengthened
: > by an added benefit automatically associated with the concept
: > of such a suggested internal spacetime geometry of photons
: > (not as a Minkowski type geometry, by the way). Such a proposal
: > involves a projection of the internal geometry of a photon into
: > space and time at a speed so great that the nature of the photon
: > becomes effectively 'nonlocal' in its conception. Such a speed of
: > projection of the photon's internal geometry does not, by the way,
: > violate the principle of the speed of light, c, as the maximum
: > possible. Within such a geometry, the photon can appear only at
: > the location of one of its foci of propagation, which propagate,
: > within the photon's geometry, only at velocity c. The purpose of
: > projecting such a geometry into space and time at such a speed
: > is to enable the creation and calculation of the entire spectrum of
: > trajectories of all the foci of propagation, which they will then
: > follow, at their normal velocity.
: >
: > Such an internal geometry, attributed to the photon, can thus
: > easily also form the basis of an explanation of the working of
: > photon non-locality, which-path erasure, and entanglement, as
: > seen in a variety of recent experiments. In other words, the
: > geometry projected into space and time by a photon will be
: > withdrawn, or will 'collapse' when the photon reaches its
: > destination, where it is detected.
: >
: > Entanglement, for example, in this view, would require only the
: > proposition that two photons are sharing a common spacetime
: > geometry, rather than having separate geometries, in the usual
: > way. Then, the detection of one photon, with a withdrawal of its
: > internal geometry, would automatically withdraw the internal
: > geometry of the other photon also, thus necessitating it be also
: > detected virtually simultaneously with the first, however far apart
: > they might be.
: >
: > Again, in a which-path erasure experiment, it can easily be
: > conceived that, since the photon does not appear until one of its
: > foci of propagation is selected, it is quite possible that it could
: > virtually instantaneously modify and 'recalculate' its internal
: > geometry, past, present, and future, in response to any
: > modification of its environment, at any time up to the point where
: > it actually reaches its target, even if its foci of propagation have
: > already passed the double-slit experiment, or its equivalent.
: >
: > If it turns out that the above explanation is the correct
: > interpretation of SR, as I believe it will, then we will have arrived
: > at the end of the Minkowski spacetime era, and Minkowski
: > spacetime will have been revealed as one of the great conceptual
: > errors in the history of science.
: >
: > The new reality, if established, will involve a restoration of the
: > former Galilean spacetime with, however, a preservation of the
: > Lorentz transformation equations. These will no longer be simple
: > geometrical coordinate transformations but, rather, a
: > specification of the manner of the working of interactions between
: > relatively moving objects by means of photons or, perhaps,
: > massless, lightspeed bosons in general. Along with the
: > restoration of Galilean spacetime, we will also have the restoration
: > of a common, universal time for all observers, with the difference
: > that, due to the working of light, it will not be directly visible
: > across
: > all inertial frames to all observers
: >
: > It will also provide a single, unified theory that will underlie both
: > SR and all nonlocality effects, as observed in recent experiments.
: >
: > Alen
:
: You're setting some very lofty goals for yourself, and yet not a
: single equation posted. You better get busy.
Here you are.
img22 and img76
Catch 22 and the truck stop.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Don't bother getting busy, be lazy. It's been pointed out to you
that there are internal inconsistencies in SR so carry on trolling,
that's all you are capable of.
:
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
- Next by Date: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Previous by thread: Re: An Alternative Interpretation of the Light Postulate - Part II
- Next by thread: An Alternative Interpretation of the Light Postulate - Part III
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
