Largest velocity in the nature
Introduction.
Light propagation velocity assuredly is photons moving speed
but, regarding ours supposition (Hip. 3 in our Energy
Density Quantification model), this should not be value implied in T.R.
as largest velocity in the nature. By ours opinion, this largest velocity value
(vmax) is established from J.C. Maxwell’s equation regarding
Heaviside’s suggestion about Coulomb force constant.
Elaboration.
In
K. A. Tomilin’s articles: [1] and: [2], one can find very interesting facts
about impossibility of the simultaneous fundamental
status of the physical constants c,
Żh, e and ke.
Let me cite:
“... From equation (2) it
follows that only three of these four constants c, Żh, e and ke can be fundamental, while the fourth must be
derived from the other three. From equation (2)
Hence ...”
“... The progress of quantum
metrology allows to hope for adoption in the future of unified fundamental
system of units based on fundamental constants. ...”
End of citation.
From (3)
we can see that velocity of light can be defined as: c ~ kee2 / -ha. Sign ~ have uttermost significance for us, meaning that velocity of light IS NOT EQUAL but have approximate value !
Considering numerous facts from recent theoretical investigations about fine
structure constants (e.g. NewScientist.com: “Speed of
light may have changed recently”: “...The speed of light is inversely
proportional to alpha, and though alpha also depends on two other constants,
many physicists tend to interpret a change in alpha as a change in the speed of
light. ...”), black
holes discrepancy with theoretical expectations etc, one can see that basic
relativistic postulate about light speed constancy is very, very problematic.
Many of modern science's problems, the discrepancy between the numbers of
expected and "caught" neutrino particles, the insufficient density of
energy obtained by cold fusion and the like, are the main motive for finding
possible solutions.
Extremely illogical statement, for us, is about photons rest mass. We can
not accept that ALL natural objects from ours reality have rest mass if they are
substantial, or adequate frequency if they have wave nature - EXCEPT photon?
This is not normal, apropos natural. If we declare photon as particle without
remaining mass, for us, regarding particle/wave energy equations, that is the
same as if we say that photon is a wave without a frequency! Really, disconcert
statement.
Hence,
there is many reasons to try to “over-ride” a “luxon wall” without violate a
quantum theory, nor theory of relativity. We think that this is possible.
The
Theory of Relativity is certainly not the only right way to get to know nature,
but it still offers answers to many questions. The problem of its perhaps
insufficient precision, which shows in extreme (relativistic) conditions, can
be overcome by a correction of concepts and interpretations of Maxwell-Lorentz
Theory on the speed of light in the vacuum being constant, which Einstein had
taken over and postulated as unchangeable and independent of the velocity at
which the light source is moving.
As Mr. Tomilin reminds us, discussion about fundamental
natural constants started before already one hundred years and are not ended
until now days.
Please, let me remember you to some facts reproduced from
several articles.
From [3]:
“... The error of Maxwell's mathematics due to his force-fitting his speed formula to Michael Faraday's 1846 paper "Thoughts on Ray Vibrations", in which Faraday thought that light was electromagnetic. He was right, but Maxwell got the maths wrong by taking a short cut assumption about what the speed represented, before he even knew the speed of electricity!!! The (1) numerical value and (2) invariance of the 1/(root of product of electric and magnetic constant) formula in Maxwell's derivation in its modernized form led to the unproven assertion that this is the speed of light, which is always invariant. In fact, the speed 1/(root of product of electric and magnetic constant) is actually the speed of the vector sum of electron spin and perpendicular-to-spin propagation, not the formula for light. Only the speed of the electron spin and propagation vector sum is invariant at 300,000 km/s. The speed of light is not invariant. So we must accept relativity only as applying to matter not to light, hence the time-dilation of material clocks, length contraction, mass increase, e=mc2, are quite correct but the application of the principle of relativity to light itself is not proven by Einstein. ...”
One can see that “light velocity
value”, being 3*10^8 m/s, is not only “rounded” value but this “Maxwell’s -
theoretical" value have thorough “space-time” sense.
From [4]
"...Maxwell, in 1864, was the first to put all four equations together and to notice that a correction was required to Ampere's law: changing electric fields act like currents, likewise producing magnetic fields. (This additional term is called the displacement current.) The most common modern notation for these equations was developed by Oliver Heaviside.
Furthermore, Maxwell showed that waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields travel through empty space at a speed that could be predicted from simple electrical experiments—using the data available at the time, Maxwell obtained a velocity of 310,740,000 m/s. ..."
It is
obvious that at that time was a lot of wandering about light (EMW) speed
velocity. Regarding fact that EMW velocity was defined as c = (1 / eomo)1/2, next - that value of mo
(permeability of vacuum ) is defined with adopted units system, then - value for eo (permittivity
of free space) is defined according to Coulomb’s law as eo = (1/4pke),
where ke is Coulomb force constant, and finally – experimentally
measured values for light velocity was quite undetermined, become entirely
reasonable to decide which values to proclaim as fundamental (defined) and
which have to be “readjusted” and probably, that was basic reason why Heaviside suggested [5] that
the constant ke in Coulomb's Law have to be re-written as,
ke = 9.0*109 N-m2/C2
, hence, eo
= 1 / (4 p ko )
= 1 / 36 p*109 ~ 8.9 x 10-12 C2/(N-m2)
According to Maxwell’s relation c=(1/eomo)1/2, we obtain:
c = (1 / 4p*10-7 * (1 / 36p*109))1/2
= (36p*109 / 4p*10-7)1/2
= (9*1016)1/2 = 3*108
m/s,
and that quantity we
named: Maxwell’s EMW theoretical value.
Technical progress realized in XX
century enabled us a much precise experimental measuring. Recent light speed
velocity is determined very precise and, as we suppose, that
was dominant reason why modern science abandon from Maxwell – Heaviside principle to define LIGHT VELOCITY (EMW)
according to previously defined value for Coulomb force constant
(namely permeability and permittivity of vacuum) and
done vice versa: accept experimentally measured photons speed velocity
(light speed velocity) as a fundamental, quite
determined, value from which, then, originate value for eo (permittivity
of free space) !
By our’s
oppinion, yet larger mistake was done when that, experimentally measured light
speed value (ve) was proclaimed as a largest possible EMW velocity
in whole nature, and finally, assuredly inexplicable perplexity is done
identifying that (ve) value with c - speed value in Lorentz
transformation expressions, apropos -Einstein’s nature-object’s maximal
possible value!
As Mr. Tomilin show in his article, only three of these four constants: c, Żh, e and
ke can be fundamental, while the fourth must be derived from
the other three. Considering this and fact
that according to recent theoretical investigations ke ~ 8,988 * 109
[Nm2C-2], we can freely allow possibility that Coulomb
force constant (ke) get value suggested by Heaviside ke =
9*109 [Nm2C-2]. Consequently, EMW velocity
defined by Maxwell equation becomes a “maximal
nature’s EMW velocity value”, negligible larger than measured photons moving
velocity.
Summing up.
Light
propagation velocity assuredly is photons moving speed but, regarding ours
supposition (Hip. 3 in our Energy Density Quantification model), this should
not be value implied in T.R. as largest velocity in the nature. By ours
opinion, this largest velocity value (vmax) is established from J.C.
Maxwell’s equation regarding Heaviside’s suggestion about Coulomb force constant. Its quantity is (really
slightly) larger than the experimentally measured light speed (c=2.99792458*108
[m/s]). This vmax velocity value originates from vacuum
characteristics and is: vmax = (1/m0e0) 1/2 = (36p109/4p10-7)1/2
=3*108 [m/s]. This really negligible (quantitative) difference is,
probably, fundamental reason why Maxwell (and all other scientists) was
equalized and, in essence, identify this two velocity values. By ours
opinion, although Lorenz’s relations stay (almost) same, qualitative
dissimilarity is very large.
Exchanging
experimentally measured values of quantity c, which in Lorentz's
transformations denotes the speed at which light spreads, with its theoretic
value (hypothesis 3), does not bring only qualitative, but also significant
quantitative changes, which are especially apparent in extreme situations. This
"insignificant" difference has almost no effects at low, middle and
even high speeds, which is probably one of the reasons why Maxwell in his
papers equaled those two values and treated them as one. Still, this change,
small in the quantitative sense, results in extremely big qualitative changes.
Firstly, light speed becomes possible to reach for corpuscular objects with
a real rest mass, so the particle's mass can be expressed by de Broglie's
equation as a function of wavelength in a range of speeds including light
speed. Now, Planck's formula for energy in the field of radiation (E=h*v)
becomes completely analogous to Einstein's formula for total energy of a
corpuscular object (E = m*c2), since mass now has a finite value. The
fact that the energy formulas are identical, points to the energy content of
the objects they refer to being identical, and therefore the conclusion is that
we are, basically, dealing with the same object. In keeping with this, we no
longer require the existence of some "quasi-substantial" objects,
such as photon, which official science has "defined" as particles
without mass (?)
.
Moreover, quant teleportation as like EPR effect becomes very obvious, blue
shift is totally normal event, black
holes does not have to be/become a singularity, corpuscular object
velocities are possible to exceed experimentally measured value off light speed
- without infinite mass growth, quantity "time" have not negative
value, etc., but all current official theories remain
valid .
However,
main benefit of proposed exchanging experimentally measured values of
quantity c, which in Lorentz's transformations denotes the speed at which light
spreads, with its Maxwell’s EMW theoretical value, bring us a significant
qualitative “space-time-energy” changes, which are especially apparent in
extreme relativistic situations. We get a whole, “new”
world !!! World which is absolutely “inverse” to our reality, hence counterpart
semi-hipersphere, (spherical) 3D structure which is "embedded" in
Riemann's 4D hypersphere just as “ours” (3D space +1D time) world is ...
Basic idea of ours considerations is the following: object which move with speed lesser of experimentally measured value of light speed (c) we perceive as particle. Objects whose velocity is close to value of light speed (c), evince dualism nature, until objects whose speed is greatly of experimentally measured light speed (c) but, at the same time, lesser than her theoretically value defined by J.C. Maxwell (vmax), we perceive as waves.
Hence, in Reality, none
spacetimematter object does not exist as a “corpuscle” or as a “wave” but all
of them exist just as Corpuscle-Wave dual-energy-form entities, expressing
theirs energy-content, depending of energy density relations of themselves (for
each other) and of environment as well as of observers motion state,
PREDOMINANTLY in a substantial form or in a wave form. In essence EACH spacetimematter object
ALWAYS is “duality”
and have corpuscle-wave structure but is expressed (perceived,
measured...) in a “different” form,
depending of energy density relations.
According to our model of (Eternal
Oscillating) Universe, in the field of small, in fact "sub-light"
speeds, energy expressed in the form of mass is closed in the three-dimensional
sense "within" a certain volume, so this kind of motion of matter in
the shape of "discreet energy packages" is expressed as a particle
with a rest mass and a corresponding radius. The same "discreet energy
packages", or energy quants, moving at speeds less than the possible
maximum but greater than the speed at which light travels, "are open to
the outside in the three-dimensional sense", since then they are also
(more significantly) moving towards the fourth dimension. In the
four-dimensional sense, this is again "inside", but at the
"other" side of the "inside" in the three-dimensional
sense. We see those as radiation or energy spreading without needing a
corpuscular environment. Objects moving at speeds very close to that of light,
express the characteristics of both particles and waves (e.g. Dualistic nature
of light). ... Etc...
A lot of modern science's problems, the discrepancy between the numbers of expected and "caught" neutrino particles, the insufficient density if energy obtained by cold fusion and the like, are the main motive for finding possible solutions and rethink about supposed ideas.
Details are exposed on http://www.beotel.rs/~gmarjanovic, but basic idea is (our hypothesis 3) about fact that Theoretical Light velocity ( C= 300 000 000 m/sec) isn’t meet its measuring in the Vacuum that is C=299.792.458 +/- 12 m/s! There is a gap in between that shows possibility of velocity greater than light, without changing the basic of Quantum Mechanics and or Theory of Relativity!
References:
1. “Fine-structure constant and dimension analysis”, Eur. J. Phys. 20
(1999) L39–L40, printed in the
2. “NATURAL SYSTEMS OF UNITS”, K.A.
Tomilin, Institute for the History of Science and Technology,
3. James
Clerk Maxwell, Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., Article 769:-
(source: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm)
4. Maxwell’s equations, (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)
5. “Rationalized
Units”, (source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/203/apr1/rational.html)
If You have any comment you can email me immediately or send me Your oppinion later on: gmarjanovic@beotel.rs