Jump to content
Science Forums

Tired Light And The Issue Of The Doppler Shift And Accelerated Charges


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

Tired light may be analagous to electron deceleration radiation. Spacetime responds to the electron such that the deceleration radiation for an electron is analogous to an "electromagnetic inertia" , as Feynmann called it. Photons can behave like mass inside of superconductors just as electrons can behave like they are massless in carbon conductors. This will be an interesting thing to raise again soon in another post and my recent statements about whether a photon has a super small mass correction, because if a photon has no inertial mass, then the statement of an analagous Larmor radiation will not necessarily hold. But if the photon does have a small mass, perhaps it is responding to the Coulomb forces. Moreover, we don't even think this way in relativity per se, the best solution so far is that the shift is basically a Doppler shift analogous to how sound waves propagate.

 

What is very interesting to note, concerns what Feynmann has said on the issue,

 

Richard Feynman in his Lectures on Gravitation says "we have inherited a prejudice that an accelerating charge should radiate." He argues that the Larmor formula giving the power radiated by an accelerating charge as proportional to the square of the acceleration "has led us astray." Feynman maintains that a uniformly accelerating charge does not radiate at all. He argues that it is the rate of change of acceleration that results in electromagnetic radiation from charged particles.

 

Ref; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/accelcharges.htm&ved=2ahUKEwjV0-L0uObnAhUHXRoKHUGgBLo4ChAWMAB6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw1Kgfurf9YdA3owgfSj5wN9

 

If space accelerates a photon, then the redshift could be explained by such a model, so long as the photon has a small non zero mass term. (1)

 

The electron cannot decay spontaneously and neither can a photon.. Question... Why? The answer is simple enough, there is no fundamental particle they can decay into without the special decay process of matter-antimatter annihilation, and if there is no photon with an antimatter partner, then it cannot decay at all, even under the special decay process. In the paper recited at the end, we come to the main issue, and it lyes at the heart of Einsteins general theory of the equivalence principle

 

"In the Theory of General Relativity there is what is called The Equivalence Principle. This is the assertion that there should be no difference between a body at rest experiencing a uniform gravitational field and a body experiencing uniform acceleration. There is no reason to expect a charged particle resting in a uniform gravitational field to be emitting radiation. Therefore, according to the Equivalence Principle there should be no radiation from a charged particle experiencing uniform acceleration. Something must be wrong."

 

And I agree something is wrong, somewhere. I don't believe in this case Feynmann is wrong, but I believe some statements of accepted modern relativity needs to be revised.

 

Related references

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26158-mother-of-higgs-boson-found-in-superconductors/&ved=2ahUKEwiE6KCSvubnAhUymVwKHbf3DNcQFjALegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1nywPf-x3_OnDpJFyl5kGK&cshid=1582420283204

 

(1) the fact that deBroglies had held the photon must have a mass due to the coherence of his theory, I hold the neutrino also must have a very small charge due to the coherence of field theory. There are no acceptable reasons to say a neutrino should have no charge only that its charge also must be vanishingly small in accord to its gravitational charge

 

ħv ≃ Gm²(neutrino)

 

Here we avoid any mass related to a Planck mass definition, all the while, a true mass formula does exist where we do use the Planck mass defintion but the formula is well described under Weinberg. If we had defined it as a Planck mass here above, it would not describe the neutrino, just as if we had taken it to be the Planck mass, the lefthand side would have to be approximately equal to the Planck charge ħc, in which you will notice, we have a smaller quantity given simply by the velocity term which exists under Celeritas.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exposing the Possible Errors in General Relativity

 

"In the Theory of General Relativity there is what is called The Equivalence Principle. This is the assertion that there should be no difference between a body at rest experiencing a uniform gravitational field and a body experiencing uniform acceleration. There is no reason to expect a charged particle resting in a uniform gravitational field to be emitting radiation. Therefore, according to the Equivalence Principle there should be no radiation from a charged particle experiencing uniform acceleration."

 

Unruh did come to argue, possibly his best contribution to physics, that it actually does matter whether a body is at rest or not, a good example is his extensions to what the vacuum energy is in accord to rest relative to moving objects in spacetime. There is a difference between a body at rest experiencing a uniform gravitational field from the frame of reference to one moving through it, because the observer moving through the vacuum will measure a different energy density. Most scientists do not disagree with this. When accelerated moving objects are taken into place we have radiated charges observed from the rest position. It seems that here we can find some fundamental assumptions about General Relativity wrong, and so in principle, there are issues with the principles set in Special Relativity.

 

These are not the only errors, of course, I even explained how Einstein seemed to have forgot from first principles that gravity was a pseudo force in his own theory, so his attempts to unify gravity with a metric perturbation seems to have been naively done to unify it with field theory found in quantum mechanics. The speed of light neither is a constant (spatially) as found in his general theory, indicating that the special theory stating that light experienced no time delay must equally be wrong, for if it wasn't, it would mean spacetime was not unified as one object. Without the unification of spacetime, he would never have been able to describe curvature in the Universe. This leads further to problems when bringing in the question of the time problem of cosmology, it seems, time is completely a universal invariant and time appears to be manifestly an observable parameter in the form of curvature.

 

General relativity needs to be adjusted in principle for us to make sense of these issues when we attempt to unify relativity and quantum mechanics properly. Moreover, the timelessness that Einstein promoted then later the DeWitt equation appears to be faulty from first premises (1). It seemed nice to do away with time at first, but it seems that it is truly unavoidable since the scale parameter in the Friedmann equation is intrinsically time-dependent. These paradoxes indicate some serious breakdowns now in relativity and how we have continued to propagate misunderstanding of the physics.

 

(1) - the faults can be argued a number of different ways, but it seems the most solid argument against it remains that unification attempts really did quantize gravity when we never should have. Again, we do not quantize pseudo fields, we never have and we never should. We do not do it for any other pseudo force, so why this persisted for so long has confounded me, including a few physicists I have been I contact with over the years.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...