"Zero-point Connection?"
We note that some authors have suggested that the modern
interpretation of the vacuum state might constitute a resurgence of the
abandoned idea of an "ether" which would permeate space (1.). Whether
the overlaying of one or another model of space-time by some kind of
approximate grid system could actually still leave it reference frame
independent seems unclear (unless the nodes found in one reference frame
differ from those in another). It appears to us that the current
picture of the vacuum state as involving some kind of swarm of "virtual
particles" which appear and disappear according to some law of
randomness (2.), may actually be consistent with, and even increase the
plausibility of the general theory posited at this website.
Let us first assume we have some (relatively large) region of more or
less unadulterated vacuum. We then consider a small volume located
somewhere in the midst of this region. We also assume that we are able,
through some means; either theoretical or through observation, to make
an (if necessary approximate) account of all of the motions of those
virtual particles in the volume during some fixed interval of time;
restricting ourselves to those virtual particles which would have
existed for some minimum period of time during this interval (so that
the total number of particles that need to be considered hopefully
remains finite). Then considering all of the virtual particles which
have had at some time during the interval a positive component of
velocity in one arbitrary direction of space which we shall call "to the
right", we average all of these component velocities for all of the
virtual particles in the volume during this time interval. Let us then
assume that this average velocity comes out to some value, call it u.
At the same time, we make an identical average of all component
velocities that have a negative value in this same direction; and
multiplying this average by -1, we put this second average under the
heading "to the left". If the total number of particles considered in
the volume was statistically large enough, we would expect that this
second average should also come out to be (essentially) u, for otherwise
there would be a preferred direction in space.
Similarly we would also expect that any other
statistically significant average taken of positive components of
velocity of the virtual particles in any arbitrary direction of space
anywhere in the greater part of the region of vacuum first mentioned
(provided that we are restricting ourselves to those particles with the
same minimum and maximum life spans as were considered in the first
volume), should also essentially come out to the same value u; for
otherwise there would either be a preferred direction, or a preferred
location of space, within the region of vacuum.
We next consider a sub-volume of the region identical in extent
to the first mentioned; but which is moving through the vacuum region
at some constant velocity v parallel to the direction which we have previously
named "to the right" with respect to the fixed location of the first
volume considered. Within this moving volume we make an identical
accounting of those virtual particles moving with some positive
component of velocity relative to the moving center of this volume, and
parallel to its motion, as the one we made in the first volume. At the
same time we make a separate account of those virtual particles moving
with a negative component velocity in this same direction, also as
before. In each case we average the component velocities as we did in
the first volume; multiplying the second average by -1. Again we place
the first average velocity under the heading "to the right", and the
second under the heading "to the left".
It appears now, that if the total sum of virtual particles in
the region originally defined that "exist" within the same inertial
frame of reference within which the first named volume is stationary,
are exactly the same as those which can also be accounted as being present within the inertial reference
frame within which the second named volume is stationary (note that they may be in motion relative to it); that then the
average component velocities of the virtual particles moving "to the
right" which would have been found in the second volume should come out
to be about u-v, (assuming that u is large compared to v) while the average component velocities of those moving
"to the left" should come out to be approximately u+v, (the addition and
subtraction done either classically or relativistically). The two
averages would be unequal! This difference in velocities would indicate
that the first named volume would have resided in a preferred frame of
reference.
However, the
existence of any preferred frame of reference in space (empty space
being at least somewhat approximate to the quantum vacuum), is precisely
what the Michelsen-Morley, and related experiments are generally
thought of as having roundly contradicted, and the non-existence of
which Relativity with all its peculiar aspects was supposedly posited so
as to account for! The only readily available way to eliminate any
preferred frame of reference here, so that the two average velocities
obtained for the second volume would also both equal u, would seem to be
to assume that
somehow at least some of the virtual particles that exist in the
reference frame in which the first volume was stationary, do not exist
in the reference frame in which the second volume was stationary
(meaning that these particular virtual particles would not have been
able to participate in
interactions with real particles that might have been introduced, that
would have been stationary in this second reference frame; but could
interact with particles thus introduced into the first). These virtual
particles present in the first frame of reference, but missing from the
second reference frame might then have been
replaced in the second reference frame by other virtual particles with
slightly different relative
velocities to those that are in the first reference frame, but not in
the second. These other virtual particles might in turn themselves be
missing from the first reference frame.
We then note that this idea that at least some of the virtual particles
that exist in one of the two frames of reference might not exist in the
other (there not seeming to be any other simple way of eliminating any
preferred frame of reference), if true, is scarcely less implausible
than the idea that a single light source might be producing distinct
streams of photons that each are restricted to a given frame of
reference through which they travel with the Maxwellian velocity c, (So
that the two streams travel at different velocities relative to one
another), as has been the central idea espoused at this website now for
more than a year and a half!
Of course, since with the modern idea of the vacuum we are dealing with
the theory of quantum mechanics the situation is perhaps a bit more
complicated, as it is then unclear if a virtual particle first travels
from point A to point B where it collides with a real particle allowing
its presence to be detected by its effect on the real particle; or if
the real particle's presence at point B causes the virtual particle to
then chose a past history in which it began its existence at point A to
end up colliding with the real particle at point B; and whether the
absence of the real particle at B would have interfered with the virtual
particle's earlier existence and prevented it from originating, or
given it a different trajectory all together. This is perhaps
reminiscent of the experiment using E.P.R. effects alluded to in the
earlier blog "Further Considerations" in which when dealing with quantum
mechanics and relativity together, the time flow became unclear.
As stated earlier at this site, we imagine a universe in which there
would be a (virtual) space dilation given by x'= xc/(c+v), (3.); so that
an observer who at first remains stationary relative to a light source
produced, say, by oscillating electric charges a distance x away would
observe light waves in a vacuum which had departed relative to the
source with the velocity c predicted by Maxwell's theory (4.). As is
clear from that theory, a light wave can be conceived of as a sequence
of changing electric and magnetic fields. Since the magnitude of the
magnetic field produced by a charged particle is according to theory
directly proportional to its velocity relative to the measurer of the
field; we imagine that if the above mentioned observer were to suddenly
begin accelerating away from the light source with velocity v (v can
have a positive or negative value in the above equation), that this
would alter the magnitude of the magnetic field components of the light
waves seen by the observer; since the relative velocity of the observer
and the oscillating charges causing the light wave would now have been
altered. Similarly the electric field components of the light wave
which previously would have been (approximately): E=Kq/(x+dx)^2, K
being the constant in Coulomb's law, q the amount of electric charge
that is oscillating, and dx the distance through which the oscillation
would have gone through in a time phase dt (5.); would now change to
(about): E'=Kq/(x'+dx')^2.
The change in the electric and magnetic field components of the light
waves from the values measured in the previous stationary reference
frame relative to the light source, to the new reference frame in which
the light source is now moving away from the observer with velocity v,
we imagine might cause the original light wave to undergo destructive
interference in this new reference frame, and thus to vanish. In its
place we imagine that the altered electric and magnetic fields might
interfere constructively to form a new light wave produced by the still
oscillating charge source. Since Maxwell's theory predicts that all
light waves should travel at velocity c, and we consider that a light
wave exists in particular for whom-so-ever observes it; we suppose that
this newly observed light wave also travels with velocity c relative to
its observer, thus it must travel with velocity c through the frame of
reference in which it is observed; but need not necessarily travel with
this velocity through frames of reference where it is (possibly) not
observed.
Thus we imagine that the
new light wave might not travel with velocity c through the original
frame of reference of the now accelerated observer, but that it would
travel out of phase, and therefore unnoticed past another individual who
would have remained stationary in the first observers original location
at velocity c+v; the same velocity with which it would have departed
relative to its source. The second individual might continue to see a
light wave caused by the same oscillating source which would have
departed with velocity c relative to it.
In connection with this we note that virtual particles are described in
the literature as entities who's wave functions undergo constructive
interference for only a brief period after which these wave functions
interfere destructively, causing the particles to vanish, which is what
makes there existence only temporary (2.). If the arguments at the
beginning of this section are valid, then it seems reasonable to guess
that there existence may also be restricted to certain reference frames;
meaning that the effects of a given virtual particle might only be felt
by another particle in cases where that other particle is found in
certain selected reference frames, but not in others. Thus, it seems
conceivable that not only is constructive interference of the wave
functions of these "virtual particles" limited to certain time periods,
but may also, like the photons in our theory, be limited to only certain
specific frames of reference.
As has been stated earlier, while the validity of the two postulates of
Relativity (6.) are certainly a necessary condition for the theory of
Relativity as such to be true, the existence of the alternate theory
alluded to here shows that they are by themselves insufficient to prove
its truth, as this alternate theory also upholds both of them (7.). It
appears in the context of what has just been said that this alternate
theory is possibly even more in line with the second postulate of
Relativity than Relativity is, since if true it leads to the possibility
that the quantum vacuum state itself, as envisioned by modern physics,
might have no preferred frame of reference, something which the theory
of Relativity does not seem to imply for this vacuum state, as is seen
by the arguments presented earlier in this section.
Since in quantum mechanics it is normally a measurement done on a
system which is thought of as causing the system, in yielding up the
result of the measurement to choose a state (8.), which state may then
possibly include a number of presumed "virtual particles" with there own
histories; it is of course unclear if the precise "vacuum state" as it
would be revealed to an observer is a result of such a measurement taken
in a given frame of reference, which then causes a given region of
vacuum to choose a preferred "frame of reference" which is only
pertinent to the frame of reference in which the measurement was taken?
This however is not entirely out of line with our idea that a new light
wave should be revealed in changing frames of reference, which always
travels at velocity c relative to its observer, but not to others in
other reference frames who can not observe it!
(1.) See for example: Santini, Lorenzo, "On the
Conservation of Energy" in "Infinite Energy Magazine" Volume 24, Issue
143, pp.-28-29.
(3.) See specgalin.blogspot.com "Hypothetical Cosmos", " Preliminary Analyses".
(4.) See Haber-Schaim, U. Cross, J.B. Dodge, J.H. Walter, J.A. "PSSC Physics Forth Edition"
pp.-522-551. Speed of light: p.-544.
(5.) Ibid. pp.-424-427. Isaacs, Alan, "Dictionary of
Physics" p.-94. Implies K=1/4(Pi) e, where e is the "permittivity",
See pp.-352-353. Pi= 3.141592... .
(6.)
See Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold "The Evolution of Physics from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta", pp.-156,177.
(7.) See specgalin.blogspot.com "Hypothetical Cosmos", "Priliminary Analyses" Note (11.).
(8.) Peleg, Y. Ph.d, Pnini, R, Ph.d, and Zaarur,
E, M.Sc "Schaum's outline of Theory and Problems of Quantum
Mechanics" p.-51.
Questions or comments concerning this website can also be sent to questions.specgalin@
Comments
Post a Comment