Copyright Carl Janssen 2024
I do not want to delete this content or edit it to remove things but I am not going to finish it. I will copy some of the material into another article. With some of the sections I do not want removed to make it shorter and then add more stuff
Title : Special Relativity Experiments Short Explanation
Main points of this article - This section might be edited, renamed - moved or removed
A wide multitude of past interferometer experiments asserted that the earth was moving and declared that a certain interference patterns in light waves should occur based on the speed the earth moved. They found null results in their search for that specific interference pattern, which were unexpected, these null results were explained by length contraction and time dilation. Now the interferometers were stationary relative to the laboratory they were in, were stationary, relative to the air in the laboratory and were stationary relative to the human looking at them but were said to be moving because the earth was moving. Although I do not deny the legitimacy of using reference frames in which the earth is moving these results could more easily be explained without using length contraction and without using time dilation because a reference frame existed in which the earth was stationary, the interferometer was stationary, the human looking at the interferometer was stationary and the medium the light propagated in during the experiment was stationary. Even though everything look stationary to the human doing the experiment they asserted the earth must be moving so it was moving. Sometimes a medium called Aether was asserted to be moving relative to the interferometer because the earth was asserted to be moving but the interferometer was actually stationary relative to the medium that light propagated in which in many but not necessarily all cases was called Air. Interferometers can either be enclosed in transparent glass or plastic or open. If they are closed then the device would to some degree stay stationary relative to the medium that light propagated through inside the device, even if the device is moved. But if the interferometer is opened then moving the interferometer by gently pushing or gently pulling it or slowly wheeling it would result in the device moving relative to the medium the light propagates through, however it would be moved no where near as fast as the asserted speed of the earth still resulting in a null result not necessarily because of no change but because the result would be much less then expected for the much greater speed that is the asserted speed of the earth usually used by researchers in these experiments when doing calculations.
This will explain a theory to why two different cesium clocks may show a different amount of change in the time displayed in clocks between two events due to Doppler shifting relative to a source of radiation
Suggestions of means to test the theory about Cesium clocks in a very basic way that would require more detail than described in a real life experiment
How to calculate Doppler shifts in ways that apply to a wider variety of situations than generally taught such as when objects are not moving in straight lines or are moving in more than one dimension but which also works for straight line movement and one dimensional problems
That outer space is actually a low density fluid not a perfect vacuum. That this low density fluid undergoes black body radiation and that people call this radiation the cosmic microwave background. That this radiation frequency distribution overlaps with frequencies related to Cesium clocks. That it's Doppler shifted energy emission pattern in a approximately vertical direction of light propagation is a perfect match for the Time Dilation Constant Alpha on a model involving straight travel over a flat surface, with a "flat sky" and approximates to an equation that is a perfect match for alpha on a model involving circular travel over a round surface with a "round sky" presuming the standard radius of the earth. By "round sky" I mean the boundary where certain properties of the atmosphere change to meet some criteria or another would approximately form the shape of the surface of a sphere. That light has to propagate a further distance through a medium with at least a certain density in the approximately horizontal directions possibly making it insignificant to the Cesium clock as a source of radiated power in the horizontal direction compared to the vertical direction.
Suggested experiments section - This might be moved toward the end or near the end
Seeing if moving a radiation detection device results in a change in radioactive power near the frequency range of cesium clocks in a manner related to the time dilation constant alpha. This would be moving the device relative to the source of the cosmic microwave background such as similar to the Hafele-Keating experiment except for using a device to detect the power of radiation at different frequencies instead of a cesium clock.
Seeing if directly applying radiation with a frequency pattern similar to that of a atomic clock and or that of the cosmic microwave background from outside a atomic clock can change the time displayed on a atomic cesium clock such that the change in time for a cesium clock not exposed to such radiation will be different than the change it time for a cesium clock exposed to such radiation between the same two events and with the clocks stationary relative to one another.
The analysis of the Fizeau experiment was wrong because it made predictions based on light traveling through water flowing in the same direction as the light and in a uniform flow but the water was traveling close to perpendicular of the direction expected near the corners and because the flow of water was closer to laminar than uniform. Fizeau never directly measured the time it takes light to travel but did indirect measurements based on interference patterns. Several modifications might be made because technology is more advanced now than when Fizeau's original experiment occurred.
Seeing if water running perpendicular to a laser can displace the laser destination to a different location then where it would land if stationary. Although there might not be a long enough structure.
Seeing if water as close to uniformly flowing as possible can change the amount of time it takes sound or light to travel. Modifications of this can be made to make it closer to uniformly flowing than the Fizeau experiment. Sound might be used because light might travel to fast to measure. Of course the results would be objected to because of measuring one way speed requires two different clocks.. Water can be made to be closer to uniform by putting a water proof speaker and a water proof microphone inside a much wider source of running water than the Fizzeau experiment which is open where the microphone and speaker are not near the edges, problems can occur if sounds travels through other places than the water. Sound can be of a specific frequency and a louder intensity than that produced by surroundings so that one can spot when the sound from the speaker first occurred by looking at a wave graph. Should be tested with water running perpendicular to direction between microphone and speaker as well as two opposite parallel directions. Not sure if modern electronics are sensitive enough even with sound let alone light. Not sure if a large enough object can affordably be produced and might be more expensive than the Cesium clock experiments.
This beginning of the article might start here
This article is not a peer reviewed scientific journal article
If you complain that I claim something that should have been footnoted or that someone else might have discovered something before I did I am not going to necessarily disagree. However, I know of no one else I can think of that has combined the same set of previous existing stuff in exactly the same way or combination that I have at the time of writing this, but that does not mean it has not already been done by someone else. Just keep in mind that this is not serious scholarship, I am simply trying to get my ideas out as quickly as reasonably possible in a less than serious academic method and I am not submitting this particular article to a peer reviewed journal nor for a Thesis nor for homework. If you want to use my ideas to do your own research go ahead and I do not even care if you credit me so long as you do not copy my material then copyright it in such a way as to block me from publishing my own writings. In fact I am hoping that people who can do a better job than me academically, or experimentally are inspired by my ideas to do work related to my ideas in a way that is considered more academically proper to society at large.
What is unique or rare about my theoretical model
The most unique or rare thing I feel this article compared to all Special Relativity Theory variants and Aether or Lorenz Aether Theory variants that I know of is that I do not claim that light travels through a perfect vacuum and I additionally do not claim that light travels through Aether. There are other theories that are similar to my theory involving something called complete Aether drag except instead of claiming that light is propagating through Aether I would claim that light is traveling through a chemical substance such as for example air or water or something else with a measurable chemical composition, density, pressure, temperature and flow. I have tried to modify the short version of my theory presented here such that it would be compatible with both complete and partial Aether drag except replacing the Aether with a chemical substance. In many interferometer experiments the source and observer which I call a receiver are both stationary relative to the medium of propagation for light. Since all of those relative velocities are zero, I believe both full and partial Aether drag will produce the same result even though full and partial Aether drag would produce different results with a non zero velocity of one of these things relative to another. It is a funny thing when people claim an interferometer is moving at a speed other than zero, when the person observing the interferometer, the surface of the earth, the medium the light propagates through and the interferometer itself are all stationary relative to one another. Unfortunately I think my theory will not be so popular because it is not as funny and does not produce as many interesting paradoxes to amuse and entertain science fiction fans as claiming that a stationary object is moving or claiming that you have traveled in time when your clock displays a different number than another c;lock.
https://www.astronomytrek.com/what-direction-do-stars-move-in-the-sky/
Model Section
Difference between frequency of emission and frequency of photons
Hertz are cycles per second
It is said that the amount of energy a photon transfers or a photon has is equal to it's frequency times a constant
A device could admit a 50 hertz photons once every second or could admit a 1 hertz photon once every 0.02 or seconds both would be the same amount of energy per time but the frequency of admission and the frequency of photons would not be the same in both scenarios. In order to avoid certain complicated things related to this to keep the article short I will simply talk about the amount of energy in the Doppler shift instead of ambiguously talk about frequency without specifying if I am talking about frequency of emission of photons or the frequency of photons. Such a difference might matter related to this model but for now I am trying to explain things in a short matter.
Doppler Shift and Conservation of Energy
When a source of energy is Doppler shifted although the power is increased the duration is decreased such that the amount of energy emitted from the source is equal to the amount of energy received by the observer
Calculating Doppler Shift when the reference frame is stationary relative to the medium of light propagation
If the source is stationary relative to the medium of propagation and reference frame and the observer is moving
Step 1 Calculate how much time it would take for the light to get to the observer if the observer was stationary instead of moving
Step 2 Calculate how much time it would take for the light to get to the observer if the observer was moving
Step 3 Take Step 1 divided by step 2 gives the power if the observer is moving divided by the power if both objects are stationary
If the source is moving relative to the medium of propagation and reference frame and the source is moving
Step 1 Calculate how much time it would take for the light to get to the observer if the source was stationary instead of moving
Step 2 Calculate how much time it would take for the light to get to the observer if the source was moving
Step 3 Take Step 1 divided by step 2 gives the power if the source is moving divided by the power if both objects are stationary
Doppler Shift examples
when source or observer moves at speed v in a straight line perpendicular to the direction between source and observer and the other object is stationary and the medium is stationary relative to the reference frame
Step 1
Light travels from ( 0, 0 ) to ( 0, Y )
x coordinate 0 to x coordinate 0
and y coordinate 0 to y coordinate Y = c * t1
speed of light in x direction = 0
speed of light in y direction = c
Step 2
Light travels from ( 0, 0 ) to ( X, Y )
x coordinate 0 to x coordinate X = v * t2
y coordinate 0 to y coordinate Y = ( ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) ^ 0.5 ) * t2
speed of light in x direction = v
speed of light in y direction = ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) ^ 0.5
Step 3
solve for t1 / t2
c * t1 = Y = ( ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) ^ 0.5 ) * t2
t1 / t2 = ( ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) ^ 0.5 ) / c
t1 / t2 = ( ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) / c ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5
t1 / t2 = ( 1 - v ^2 / c ^2 ) ^ 0.5
How does that compare with the Lorentz Factor Alpha in special relativity?
It is a perfect match
Screenshots from Wikipedia article on Lorentz Factor
Observer is rotating around a axis of ( 0, 0 ) with a radius of R1 starting at ( 0, R1 ) at a tangential speed of v
Stationary source starts at a radius of R2 away from the same axis starting at ( 0, R2 )
Step 1
Coordinates of Stationary Source ( 0, R2 )
Coordinates of Observer ( 0, R1)
t1 = R2-R1 / c
Step 2
Coordinates of Stationary Source ( 0, R2 )
Using radians
circular path length / radius = number of radians
x Coordinates of Observer R1*sin( v*t2 / R1 )
y coordinates of Observer R1*cos( v*t2 / R1 ) positive or negative sign depends on direction of rotation
Distance between source and observer
( ( R2 - R1*cos( v*t2 / R1 ) ) ^ 2 + ( R1*sin( v*t2 / R1 ) ) ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5
in a time amount of t2 light travels to a source located at the distance between the source and the observer
c * t2 = ( ( R2 - R1*cos( v*t2 / R1 ) ) ^ 2 + ( R1*sin( v*t2 / R1 ) ) ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5
for theta close to 0 the sin(theta) is approximately equal to theta
when v * t2 / R1 is less than 0.175 or 0.175 radians the error in estimation for sine is less than 0.51%
round cos cos ( v*t2 / R1 ) to 1
round sin ( v* t2 / R1 ) to v*t2 / R1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-angle_approximation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinny_triangle
All equations below are rounded
c * t2 = ( ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 + ( R1*v*t2 / R1 ) ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 approx
c ^ 2 * t2 ^ 2 = ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 + ( R1*v*t2 / R1 ) ^ 2 approx
c ^ 2 * t2 ^ 2 - ( R1*v*t2 / R1 ) ^ 2 = ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 approx
c ^ 2 * t2 ^ 2 - ( v*t2 ) ^ 2 = ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 approx
t2 ^ 2 * ( c ^ 2 - v ^ 2 ) = ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 approx
t2 ^ 2 = ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 / ( c ^ 2 - v ^ 2 ) approx
Step 3
t1 = R2-R1 / c
t1 ^ 2 / t2 ^ 2 = ( ( R2-R1 ) / c ) ^ 2 / ( ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 / ( c ^ 2 - v ^ 2 ) ) approx
t1 ^ 2 / t2 ^ 2 = ( c ^ 2 - v ^ 2 ) ) * ( ( R2 - R1 ) / c ) ^ 2 / ( R2 - R1 ) ^ 2 approx
t1^2 / t2 ^2 = ( c ^ 2 - v ^ 2 ) / c ^2 approx
t1 / t2 = ( ( c ^ 2 - v ^2 ) / c ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 approx
t1 / t2 = ( 1 - v ^2 / c ^2 ) ^ 0.5 approx this approximation is a perfect match for special relativity
This could have also been shown to be approximately correct on the basis of the infamous and often misunderstood "8 inches per mile squared" quote if used correctly without the complicated math to show that for all practical purposes it is the same as the previous Doppler shift equation calculated when it comes to an observer moving on the surface of the earth relative to a source vertically above them because the vertical distance traveled would be so small compared with the horizontal distance traveled by the observer for if light takes less than a certain amount of time to propagate from the source to the observer. "8 inches per mile squared" is an approximation that represents the "drop" but the vertical height of the barrier of water halfway between two objects at sea level is a smaller quantity which I believe I calculated elsewhere to be approximately one fourth that height at 2 inches times the number of miles squared based on the radius of the earth that is stated in various sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment