The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[Dancing David]

Checking alpha and the fine structure.

It appears that it is a circular argument.
C is the direct and indirect basis for many of the constants.
Time is also incorporated except for the Coulomb which is a numerical value.

Alpha would change if Light had a velocity that differed from its proper frame.

Light is moving faster, in faster time, to maintain its proper frame.

Being at the bottom of a gravity well would also change alpha if your argument was correct. So when man went into orbit he should of died from alpha poisoning.

Really, you should try again, a shift in alpha which change the spectral lines, the rest of your argument fails on its own. And your hyperbole probably helps it fall.

 

[quarky]

At speed. It's one of those quantum leap things with no allowed states in between.

It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how could there have already been enough distance to accommodate the required speed? The quantum leap of an electron's energy state involves a tiny distance.
Isn't a violation implied in this first second?

 

[sol invictus]

Light speed is dependent on time flow.

Time dilation is velocity and mass driven.

Time does not appear to affect internal processes within the atom, except for the time length before decay.

As others have pointed out, that is incorrect.

Imagine an atom bathed in a broad spectrum of radiation. The atom will absorb photons only with certain frequencies as measured according to its local rate of time flow. Therefore the radiation, after passing many such atoms, will have absorption lines at those frequencies.

But if that radiation subsequently red- or blue-shifts, either because it is observed by someone moving with respect to the atom (Doppler), or because it climbed up or down a gravitational potential well (gravitational redshift), or because of the expansion of the universe (which is really a combination of the first two), or because of DD's "theory", then those absorption peaks move lower or higher in frequency.

This effect is observed routinely in cosmology - when the time-time component of the metric varies, absorption lines move. Therefore if DD's theory predicts that the time-time component of the metric goes to infinity in the absence of mass (as the first paragraph of the first post in this thread says), it is very tightly constrained by observations of those lines.

Is it ruled out? Impossible to say without any quantitative formulation. But if the effect is big enough to matter for astrophysics, it almost certainly is.

 

[Complexity]

Your theory has now been disproven.

I for one am shocked, absolutely shocked





that it took this long.

Dear OP person,

Please pick another hobby, one that does not require... what physics requires.

Physics is not your thing, and no amount of study is going to make a physicist out of you.

It can be fascinating to read from the sidelines, that is where I ended up.

 

[edd]

Actually I think Ly-alpha forests aren't good for this - you only get the one line*, and any shift in a line due to weird physics is degenerate with redshift. You need multiple lines (and probably the right ones) to pick out the effect in question.

Anyway, I think there's enough other stuff around in variable enough gravitational fields that you can be pretty sure it's not screwing with the speed of light except in the accepted ways.

*Well that's not quite true. You get additional lines in some cases, especially stronger ones, but I'm not sure you don't then have problems nailing down the line measurement given the Ly-alpha is probably then heavily damped and you might also correlate one line with the wrong tree in the forest if you think their positions aren't correctly nailed down.

 

[DeathDart]

An atom that is moving at relativistic speeds ISN'T in the same time frame as the light that is hitting it. Velocity creates a doppler shift. Time dilation will cause a time shift from the local space frame.

Ok, now I see the problem. Relativistic shifts are still time effects. I was concentrating on fixed atoms in low gravitational regions.

Light hitting an atom in a Low Gravity Fast Time Flow had to move through fast time flow to get to the atom. Therefore BOTH the atom and space share the same time flow.

When the atom and the space share the same time flow, there isn't any visible effect, since the two time effects cancel out.

Velocity causes Doppler shifts, while time dilation causes time to be different from the space the atom is traveling in.

 

[sol invictus]

When the atom and the space share the same time flow, there isn't any visible effect, since the two time effects cancel out.

Not when observed by a distant observer in a region where time flows differently - which, according to you, is the case for your theory.

The original Pound-Rebka experiment is a perfect example. Time flows at a different rate at the roof of Jefferson Lab at Harvard than in the basement. Therefore, when an excited atom emits radiation in the basement, the radiation it emits cannot be absorbed by a ground state atom at roof (and vice versa).

 

[DeathDart]

Really, you should try again, a shift in alpha which change the spectral lines, the rest of your argument fails on its own. And your hyperbole probably helps it fall.

It was a defensive hyperbole, I was correct about space and an atom sharing the same frame in Low Gravity Fast Time Flow. Time effects cancel out.

I was wrong about the relativistic effects of an atom moving at relativistic speeds. The atom is no longer in the same time frame as its environment, so time effects DO NOT cancel out.

I was wrong, I was getting defensive. I must not turn green.

 

[DeathDart]

Not when observed by a distant observer in a region where time flows differently - which, according to you, is the case for your theory.

The original Pound-Rebka experiment is a perfect example. Time flows at a different rate at the roof of Jefferson Lab at Harvard than in the basement. Therefore, when an excited atom emits radiation in the basement, the radiation it emits cannot be absorbed by a ground state atom at roof (and vice versa).

Again, you are correct.

 

[sol invictus]

Again, you are correct.

Then you should acknowledge that according to your theory, emission and absorption lines caused by emission or absorption events in regions of space where gravity is very weak will be shifted (when observed by us on earth). If that shift is large enough to be detectable, it potentially rules out your theory. If it is not, it is unlikely to have any effect on the phenomena you mention in the OP.

Either way, you need a quantitative formulation of your theory to find out.

 

[DeathDart]

Not when observed by a distant observer in a region where time flows differently - which, according to you, is the case for your theory.

The original Pound-Rebka experiment is a perfect example. Time flows at a different rate at the roof of Jefferson Lab at Harvard than in the basement. Therefore, when an excited atom emits radiation in the basement, the radiation it emits cannot be absorbed by a ground state atom at roof (and vice versa).

The second part of your statement is correct, the first part is incorrect.

If the atom and the space share the same time flow, any light coming through that space will be stretched. The stretched light will hit the atom and be reflected off as the same stretched light. The stretched light will return to normal upon hitting our slow time space, no change to a distant observer.

If a group of atoms has a significant vector velocity there will be some difference in the reflected light because the atoms are slightly out of time sync with their space frame.

 

[edd]

An atom that is moving at relativistic speeds ISN'T in the same time frame as the light that is hitting it.

Is a stationary atom in the same frame?

There seems to be a bit of an understanding problem here.

 

[DeathDart]

Is a stationary atom in the same frame?

There seems to be a bit of an understanding problem here.

Yes the atom is in an identical space frame.

The atom and the space share the same faster time in low gravity space.

The atom and the space do not share the same time frame when the atom is moving. We have a way of calculating that time change for relativistic objects
SQRT(1- V²/C²).

In a region of space with fast time flow I don't know how SQRT(1- V²/C²) would be affected. Worse, I don't know how the velocity of matter is affected. I suspect that matter will increase velocity and that inertia/mass is reduced to prevent breaking conservation.

SQRT(1- V²/C²) I suspect that since C has increased and inertia has decreased that they would simply scale up. Does this make sense ?

Out of time must run.

 

[edd]

Ok, you now definitely confuse me. You sound like you're using language that implies absolute frames while also using terminology associate with theories without them.

This is odd at best, and in the not-even-wrong category at worst.

 

[DeathDart]

Ok, you now definitely confuse me. You sound like you're using language that implies absolute frames while also using terminology associate with theories without them.

This is odd at best, and in the not-even-wrong category at worst.

Odd at the least. The fixed atom in fast time space seems like an absolute.

More time later.

 

[sol invictus]

The second part of your statement is correct, the first part is incorrect.

They are both correct. This is standard physics, extremely well-tested, and mathematically unambiguous.

If the atom and the space share the same time flow, any light coming through that space will be stretched. The stretched light will hit the atom and be reflected off as the same stretched light. The stretched light will return to normal upon hitting our slow time space, no change to a distant observer.

Wrong. But forget about absorption for a moment; it's slightly more complex than emission. Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

Radiation emitted by an atom in an excited state located in a region where time flows differently than earth's will, once it reaches earth and is observed, have a different frequency than light emitted by the same kind of atom in the same excited state on earth?

If you agree with that, my statement about absorption lines lines follows trivially (I'll show you why if you still don't understand).

If you don't agree with that, we need to back up yet another step.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What would be the visible consequences if light's velocity were much greater than predicted in a region of space, with a fast flow of time?

It would be very dark, because we would be in a different Universe where it is not possible for us to exist.

 

[DeathDart]

They are both correct. This is standard physics, extremely well-tested, and mathematically unambiguous.



Wrong. But forget about absorption for a moment; it's slightly more complex than emission. Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

Radiation emitted by an atom in an excited state located in a region where time flows differently than earth's will, once it reaches earth and is observed, have a different frequency than light emitted by the same kind of atom in the same excited state on earth?

If you agree with that, my statement about absorption lines lines follows trivially (I'll show you why if you still don't understand).

If you don't agree with that, we need to back up yet another step.

The short answer I don't know, I didn't have teachers and my friends cannot understand this type of discussion, so their are gaps.

I think that as long as the particle is not moving and its time matches the space it is in, the light it emits (when it enters our slower time) should be the same as on Earth. I argue this from conservation of energy.

I think the frequency shifts in relativistic particles occur because the time flow of the atom does not match the time flow of the local space. The light remains shifted when observed.

I tend to view it like an impedance mismatch. Though it this case it is a time (and with relativistic particle, an energy) mismatch.

You might not see it yet, but I think I am learning.

 

[Ziggurat]

The short answer I don't know, I didn't have teachers and my friends cannot understand this type of discussion, so their are gaps.

I think that as long as the particle is not moving and its time matches the space it is in, the light it emits (when it enters our slower time) should be the same as on Earth. I argue this from conservation of energy.

Imagine that you had a clock next to this atom. Time moves faster for this clock than for us, correct? So to us, the clock would appear to be moving too fast, though not for the atom.

But radiation from the atom IS a clock. Its frequency, as emitted by the atom, has a specific relationship to the speed of the clock sitting next to it. So if the clock appears to us to be ticking too fast, then the radiation will also be shifted to higher frequency, because it's a clock too. So the conclusion that the frequency will be shifted is unavoidable. You CANNOT have time move faster and not shift the frequency as well.

Now, that doesn't mean we get to throw energy conservation out the window. We must address it. But energy conservation doesn't mean that no shift occurs. Rather, energy conservation means that any shift must go hand-in-hand with a change in potential, and this potential must be energy and mass based (ie, gravity). And that's exactly what happens with general relativity.

So we've actually discovered that your theory has an internal contradiction: your time rate theory requires that the frequency shift depends on the strength of the gravitational field, which is the gradient of the gravitational potential. But energy conservation requires that the frequency shift depends on the gravitational potential itself.

General relativity has no such internal contradictions. It has been experimentally tested in many ways. Gravity-dependent time dilation has been measured, and it agrees with the predictions of general relativity. So why do you think we need to replace general relativity with something else? But whatever your dissatisfaction with GR might be, and even if it's wrong, your alternative clearly will not work. It is internally inconsistent, and it doesn't match observations.

 

[DeathDart]

Ok, you now definitely confuse me. You sound like you're using language that implies absolute frames while also using terminology associate with theories without them.

This is odd at best, and in the not-even-wrong category at worst.

An object that is not moving should be in the same time frame as it's environment (time space).

Could you be talking about totally empty space and infinite time being the absolute frame?