Skip to content

The meaning of stuff

November 30, 2011

Mohan, mdashf


1. The meaning of Gravity. 2. The meaning of invariance of light.

The basic implications of General Relativity on spacetime, it curves them by Schwarzschild radius, a "stealing" of spacetime

I am gonna tell you two things here. One of it is the meaning of gravity and the other still related the meaning of invariance of speed of light.

Yesterday I wrote a small piece “The meaning of Schwarzschild radius” and gave you a little diagram how it applies onto earth and a Blackhole. A blackhole is a case of extreme gravity.

SO the meaning of Schwarzschild radius is convergent upon that of gravity. And I am on Relativity which gives us the complete-so-far view of gravity and kinematical motion.

This radius is nothing but mass itself. SO this radius gives you the total content of mass. How is mass a radius? Relativity has unified pretty many things, among which mass and energy.

SO radius = content of mass = content of energy = momentum = speed = distance / time.

I put an equal sign to mean that once you specified one of the quantity in nature there is only one correspondence to all the other quantities. In your sloppy efforts you may not arrive at that unique correspondence. But if science and Physics were to be valid there has to be one unique correspondence of the physical variable.

SO the S-radius is a measure of the distance and time changes the gravity has effected. That is if you have no gravity there is no change to space and time, either one changes the other. Given there is a mass or energy it has changed the space and time. What do we mean by change? A change means if the mass or energy were not to be there in the first place you would see a space time relation of a particle or whatever process that you are describing. Gravity causes a fallout in this. Gravity caused a hole. But if you delve deeper into this you would see that this is kind of like a uncertainty principle itself. An uncertainity principle takes two physical variables and inserts an inverse relation between them so if you plot one variable’s uncertainity the other’s goes like a inverse function. Recently I was playing with the uncertainity equation on gnuplot  and this inverse relation I plotted. I do not have a copy right now, will try to produce later and post here.

Gravity is a inverse function as well. So Gravity inserts an inverse relation between variables. If you have more energy you will make more fallout but this fall out goes inversely with separation. SO the physical variable which takes this fallout linearly will experience the fallout and another variable that takes it inversely will experience a blow up in the fallout with separattion. That means the fallout in different variables could be related inversely much like unceratainty relation.

Now back to the simpler meaning of gravity. It procreates a fallout in different physical variables that are influenced by it’s effect. The amount of the fallout depending on which variables you want to use to describe this fallout. If you take mass/energy it means speed has a negative fallout. What does it mean? Given that we have a theory that explains how much energy has been used up in various ways for the motion of this particle there must be a minimum amount that does not get used up for the particles motion but the fact that such a mass or energy exists. Hence this is a fallout or uncertainity that no material or massless particles can avoid. The minimum fallout is given by the mass you chose or rather the mass that is present. When this mass goes on increasing the fallout increases, so much so that the fallout is enough to make the ratio of the fallout in space and time becomes 1. That is the situation when light does not escape gravity, that is photons suffer a fallout in speed by an amount 1. This is like a dent in spacetime or an edge in the structure of space time created by mass. This edge is about 1 cm for earth but has to decrease with radial separation, so at the surface it is still not exactly 1 but somewhat smaller. For quite some separation from earth surface there will be a fallout which goes to zero at infinite distance. Earth affects objects to infinite distances, that is teh fallout is caused even at a distance infinitely away but not just for earth, all energy and mass create such edges on which nothing can walk. Its a slippery edge. Gravity creates slippery edges all around it on which even light can not walk.

If you check with quantum mechanics there is a similar situation. The variables are all equal. Having an energy automatically means having a speed, with an unique correspondence. m=E=p=v=d/t. Forgetting the exact amount of uncertainity this means having an uncertainity on E automatically means the “same” uncertainity on the ratio d and t. Thats what is happening at OPERA as I had mentioned 6 weeks ago.  A “fixed” baseline distance, the uncertainity in their energy must show up on the uncertainity on time, which makes the speed ppm on y-axis uncertain while the energy on teh x-axis is still held at the same point. Now people are questioning the “fixedness” of the baseline, exactly how known is the baseline and even relating it to GPS errors, which is nonsensical. I showed in my last article the Solar orbit time offset caused to earth and satelite will differ negligibly, by at-least as small an amount as a factor of 0.1 billion times smaller than the time that matters. That is if 10 nanosecond errors matter then satelite and earth because of their orbitting around Sun have a relative timeoffset of the order 100 nano-nano-seconds. Or I would say as 1/10th of a billion time smaller than what matters. Why are people raising such issues without doing back of the mail calculations first? Internet and freeworld is capable of making you write a paper in couple days if there is any real concern and if there is any physics you actually know. Try it at home. I have finished writing a paper yesterday night and will publish soon. And I did it without drawing a dollar from a lab or a Physics Department, free food and coffee from my family and so on. I have already done work of at-least 5 papers in teh last twwo months and it is leading towards some light in these matters of OPERA and I have literally explained already the flyby anomaly. It will need some more work from me (which has been technically done hence I am making it known here that it explains the so called anomaly, and even the pioneer anomaly but all this came because I interested myself and focussed on OPERA anomaly)

But I have already thought about this fixedness thing of the distance. If you are constantly reading my blogs you would know. And sometimes I do not move discussion elsewhere (to here) so I might have missed to tell you something. But if you want to simultaneously work somewhere on this and be a little guided by my intuition of hitting a real thing towards the Physical problem, then I have talked about having the functional form of the actual path of anything on the earth surface perhaps using so called Vincenty’s formula which gives you the so called vector-length on a curved surface of earth of ours to millimeter accuracy. I have done plenty of calculations to already show you that the GPS time offset from theory of Relativity, mainly special and static earth General Relativity are far too small, other effects I have studied such as spinning earth effect but will come later to this site, “too much physics for one man to handle” in line with “too much b** for one man to handle”. The spinning anyway is 1% of static, so all these things I am telling you if you seriously read these and bypass some of the mistakes that are in the articles which I have anyway spotted but not removed as of yet because as I said “too much to take care of”  you could see that the OPERA anomaly needs some serious attention and clever studies that addresses each concern in the basic physics, forget about new physics for a while. First put the basic calculations. The ways will be more and more clearer. Perhaps the results are wrong. Like I proved the flyby anomaly to be completely explained by basic physics but it had bypassed for two decades and people until last week were and perhaps even now would be, thinking of these as fundamental problems. SO the basic physics as has been worked out by the giants is so ideal and powerful that they can solve most fundamental problems found by now in a matter of 6 months if not 1, if all physics efforts is concerted. Why do you think people like Weinberg often think about problems of unification and final theory and not a fundamental problem like an anomaly that just seem too spurious to them that it has not been addressed properly. You can not take Physics the business way although there must be professionalism.

So before I divert enough towards OPERA and affairs of science which do indeed bother me which is why I am working for free. And yes self pleasure is selfish and therefore nothing is free, I do get the kick out of it.

What is the meaning of invariance of speed of light? Well the invariance of speed of light essentially is the invariance of propertime. If you can break the invariance of propertime or rather know what is the mechanism with which say OPERA neutrino has broken the propertime invariance you would break the invariance of speed of light. It is more difficult to say the mechanism with which OPERA breaks this than invent a way to mathematically break that invariance. That is like writing Principia Mathematica. The latter is like writing a blog.

Vincenty’s formula for vector length will be pretty helpfull in seeing matters with OPERA. Note: I had an article just a few days ago, which described clearly, why the exact distance of the neutrino does not matter but what matters is the exact coordinates of the neutrino creation and where they are registered upon arrival, to millimeter accuracy, atleast we could lose that to say a meter or even 10 meters but not 18 meters, 18 meters is how much corresponds at lightspeed to a 60 nanosec considering light traveled the geometric distance of separation not the spherical, but the 3-D, Euclidean difference not the non-Euclidean difference because you divided the “straight-line” distance by the time, not even regarding the spherical surface or actual distance, that is you have a very very tight constraint on the neutrino not on light, neutrino might be jumping ahead of light much more than even 60 ns if everything is done to great precison but to an ordinary precision how much is light lagging behind neutrino (or is it?)

Let me give fake-numbers to illustrate this. Actual distance covered by neutrino 100 meters. WE find by whatever method (say Zincenty formula) which says a bunch of stupid enthusiasts from the global community having an eye on solving the neutrino puzzle found from this formula the distance to be 98 meters. SO you give light 98 meters and neutrino 100 meters and still neutrino jumps ahead. Now you would say why not give light 102 meters. The answer is the actual distance on a sphere is always more than what you think they would be from your flat-mind intuition. 98 for light vs 100 actual for neutrino still gives neutrino a way ahead. So instead of Zincenty when you can do everything correctly say using Vincenty and other correctly known methods and data, you might discover you have given neutrino 100 and photon 93.99 in that case neutrinos not only go beyond photons speed by 60 second early arrival but a staggering additional amount.

SO this is what is very necessary rather than randomized opinion making and holding. Note that the actual distance that is being quoted even if it is erred by a few kms, it isn’t going to make much difference if it is less than the actual distance because it is to light’s advantage. What will make a difference is the time accuracy. To be more accurate the relative error between distance and time is what matters not individual ones having one fixed. And once you know the actual neutrino coordinates which are anyway not differing by even a few meters, even on google earth you can pin-point the lab position where the neutrinos were shoot and where they were recovered, and measure distance very acurately.

The problem is not with the idea that is being used. The problem is whether the idea has been thoroughly implemented and one needs to check at-least “50” human-times to make sure everything is correct. Not less than 50 and no computers. It is exhausing. Isn’t it? Welcome to science. I had done work on my PhD thesis like that, literally manual and literally “5” human times. Incredible claims require Incredible caution. My PhD is not an incredible thing, nobody wants to know what is the asymmetry between a Klong and Kshort meson’s production from it’s fucking parents, a retarded D0. It is important. But speed of light invariance and speed of light supremacy are just not things the world will let go like that even if they could be incorrect in the nature of things, world is not this efficient with great strides. We need to be patient and in the mean tme work our damn fillaments off if we are to see what we are really capable of.

Back to invariance speed and its meaning. SO by proving the invariance of propertime to be invalid we see that there is a fallout in the photon speed itself. This is just like a fallout of the gravitational mass. Here is a quick situation: The Schwarzschild radius of earth is 9 mm, so on earth surface {6371 kms} it is effectively 8.858 mm and at an altitude of GPS satelite {26200 kms} it is 3.381 mm. Such a gravitational fallout therefore is indicative of the time dilation on surface wrt clocks on satelite or the other way around as well. SO clocks on earth surface run faster as it has now a distance advantage of 8.858 – 3.381 =5.477 mm. So when propertime is not zero for photons that is for masses that are zero and speeds that are 1, at the same time, there is some energy that is different than what we thought it was. This energy therefore is the fallout. This fallout makes a distance advantage for neutrinos but not photons. But we do not know, if this is true or if this is true where it comes from, not earth, may be geometry, may be we did not know enough geometry. May be we know the right geometry but not the right physics law, may be we know the right physical law but it is not consistent with what is happening with nature and we need more of these laws, may be in our law we miss some terms either on teh side of theory or on the side of experiments which causes an energy fallout which then reflects as a breaking of speed invariance. I had a diagram which showed what happens when photons and neutrinos do not sit on perfect circles/spheres. In that case bring additional geometry or see that energy terms were left out from the exact definition of the propertime of photons and neutrinos, either way of the anomaly you have hit a great achievement for Physics of the century. Windup and do not leave out any terms, take all order and remodel the Physics we know, perhaps we knew the Physics already, either way of the anomaly.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: