Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[sketch1946]

Haha, from a geometrical point of view, Cartesian coordinates and geometry inside flat Cartesian spaces behave consistently, however in extreme gravitational contexts, a local spin can be turned into a spiral... extreme gravity can not only cause red-shifting, but can mess with time itself, at least as viewed from outside that local space... I read that more than one well-known mathematician has a number in his equations representing a spin that is faster than the speed of light...

In 3D graphics, an object can be deformed and spin as a 'child' object, inside a deformed space, so looking from outside it rotates smoothly, deformed as if in a parent gravitational field, a minor example in our environment is the Earth itself, rotating smoothly according to the rules.. but stretching out at the equator by 24 km, due to centripetal force, simultaneously moving inside the gravity of the sun and moon, which stretch the geometry with their own contributions to assymetry...

"Quantum field theory is plagued with infinities, which show up in diagrams in which virtual particles go in closed loops. Normally these infinities can be gotten rid of by "renormalization," in which infinite "counterterms" cancel the infinite parts of the diagrams, leaving finite results for experimentally observable quantities. Renormalization works for QED and the other field theories used to describe particle interactions, but it fails when applied to gravity. Graviton loops generate an infinite family of counterterms. The theory ends up with an infinite number of free parameters, and it's no theory at all."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q ... icles.html

How to demonstrate how relativity can make something move faster than light:

"Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the Moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away, so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It might sound ridiculous to say that the Moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid, including rotating ones. So isn't the Moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for."

"What it comes down to is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be compared directly in general relativity. Notice that the Moon is not overtaking any light in its own locality. The speed of the Moon can only be compared to the speeds of other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of speed is not a very useful one in general relativity, and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself, on page 76 of his book "Relativity: the Special and the General Theory", wrote that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity. When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined."

"Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of distance and time are tied together using the speed of light. The Moon is given to be moving slower than light because it remains within the "future light cone" propagating from its position at any instant."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... t/FTL.html

[comingfrom]

Ok, Mr. no no no.

Then it's my turn to ask you questions.

No. It increases its frequency. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Its spin is always 1. Just 1.

It's frequency of what?

Frequency denotes the number of times an event occurs in a time interval, like once a week is a frequency. Or 16,000 times a second is a frequency. So, with photons, what is the event which is happening with such frequency?

And, it's spin is always 1 what?
1 rpm? 1 rps?
Notice that spin is measured in number of times an event (1 revolution) occurs per a time interval too.
So spin is a frequency.

I say, yes.
~Paul

[Higgsy]

Hi Coming

Then it's my turn to ask you questions.

No. It increases its frequency. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Its spin is always 1. Just 1.

It's frequency of what?

Its electromagentic wave frequency. You know, reciprocal of wavelength. That which determines the colour. Higher the frequency, shorter the wavelength, higher the energy of the photon. Photon Energy E is given by E=hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency in cycles per second.

Frequency denotes the number of times an event occurs in a time interval, like once a week is a frequency. Or 16,000 times a second is a frequency. So, with photons, what is the event which is happening with such frequency?

It is the frequency of the electric and magentic field cycles of the collective classical electromagnetic wave.Interference experiments show how the wavelength and the reciprocal of wavelength (frequency) have physical meaning.

And, it's spin is always 1 what?
1 rpm? 1 rps?

Spin is an intrinsic property of elementary particles and is the same for all elementary particles of a particular type. It is a dimensionless quantum number that is 1 for all photons. All photons. And all other known bosons. It is 1/2 for electrons, quarks and other fermions.

Notice that spin is measured in number of times an event (1 revolution) occurs per a time interval too.

No it's not. Spin is a dimensionless quantum number that is 1 for all photons regardless of their energy, and spin angular momentum is +/-(h-bar ) in units of N.m.s for all photons, where h-bar is the reduced Planck constant.

So spin is a frequency.

No.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Higgsy.

Its electromagentic wave frequency. You know, reciprocal of wavelength.

But you know I know the wavelength is due to spin. That is the physical explanation for the electromagnetic wave frequency.

Higher the frequency, shorter the wavelength, higher the energy of the photon.

The higher the energy of the photon, the faster the spin, causes higher frequency and shorter wavelength.

That is, more wobbles per second in it's linear motion.

Photon Energy E is given by E=hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency in cycles per second.

Spin cycles.

It is the frequency of the electric and magentic field cycles of the collective classical electromagnetic wave.

What is the "collective classical electromagnetic wave" made of?
Do you suppose electric charge is being emitted by photons?

I wouldn't discount that theory, but then you are talking about sub photons at a whole new quantum level that is orders of magnitude below where any theory is today.

Interference experiments show how the wavelength and the reciprocal of wavelength (frequency) have physical meaning.

Spin is a real physical phenomenon that has frequency and wave motion.
The "electromagnetic wave" is as yet to be physically explained.

Interference experiments can be explained simply, when photons are given real physical properties, such as radius, and spin. They have only been baffling because it hasn't been understood that spins create wave motions.

Spin is an intrinsic property of elementary particles and is the same for all elementary particles of a particular type.

The world of spin.

It is a dimensionless quantum number that is 1 for all photons.

What number does that make the earth's spin?

"Dimensionless quantum number" is as explanatory as "electromagnetic wave", to me.
They are both not physical explanations.

All photons. And all other known bosons. It is 1/2 for electrons, quarks and other fermions.

Half what? Half a dimensionless quantum number?
How does one half something that has no dimension?

Notice that spin is measured in number of times an event (1 revolution) occurs per a time interval too.

No it's not. Spin is a dimensionless quantum number that is 1 for all photons regardless of their energy, and spin angular momentum is +/-(h-bar ) in units of N.m.s for all photons, where h-bar is the reduced Planck constant.

I'm not talking about dimensionless quantum spin.

I'm talking about real physical revolutions. i.e 3D spin.
Real physical spin is measured in revolutions per time unit.

So spin is a frequency.

No.

If that is your diagnosis, Dr. No.

Personally, I prefer physical explanations.
I believe physics should provide physical explanations, but what we get is mystical terminology and virtual explanations.

Saying thing like, spin = 1 a dimensionless quantum number, and frequency is the electromagnetic wave, are not physical explanations, and only means you now have to explain how dimensions are removed from the physical world and why they are in the case of photon spin, and what 1 and half of dimensionless 1 mean in terms of spin, and what the electromagnetic wave is.

~Paul

[sketch1946]

Haha, theoretically, ie in quantum theory, it really is about 'no'....

Electrons do each have a magnetic field (called the “magnetic moment” for some damn-fool reason), as do protons and neutrons. If enough of them “agree” and line up with each other you get a ferromagnetic material, or as most people call them: “regular magnets”.

Herein lies the problem. For the charge and size of electrons in particular, their magnetic field is way too high. They’d need to be spinning faster than the speed of light in order to produce the fields we see. As fans of the physics are no doubt already aware: faster-than-light = no. And yet, they definitely have the angular momentum necessary to create their fields.

observation=yes

It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things.

<....> By the way, notice that at no point has mass been mentioned! This result applies to anything and everything. Particles, groups of particles, your mom, whatevs!

So, the maximum or minimum angular momentum is always some multiple of half an integer. When it’s an integer (0, 1, 2, …) you’ve got a boson, and when it’s not (1/2, 3/2, …) you’ve got a fermion. Each of these types of particles have their own wildly different properties. Most famously, fermions can’t be in the same state as other fermions (this leads to the “solidness” of ordinary matter), while bosons can (which is why light can pass through itself).
http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/1 ... -rotation/

[comingfrom]

c is the speed limit of the linear motion of photons.
That was calculated from observation.

That doesn't mean a point of the surface of the photon can't be travelling faster than c.
Has the maximum spin speed been calculated?

It has.

Proof from the Mainstream of my Quantum Spin Equations
Superposition
Unifying the Electron and Proton

The last link has the math, if you are looking for numbers.
The first two give the explanation a his spin theory.

Compare to a modern physics paper on quantum spin; Spins in few-electron quantum dots

In the introduction they are already saying...

...to find spin...while considering the electron as a point particle.

Point particles cannot possibly spin.
You need something with 3 dimensions, before you can spin it.
You need to track a point on it's surface to know its spin.
And point particles don't have a surface.
Because point particles don't have dimensions.

I'm guessing, this must be where Higgsy gets his dimensionless spin from.

When I get misleading terminology and misdirection in the introduction already, I find it hard to read on.
If they start with bull, the rest is going to be bull too.

They do inform us that spin was first discovered in the 1920s, but they have been pouring virtualness on it ever since, so it is hardly any wonder, as they confess, "The spin of an electron remains a somewhat mysterious property".

~Paul

[sketch1946]

Hi Paul,
I'm agreeing with you really, just pointing out that 'classical' QM theory interprets rotation as 'spin' and thus redefines logic as well as rotation... called 'reinventing the wheel'

It happens in advertising and politics where 'spin doctors' redefine words, concepts, truth etc

Few people seem to worry that time itself is now defined as 'oscillations' of an atom, whatever that means physically, and this magical number can't be exceeded:

"The secret to this impeccable precision is the correct measurement of the second as the base unit of modern time-keeping. The International System of Units (SI) defines one second as the time it takes a Cesium-133 atom at the ground state to oscillate exactly 9,192,631,770 times."

The speed that light travels in a vacuum, wherever you can find one, is the distance travelled by a photon, whatever that is, in one second, which is that number 9,192,631,770, and so the speed of light is called c.

Some believe with sincere faith in the 'holy scriptures' of QM; they have a deeply held canonical belief that this value of c can't be exceeded, so 'sound doctrine' and sincere exegesis leads to the conclusion that 'rotation' means 'spin', and must not be mentioned anymore, the 'logic' of this is confined to those who have a deeper insight into these holy mysteries

[comingfrom]

Thanks sketch.

I'm agreeing with you really

I can see that.
And I'm agreeing with you.
You raised some good points.

I wasn't addressing that last post to anyone in particular.
I just thought to put up some links to an alternate spin theory, that has math (for those that demand it).

Then I googled to find out about when quantum spin was first discovered, because I read about it somewhere before, but I forget where. (All I remember it was from following a link from this forum.)
Anyhow, that other paper came up in my search, so I threw that in for comparison too.

Though I put links to Miles Mathis' papers, I'm not saying he is the be all and end all,
but to show, there are viable alternate theories.
I'm sure his is not the only one.

And how come physicist aren't even clear about dimensions yet?
That to me is the basic of basics, in physics.

Dropping some famous names... Dirac's equations... Pauli said... correction to Coulomb... etc, without explaining, doesn't convince me after they have shown a misunderstanding of the basics, and a disregard for the real meanings of words.

And they know the electron is not a point particle, yet they still treat it as so.
What is with that?

I think they deliberately muddle us with terminology and misdirection, so they can sell us their theories.
Or are they just muddled because they bought the muddled theories that came before them.

The electron is calculated to be spinning faster than the speed of light,
so how much faster must a photon spin.
Photons are the charge field that the electrons emit by their spinning.
~Paul

[webolife]

Spin, as distinct from rotation... resonance... 3D symmetry. Frequency does not require the propagation of a medium-less wave. But the detection of a resonating light signal [pressure vector, or more accurately, "beam"] presents as a wave function, from which I think frequency is the only directly measurable quantity.
Corpuscles cannot be points, they must have finite dimensions. But mathematical models for the sake of simplicity assume centroidal points of symmetry. As long as we keep this assumption in its place, I think it is ok to think of fields surrounding "points". The 3D aspect of a field then will incorporate the 4-Pi as its peripheral description, regardless of our visualization of spin as "rotation" or not. Something is resonating, maybe Sansbury's subtrons... ??
Regarding FTL, I habitually assert that light is not a moving material, propagating wave or speeding "photons", therefore "faster than light" is a misnomer. As a pressure field, no "limiting speed" is required for light, although I suspect "c" may be a limiting velocity for corpuscles. I do not subscribe to the oxymoron "infinite speed", which is still locked to moving "stuff", but to instantaneous action within the field. Nevertheless light does exhibit beautiful symmetry, eg. about the central "line" of sight, elicited as the color spectrum for resonant eyes.

[comingfrom]

In mainstream theory, there is something that is faster than the speed of light.

Escape velocity from a Black Hole.

One more reason why to believe Black Holes do not exist.
~Paul

[Webbman]

I would just like to point out that if you limit yourself to light and its properties, the universe will never make any sense at all, because it is a secondary process.

Light is a discrete object similar to an electron. Its shape is what makes light what it is, and its design makes it friendly for electrons, since they are both the same thing with a different shape.

The electric force, what I call alignment, is the primary process. While everyone is caught up in the light, so to speak, you basically ignore the real power, the real reason why the sun knows where the earth is at all times and many other questions that simply cant be addressed using light.

in short the speed of light, is the cubed root of the electric force and while the "speed of light" gets all the praise, its really irrelevant since its derivative of something else.

TLDR
e=mc3
where
c3=speed of the electric force aka alignment speed. aka a big number.

and no, you cannot change matter to energy, you can change matter to its base form, electromagnetic strands, which cannot regulate energy and thus it is all released at one time.

why would an atomic bomb have an electromagnetic pulse if it didn't have anything to do with electromagnetism?

[willendure]

I would just like to point out that if you limit yourself to light and its properties, the universe will never make any sense at all, because it is a secondary process.

Light is a discrete object similar to an electron. Its shape is what makes light what it is, and its design makes it friendly for electrons, since they are both the same thing with a different shape.

The electric force, what I call alignment, is the primary process. While everyone is caught up in the light, so to speak, you basically ignore the real power, the real reason why the sun knows where the earth is at all times and many other questions that simply cant be addressed using light.

in short the speed of light, is the cubed root of the electric force and while the "speed of light" gets all the praise, its really irrelevant since its derivative of something else.

TLDR
e=mc3
where
c3=speed of the electric force aka alignment speed. aka a big number.

and no, you cannot change matter to energy, you can change matter to its base form, electromagnetic strands, which cannot regulate energy and thus it is all released at one time.

why would an atomic bomb have an electromagnetic pulse if it didn't have anything to do with electromagnetism?

Why e=mc3? Is it not e=mc^2?

[comingfrom]

Webbman offered

I would just like to point out that if you limit yourself to light and its properties, the universe will never make any sense at all, because it is a secondary process

Who limits to light?
No one neglects baryonic matter from their models.
But same say baryonic matter is the secondary process, or the product, arising from light, or from energy.

Light is a discrete object similar to an electron. Its shape is what makes light what it is, and its design makes it friendly for electrons, since they are both the same thing with a different shape.

I would say the difference is in the size.
Electrons are many times the radius of photons.
Electrons emit even while they are being driven in a field.

The electric force, what I call alignment, is the primary process.

Consists of photons, in my model.
Photons are what motivate the electrons or ions in an electric current.
The spins on the photons create the magnetic forces.

While everyone is caught up in the light, so to speak, you basically ignore the real power, the real reason why the sun knows where the earth is at all times and many other questions that simply cant be addressed using light.

I rather think that the Sun and planets are both driven by a galactic current [of photons and ions], and need not "know" of each others presence.
But the planets have their electric fields within the Sun's electric field, which define the orbital placements.

in short the speed of light, is the cubed root of the electric force and while the "speed of light" gets all the praise, its really irrelevant since its derivative of something else.

In my model I allow for the possibility that there is a sub field below the photonic field.
If photons emit fields of particles too, this may explain some the enigmatic behaviors of photons.
And particles at that scale of size would be travelling many time faster than light.

and no, you cannot change matter to energy, you can change matter to its base form, electromagnetic strands, which cannot regulate energy and thus it is all released at one time.

why would an atomic bomb have an electromagnetic pulse if it didn't have anything to do with electromagnetism?

You say "cannot change matter to energy", and then speak of an example which does.

Matter does appear to be locked up energy.
And more energy is locked in by matter by atomic and molecular bonding.
We find ways to unlock energy from matter for use.
~Paul

[Webbman]

I would just like to point out that if you limit yourself to light and its properties, the universe will never make any sense at all, because it is a secondary process.

Light is a discrete object similar to an electron. Its shape is what makes light what it is, and its design makes it friendly for electrons, since they are both the same thing with a different shape.

The electric force, what I call alignment, is the primary process. While everyone is caught up in the light, so to speak, you basically ignore the real power, the real reason why the sun knows where the earth is at all times and many other questions that simply cant be addressed using light.

in short the speed of light, is the cubed root of the electric force and while the "speed of light" gets all the praise, its really irrelevant since its derivative of something else.

TLDR
e=mc3
where
c3=speed of the electric force aka alignment speed. aka a big number.

and no, you cannot change matter to energy, you can change matter to its base form, electromagnetic strands, which cannot regulate energy and thus it is all released at one time.

why would an atomic bomb have an electromagnetic pulse if it didn't have anything to do with electromagnetism?

Why e=mc3? Is it not e=mc^2?

because I think the electric force is near instantaneous which would require a higher order or magnitude to account for. It also gives me a volume/density equation which I think is important when calculating energy as I see the true energy as a function of the number of electromagnetic strands a unit volume possesses.

[willendure]

I would just like to point out that if you limit yourself to light and its properties, the universe will never make any sense at all, because it is a secondary process.

Light is a discrete object similar to an electron. Its shape is what makes light what it is, and its design makes it friendly for electrons, since they are both the same thing with a different shape.

The electric force, what I call alignment, is the primary process. While everyone is caught up in the light, so to speak, you basically ignore the real power, the real reason why the sun knows where the earth is at all times and many other questions that simply cant be addressed using light.

in short the speed of light, is the cubed root of the electric force and while the "speed of light" gets all the praise, its really irrelevant since its derivative of something else.

TLDR
e=mc3
where
c3=speed of the electric force aka alignment speed. aka a big number.

and no, you cannot change matter to energy, you can change matter to its base form, electromagnetic strands, which cannot regulate energy and thus it is all released at one time.

why would an atomic bomb have an electromagnetic pulse if it didn't have anything to do with electromagnetism?

Why e=mc3? Is it not e=mc^2?

because I think the electric force is near instantaneous which would require a higher order or magnitude to account for. It also gives me a volume/density equation which I think is important when calculating energy as I see the true energy as a function of the number of electromagnetic strands a unit volume possesses.

Ah ok. Just something you made up.