Sunday, January 01, 2012

Could the measurements trying to detect absolute motion of Earth allow to test sub-manifold gravity?

The history of the modern measurements of absolute motion has a long - more than century beginning from Michelson-Morley 1887. The reader can find in web a list of important publications giving an overall view about what has happened. The earliest measurements assumed aether hypothesis. Cahill identifies the velocity as a velocity with respect to some preferred rest frame and uses relativistic kinematics although he misleadingly uses the terms absolute velocity and aether. The preferred frame could galaxy, or the system defining rest system in cosmology. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of experiments as attempts to return to the days before Einstein but this is not the case. It might be possible to gain unexpected information by this kind of measurements. Already the analysis of CMB spectrum demonstrated that Earth is not at rest in the Robertson-Walker coordinate system used to analysis CMB data and similar motion with respect to galaxy is quite possible and might serve as a rich source of information also in GRT based theory.

In TGD framework the situation is especially interesting.

  1. Sub-manifold gravity predicts that the effective light-velocity measured in terms of M4 time taken for a light signal to propagate from point A to B depends on space-time sheet, on points A and B, in particular the distance between A and B. The maximal signal velocity determined in terms of light-like geodesics has this dependence because light-like geodesics for the space-time surface are in general not light-like geodesics for M4 but light-like like curves. The maximal signal velocity is in general smaller than its absolute maximum obtained light-like geodesics of M4, depends on particle, and could be larger than for photon space-time sheets. This might explain neutrino super-luminality (see this).

  2. Space-time sheets move with respect to larger space-time sheets and it makes sense to speak about the motion of solar system space-time sheet with respect to galactic space-time sheet and this velocity is in principle measurable. Maximal signal velocity can be defined operationally in terms of time needed to travel from point A to B using Minkowski coordinates of the imbedding space as preferred coordinates. It depends on pair of points involved: basically on the direction on and spatial distance along effectively light-like geodesic defined by the sum of the perturbations of the induced metric for the space-time sheets involved. The question is whether one could say something interesting about various experiments carried out to measure the absolute motion interpreted in terms of velocity of space-time sheet with respect to say galactic space-time-sheet.

Also in Special Relativity the motion relative to the rest system of a larger system is a natural notion. In General Relativistic framework situation should be the same but the mathematical description of the situation is somewhat problematic since Minkowski coordinates are not global due to the loss of Poincare invariance as a global symmetry. In practice one must however introduce linear Minkowski coordinates and this makes sense only if one interprets the general relativistic space-time as a perturbation of Minkowski space. This background dependence is in conflict with general coordinate invariance. For sub-manifold gravity the situation is different.

Could the measurements performed already by Michelson-Morley and followers could provide support for the sub-manifold gravity? This might indeed be the case as the purpose of the following arguments demonstrate. The basic results of this analysis are following.

  1. The basic formulas for interferometer experiments using relativistic kinematics instead of Galilean one are same as the predictions of Cahill using different basic assumptions, and allow to conclude that already the data of Mickelson and Morley show the motion of Earth -not with respect to aether- but with galactic rest system.

  2. The only difference is the appearance of the maximal signal velocity c# for space-time sheet to which various gravitational fields contribute. In the static approximation sum of gravitational potentials contributes to c#.

  3. This allows to utilize the results of Cahill, who has carried out a re-analysis of experiments trying to detect what he calls absolute motion using these formulas. Cahill has also replicated the crucial experiments of Witte.

  4. The value of the velocity as well as its direction can be determined and the results from various experiments are consistent with each other. The travel time data demonstrate a periodicity due to the rotation of Earth and motion with respect a preferred frame identifiable as a galactic rest frame. The tell-tale signature is the periodicity of sidereal day instead of exact 24 hour periodicity. The travel time for photons shows fluctuations which might be interpreted in terms of gravitational waves having fractal patterns. TGD view about gravitons would suggest that the emission takes place -not as a continuous stream- but in burst-wise manner producing fractal fluctuation spectrum. These fluctuations could show themselves as a jitter also in the neutrino travel times discovered by Opera collaboration.

One must answer several questions before one can make predictions.

  1. The reduction of light velocity in the case that there are many space-time sheets whose M4 projections intersect, is described using common M4 coordinates for the space-time sheets. The induced metric for given space-time sheet is the sum of flat M4 metric and CP2 contribution identified as classical gravitational field. The hypothesis is that in good approximation a linear superposition for the effects of the gravitational fields holds true in the sense that a test particle having wormhole throat contacts to these space-time sheets experiences the sum of the gravitational fields of various sheets. Similar description holds for induced gauge fields.

    From this one can identify the reduced light velocity in the static situation as c#=(gtt)1/2. In a more realistic necessary non-local treatment one calculates the effective light-velocity by assuming that the orbit of massless state n geometric optics approximation is light-like geodesic for the sum of the metric perturbations: this line is not a light-like geodesic of any of the space-time sheets.

    In the general the effective metric defined in this manner is not imbeddable as induced metric. This description of linear super-position allows to circumvent the basic objection against TGD, which is that induced metric and gauge fields are extremely strongly correlated since they are expressible in terms of CP2 coordinates and their gradients and that the variety of metrics representable as induced metrics is extremely restricted. Same of course applies to gauge fields. This resuls is extremely important and would deserve a separate blog posting.

  2. How the reduced light-velocity c# relates to the reduced light-velocity in medium which is usually described by introducing the notions of free and polarization charges and magnetization and magnetization currents. In the simple situation when polarization tensor is scalar, refractive index n characterizes the reduction of the light velocity: V=c#/n. Since the reduction of maximal signal velocity due to sub-manifold is purely gravitational and its reduction in medium has an electromagnetic origin, one can argue that the two notions have nothing to do with each other. Hence c# should be treated as a local concept possibly depending on direction of motion by taking the limit when light-like geodesic with respect to effective metric becomes infinitesimally short. This dependence can be deduced by comparing light-like geodesics emanating from a point and calculating the maximal signal velocity as a function of direction angles of the light-like geodesic and the spatial distance along it.

  3. What happens to the boundary conditions between different media deduced from the structural equations of classical electrodynamics and Maxwell equations? For instance, does the refraction of light take place also when c# changes? It might of course be that c# changes only in astrophysical scales - maybe at the surfaces of astrophysical objects - and stays constant at the boundaries between two media in laboratory scale but nevertheless this issue should be understood. The safest guess is that at the level of kinematic local Lorentz invariance still holds true so that the tangential wave vectors identifiable in terms of massless momentum components are conserved at boundaries and one obtains law of refraction also now.

  4. In TGD Universe space-time sheets can move with respect to each other and the larger space-time sheet defines the analog of absolute reference frame in this kind of situation. Also in cosmology one can assign to CMB radiation a specific frame and Earth indeed moves with respect to it rather than being at rest in the global Robertson-Walker coordinate system. For Earth solar system is one such frame. Galactic rest system is second such preferred reference frame. To both one can assign linear Minkowski coordinates, which play a special physical. The obvious question is whether this kind of motion could be detected and whether the measurements carried out to detect absolute motion could allow to deduce this kind of velocity with respect to galactic rest system.

  5. The question is how photons in medium behave when this kind of motion is present. Assume that the medium is characterized by refractive index n so that one has V= c#/n and that space-time sheet moves with respect to larger one by velocity v characterized by direction angles and magnitude. Here c#<c0 is the maximal signal velocity at the space-time sheet. For definiteness assume that the larger space-time sheet corresponds to galaxy.

    1. In the measurements of light velocity the light propagates in medium with velocity V<c#<c0, and the question is how to describe this mathematically. In his experiments Michelson assumed summation of velocities based on Galilean invariance. This is of course wrong and Special Relativity suggests summation of velocities according to the relativistic formula:

      V →V1(v,u) == [V+ vu]/[1+ u(Vv/c#2)] ,

      V= c#/n , u=cos(θ) .

      Here θ is the direction of the light signal with respect to the velocity v. This formula might be justified in TGD framework: also photon has very small but non-vanishing mass and summation formula for velocities can be applied. This demands the assumption of local Lorentz invariance made routinely in General Relativity. Also it requires that the complex process of repeated absorption and emission of photons is described by a propagation of photon with the reduced velocity.

    2. This predicts two effects which might be seen in the experiments trying to measure absolute velocity and its direction. Both solar and galactic gravitational field and also its perturbations - even gravitational waves- can affect the signal velocity via fluctuations in c# deduced from the superposition of the perturbative contributions of CP2 to the effective induced metric. Second effect is due to the change of the propagation time. This change depends on the propagation direction. Note however that also c# in general has the directional dependence and only in the situation when the components gti vanish, this dependence is trivial. In the Newtonian approximation the assumption gti≈ 0 is made and corresponds to the description of the situation in terms of gravitational potential.

For background and more details see either the article Could the measurements trying to detect absolute motion of Earth allow to test sub-manifold gravity? or the chapter TGD and GRT.


At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove there was no ether, it merely showed that if there was an ether it was a "dynamic ether" and not the "static ether" they were testing for according to their limited theory concerning it. This arrogant proclamation took mankind's eye off of the phenomenon of the many types of vortices observed in nature.

The academics instantly dismissed all vortex theories, because they were immediately related to the "theoretical ether." They falsely believed that it had been disproved by this deficient experiment. This is extremely unfortunate because we witness the powerful vortices at all levels of creation from the invisibly small to the largest groups of galaxies, we see the same pattern in creation.

The theoretical need for any type of ether for motions to wave in is no longer necessary due to an understanding of how the motions of light waves create space around them in Scalar Mechanics. The explanation for these illusions created by light's many motions is found in the Implosion Mechanics of Scalar Theory.

For example: "The three coordinates of extension space, x, y and z, are only capable of representing one dimension of scalar motion as motion. This is because all three coordinates are required to define a motion in extension space for any one dimension of scalar motion, since all vectors with a common origin must be summed into a resultant vector. This, and the fact that the datum of coordinate space, or its point of reference, is zero, not unity as it is with the postulated scalar motion, makes it impossible to represent more than one dimension of scalar motion in coordinate space. One consequence of this fact is that two-dimensional and three-dimensional motions are not recognized as motions, and are erroneously attributed to "force fields" such as so-called electrostatic, magnetic and even gravitational "fields."

Larson points out that force is a property of motion and cannot exist independently of it. This means that any force must be produced by motion by definition, a fact that modern physics has disregarded because of the difficulty in identifying the underlying motion of observable forces.

The effected entity will possess a property called mass, which is an inward three-dimensional scalar motion opposing the outward three-dimensional Progression (universal expansion), and such a motion will always resist any outward movement imposed upon it whether scalar or vectorial, a property called inertia".

Gravity's push outward creates the natural progression, the Universal expansion of space and time as they move in units together (s/t) and expand outward. Gravity's pull inward, is due to the imploding electrical scalar nature of Atomic vortices, Solar vortices and ultimately, the massive Galactic vortices. The inward implosion of Atoms, Stars and Galaxies is the "antagonist" required to balance the expansion of the Universe and produce the physical systems of matter which give our Universe form.

This dynamic relationship accounts for the "physical law" which states: every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Twin opposing vortices of electric light satisfy this law in their very definition. The imploding nature of atoms works in opposition to the outward progression of our expanding Universe to create Atoms and all of the material manifestations witnessed in the physical Universe. These atoms are all moving inwards towards each other as they implode towards their mutual centers of still magnetic light, at the same time they are being carried outwards by Universal expansion.

At 7:12 PM, Anonymous said...

There is deep irony involved and appears in many ways.

The first aspect of irony. MM demonstrated that Newtonian addition rule for velocities either no absolute rest frame exists or that Earth is at rest with respect to it. This because the possible velocity with respect to this frame is small, about 9 km/s, which was concluded to be due to experimental errors.

With special relativistic kinematics one ends up with about 330 km/s consistent with the finding about 400 km/s of Witte and others using RF co-axial cable and one-way transmission. Now the velocity is relative to something: this something is very naturally galactic rest frame. This because there is an oscillation period due to rotation of Earth which is sidereal day- slightly shorter than solar day of 24 hours.

Second aspect of the irony is that the mainstream proponents of Einstein have refused to pay attention to the excellent data produced by excellent experimentalist to see what might be the next step after special and general relativities. Paying no attention to Witte's findings is a scandal and teaches that blindly agreeing with Einstein does not make physicist Einstein;-).

The third aspect of irony is that already Mickelson ad Morley (1887!) provided the first data supporting TGD. Unfortunately, the average colleague at the era of electric communications refuses to read TGD! Therefore very few will know about this for decades!

This is an impressive victory of intellectual laziness and in-honesty - ordinary simple stupidity - dominating the mainstream science nowadays.

Concerning the aether hypothesis. If one wants to keep aether, one must replace the kinematics with special relativistic one and assume that the aether is at rest in the rest system of galaxy. This looks strange.

Personally I do not see any reason to introduce aether, which as such is only a word without physical content. Vortices are the good aspect of aether hypothesis. Many-sheeted space-time provides the counterpart for the vortices and other topological structures- topological field quanta replacing classical gauge fields.

There is a long list of effects supporting Poincare invariance assignable to M^4xCP_2 and sub-manifold gravity. No return to days before Einstein. Einstein's theory is amazingly accurate but not quite correct: Einstein failed to unify special and general relativities in elegant manner.

At 10:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The genius of Einstein is shown most clearly in his perception of an omission from Newton's system of kinematics that had not previously been noticed and that might, as he saw, provide an opening for a reform that would reconcile the two conflicting branches of physics (kinematics & electromagnetism). In such insight he was pre-eminent in his generation: his weakness...lay in his relative inability to follow up the implications of his insight and in a too great readiness to accept a promising starting- point as an achieved goal. He was rather like one of a body of men imprisoned in a dungeon, who alone perceives an opening offering a means of escape, but omits to verify that it does not lead merely to another part of the dungeon..."

In 1859 Fizeau found that the speed of a beam of light which was passed through a stream of water was affected by the speed of the water and that this effect could be explained by classical physics. However, the effect can equally be well explained by the Theory of Relativity. By making approximations and discarding certain small terms as negligible, Einstein was able to show that it was in accord with his theory. However, he did not stop there. Lorentz had shown many years before that the effect was perfectly explicable by the classical laws. Nevertheless, Einstein boldly claimed that this "...DOES NOT IN THE LEAST DIMINISH THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE EXPERIMENT AS A CRUCIAL TEST IN FAVOUR OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY", and that 'RELATIVITY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED FROM THE HYPOTHESIS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS.'

"These two sentences of Einstein are, from one point of view, as important as any in his work on relativity:- they should be read and re-read. They give a direct insight into his methods of reasoning. Here is an experiment claimed by Einstein as a 'crucial test' of his theories, yet in the very sentence in which this claim is advanced, he admits that other theories, the very theories he attempts to overthrow, can equally well explain the phenomenon. HOW CAN AN EXPERIMENT, EQUALLY WELL EXPLAINED BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT THEORIES, BE A 'CRUCIAL TEST' IN FAVOUR OF ONE OF THEM?" It can't, except for purposes of deceit.

At 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The present confusion in this area (ether/space/field) is largely chargeable to Einstein. Before his day the accepted world picture included an ether located in and coextensive with space. It is commonly contended that Einstein’s system eliminated the ether and accounts for gravitation as a product of the geometry of space, but in reality what he did was to eliminate the name 'ether' and the concept 'space'. The entity to which he applies the name 'space' is the same one that was previously called the 'ether'. His 'space' has all of the properties that were formerly assigned to the ether concept: properties that are altogether different from those of the previous concept of space, and likewise totally unlike the properties which we are able to recognize in space where we are in a position to observe it.

Einstein changed the name of this concept of an ether to a "field" or "space" which implies that he believed in some kind of an ether, because of his erroneous conclusion, that heavenly bodies "warp" the space around them with inward pulling gravity. If space is an absolute vacuum according to academia, then how can it be warped? There has to be some sort of medium which can be warped to satisfy the lunacy of this academic idea, according to their own model. Therefore the concept of an ether (field) or something with similar properties, is automatically implied as a necessity in explaining the warp-ability of Einstein's imaginary version of space in academic circles.

Space is the inversion of matter, not it's substrate, source of it's reality or it's crucible. The "Still Magnetic Light" is the source of all motions in the Universe. Space and matter are the result of these electrical vortex motions as they issue forth and return to their neutral centers.

At 12:18 AM, Anonymous said...

The basic idea of GRT is to reduce classical physics to space-time geometry. Special Relativity brings in Poincare invariance and relativistic kinematics and if aether is there it must obey this dynamics.

The dynamics of space-time metric however replaces the dynamics of aether and there is no need for it. If it had been there, we would have the counterparts of Particle Data Tables listing the particles about which aether consists of ;-).

In TGD framework one brings in also space-time topology to the dynamics so that one can identify concrete correlates for particles in terms of space-time topology. Topological field quantization is second aspect of topologization of dynamics.

By the way, warping in precise mathematical sense is very interesting phenomenon. In TGD it means that flat Minkowsky metric allows larger number of imbeddings. In everyday world paper sheet is a good example about warping: it is unstable against warping (no bending changing distances between two points).

At 8:33 PM, Anonymous said...

Still a comment about aether concept.

Quantum fields indeed are a concept analogous to aether with relativistic kinematics. One could quite well replace "field" with "aether" everywhere and speak about electroweak aether, about gluonic aether, and so on. The problem with "field" and "aether" is the lack of geometric interpretation. One can imagine endless variety of fields and all kinds of action principles for them.

Einstein's big idea was to replace the notion of aether/field with concrete geometry. Gravitation was a great success but he failed in the case of electromagnetic field since the time was not yet ripe. Very little was known about weak and strong interactions. If he had been fifty years younger he would have worked hardly with attempts to geometrize electro-weak and color gauge fields.

As far as I know, sub-manifold geometry is the only possible manner to achieve this and leads also to a generalization of string models. And also to a generalization of the notion of geometry itself (p-adic physics).

The next bold but logically unavoidable step in Einstein's program is to geometrize entire quantum theory. This leaves only one option: quantum physics is purely classical physics of spinor fields in infinite-D "world of classical worlds" representing quantum states. "Quantization without quantization" would Wheeler say.

All this is incredibly simple and elegant conceptually, and also works! But how to stop a busy colleague busily building his career and force him to think- really think- for just the five minutes needed to read above piece of text carefully?

At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Do you believe space to be a crucible?

The origin of the inward gravitational motion and the motion of the outward expansion of space and time are one and the same. Together they interact forming both the large structure of the universe, and the microcosmic structure of matter. The origin of gravity, the expansion of the universe and the cohesion of solids are all produced by the same theoretical motion that constitutes radiation and matter itself. The existence of this extremely simple yet powerful mechanism is the necessary consequence of the nature of the proportions of space and time in the equation of motion.

The reasons, therefore, why gravity cannot be detected except in its effects, and why it cannot be screened-off, or modified in any way, is simple and straightforward: it is because the same motion that constitutes mass and inertia is also producing the action of gravity; the three-dimensional inward scalar motion of matter opposes the three-dimensional outward scalar progression of space and causes each mass aggregate to independently move inward towards all space locations and thus towards all other mass aggregates in sufficient proximity. But the three-dimensional displacement is also distributed three-dimensionally in extension space and thus attenuated by the inverse square law so that at a certain distance, which Larson calls the "gravitational limit," the three-dimensional outward Progression of space is greater than the inward motion of mass, and thus commences to disperse the locations of space, maintaining the separation of heavenly bodies.

At 1:47 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Warped time?

At 9:03 AM, Blogger Ulla said... Plasmoids as metamaterial?

Gravitional waves needed?

Brian Josephson

At 11:56 PM, Blogger Ulla said...
“The stars seem not to be shy about showing us lots of oscillations that will allow us to reveal their innermost secrets.” The flood of data has shed light on the interior of red-giant stars, and forced astronomers to question their understanding of how stars and galaxies form.


Post a Comment

<< Home