martillo

You know, seems imposible for me to follow the discussion. Too much things are questioned by the new theory, quite everything of "Modern Physics"... As it is mentioned in the manuscript: "The proposed new theory is consistent with Classical Physics, Photon’s Physics, the Einstein E=mc2 formula, Planck E=hυ formula and the De Broglie relation, although some corrections must be made. It disagrees with Einstein’s Relativity Theory, the “Quantum Physics” based on the “Wave Mechanics Theory”, the Electromagnetic Wave Theory, the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom and today’s subatomic “Standard Model” based on the Quarks Theory. ..." This way trying to defend the theory here in the Forum is just an imposible task. I will not try anymore... Thanks for the criticism. It gave me some possible problems to think about...

You ask me to show experimental evidence... I ask you why there are so few evidence for the invariance of the velocity of light? The invariance is the second postulate of Relativity Theory and has NEVER been tested DIRECTLY. I mean, to measure the velocity of a beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities. I know the reason, is very difficult to perform such experiment. Only a very few experiments (questionable let me say) measuring light velocity emitted from moving sources have been made. They do not measure the invariance in relation to frames of reference, they only tested the independency from the velocity of the source of the light. At wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity) is commented only the following: "No dependence on source velocity or energy Emission theories, according to which the speed of light depends on the velocity of the source, can conceivably explain the negative outcome of aether drift experiments. It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the constancy of the speed of light was definitively shown by experiment, since in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive, and therefore compatible with both special relativity and emission theory.[9][10] More recent experiments have definitely ruled out the emission model: the earliest were those of Filippas and Fox (1964),[11] using moving sources of gamma rays, and Alväger et al. (1964),[12] which demonstrated that photons didn't acquire the speed of the high speed decaying mesons which were their source. In addition, the de Sitter double star experiment (1913) was repeated by Brecher (1977) under consideration of the extinction theorem, ruling out a source dependence as well.[13] ..." So few experimental evidence for so important postulate of the main theory in Physics? And you ask me to give you new experimental evidence at this time? Not fair... Not at all. The solutions to the EM wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations are PLANAR waves while in the real world all "EM waves" are SPHERICAL ones centered in the object emitting the radiation. Pretty sure about that. The gamma factor in the transforms is something very different from the factor in the definition of the fields. Not equivalent at all. You know, I could only show that the photons particles as defined in the new theory can exhibit for diffraction for instance but I would also have to show how is the model of the photon particle defined in the theory which is different from the current model of point-like particle. It has a structure, a shape and you then will ask me for evidence for that model and so on... Endless discussion would folllow. I would at the end have to show the entire manuscript here posting in the forum... As I say this goes beyond the scope of the thread which was to just analyze a particular proposition in the theory, the presence of the gamma factor in the Electric and Magnetic fields. You as moderators in the forum always demand to discuss particular propositions to discuss posting, no to advertise theories. That's what I tried to do and is only what I can do... If you would be really interested in other aspects of the theory you would read the manuscript which is now published (self-publishing) as a book in print and kindle formats but of course, I know, you won't.

I will understand, don't worry, it would be a problem of mine... Is not so easy to discuss some things sometimes...

You know, what I find here is too much predisposition to not accept something new and as I already said what you ask is beyond the scope of this thread. Is not the aim here to present everything of the new theory. As I got tired to say the subject of this thread is to discuss the possibility of the relativistic factor actually be present in the E and B Fields and I'm not seing any reference to that. In spite of considering this you are most interested in finding something against the new theory to not consider anything about anymore. So... I'm about to consider the thread finished with nobody really discussing about the proposed subject... Nothing else to say...

Which cases are you interested in?

I think the theory works in all cases of course, is just that I'm not able to analyze and write about every case possible. Is this so difficult to understand?

I will look at the links but I must mention now that the aim of this thread is not to talk about everything in the new theory but, as I said, to analise the problems I could face with the assumption that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v2/c2)1/2 actually be present in the E and B Fields and not in the mass or in the space-time metric as in Relativity Theory. And, as I also said, this is a completely original new proposition I never seen or heard anywhere before and which I think deserves attention. ... Well... I already looked in the links you provided and I don't find anything really conclusive: The slits' experiment is the same as otherones already done except it can switch from a single slit to a double slit experiment in the same apparatus. It does not demonstrate that actually single photons and not for instance some short trains of photons are passing through the slits. And in the "not dependency on source velocity..." section I could only find the experiments like the De Sitter and Alvager which I already analyzed and found also not conclusive. I will not discuss those experiments here. It is not in the scope of this thread to discuss that. If you find those experiments really conclusive enough to not consider this new theory I'm presenting it would be your opinion and your decision. Nothing to say about.

I MUST "cherry-pick"! My work has not the aim to describe the complete new theory. A so huge task is imposible for just one. Is not my aim to even give a complete demonstration of the theory, I can't do that, you should know that. That would be a task for an entire group or even community of physicists. My work is just a start-point for a new theory where some important key subjects are covered and solved for the new theory. The manuscript is just a collection of the main problems I have found to be more important to be solved for a new theory to begin to be developed. Just a start-point. That is enough for me. I can't do more myself.

Well, for instance, Hertz experiment is analyzed in the manuscript and it is shown that actually photons are detected. Also a complete description of how communication between antennas happens with photons is given. Also, the theoretical hypothesis of existence of EM waves from the EM wave equation is questioned since the theoretical solutional to them are infinite planes with the same field parallel to the plane in the entire plane for both, the electric and the magnetic one. Then it is taken into consideration which source for that fields could generate such kind of fields and that no one can be found. There's no source possible for that kind of fields. That's why EM waves are considered to actually not exist.

Google what? That the experiment of measuring the velocity of the same beam of light in two frames of reference with considerable different velocities was made and the same value was obtained? Or that the hypothesis that photons in arrangements in trains of photons exhibiting diffraction patterns has been shown to not exist? Sorry, I don't think any of them has been done. But, as you insist, I will wait for your stuff...

Just show where then... Ican't wait for it...

In the new theory electromagnetic WAVES do not exist, what exist are electromagnetic PARTICLES well known as photons. Particles that when travelling in arrangements of trains of particles can have the wave-like behavior of diffraction. The wave-particle duality is solved in favor to the particles model. But this goes beyond the scope of the thread I think...

Please tell me where. I can't wait to analyze such experimentation...

Speed of light is invariant within Relativity Theory only and as a postulate. For me is just another theory to compete with and in the first reply in this thread a feasible experiment to decide between it or this new theory has been described: a modified Davisson-Germer experiment with a velocity selector directly determining the velocity of the electrons. As I said, unfortunatelly I don't have the resources nor the expertisse to perform it. I'm just waiting for someone to do it now...

Which ones?

Not in the new theory. It is considered right the classical Emission Theory of light in which absolute frame exist and the light velocity is c + u where u is the velocity of the source. Just to mention the Emission Theory in its vectorial form c + u verifies Michelson Morley experiment. The equation is the same giving the same result. The factor s belonging to the left side is just a way to say that it is originated by the magnetic Field and not by a variable mass. Just because the factor itself and the equations in the new theory get more simple. s is not a quotient, s = (1-v2/c2)1/2 In the new Theory particles can reach velocities greater than c accelerated by Electric or Magnetic Fields if the source of these fields have some velocity in a similar way than the Emission Theory of light. Actually the photons are emitted from atoms by their Electric and Magnetic Fields and the factor s is the reason why they acquire their velocity c : the fields becomes zero at this velocity and cannot accelerate them more. But if they have some absolute velocity particles could reach velocities greater than c (something yet to be verified experimentally, I know, something not so easy to accomplish).

That is true only after the assumption that Minkowsy's space-time of Relativity Theory (where the Lorentz's factor gamma = 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 plays a fundamental role) is true. I know that with this assumption it is not necessary to attach the gamma factor to the mass, it becomes intrinsic to the space-time metric. As a side effect the momentum p becomes redefined. In classical Physics p = m*v and with Relativity Theory becomes p = gamma*m*v. The new theory is an alternative to that assumption considering the classical Euclidian space with time as an independent variable or dimension and the gamma factor just present in the Electric and Magnetic Fields. The Gravitational Field seems to be well described by the classical one provided a correction to take into account the dynamics of galaxies and in replacement to the hypothesis of the existence of "dark matter", something I think we have talked about in other thread. Other phenomena like Mercury's precession and gravitational lensing can be also explained otherways taken into account other considerations but I think they are out of the topic of this thread now. The important thing in this thread is to analise the possibility of the gamma factor 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 be actually related to the Electric and Magnetic Fields.

Something also already considered is that the momentum will also be the classical one p = mv without the effect of the factor s = (1-v2/c2)1/2. This would affect for instance the value of the De Broglie wavelength lambda = h/p. An important experiment to be considered then is the Davisson-Germer experiment at very high velocities. This experiment could validate or invalidate the proposition of the factor s present in the E and B Fields but it is demanded that a velocity selector be used in the experiment in spite of deriving the velocity from the classical Electric Potential of the accelerating Electrical Field. If the factor s is present in the Electrical Field the Electrical Potential would not be the classical one anymore and the velocity gained by the electrons in the acceleration stage cannot be obtained with the classical Electrical Potential. Unfortunatelly I don't have the resources and may be the expertisse necessary to perform this experiment. I can only wait for someone that could be able an interested in performing it someday...

I have developed a manuscript as a startpoint for a new Theory in Physics and the beginnings presents a new interpretation for the known Lorentz's factor gamma = 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 which appears in consideration before the development of Relativity Theory. The initial new consideration is that the factor s = 1/gamma = (1-v2/c2)1/2 is related to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not the mass as was considered in the Kaufman, Bucherer, Newman, etc. exepriments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments). In Section 2.2 can be found the following: It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces formulas must be corrected. We are going to make a modification on the fields’ formulas that will represent the behavior of the basic particles like the electron and the photons at high velocities. It is proposed that the Electric and Magnetic Fields and Forces are directly responsible for that behavior. When particles travels through Electric and Magnetic Fields, it has been experimentally determined that a factor s = (1-v2/c2)1/2 appears, although it is only visible when large velocities are present in the particles. It is well known, for example, that when electrons are passed through a strong magnet it describes a circular trajectory that verifies the equation: qvB = (m0/s)(v2/r) where s = (1-v2/c2)1/2 c is the light velocity in vacuum emitted with a source at rest: c ≈ 3x108 m/seg It is proposed that the factor s is present both in the Magnetic and Electric Fields and Forces. In the example above the equation should be rewritten to: sqvB = m0v2/r It is proposed that the factor belongs to the other side of the equation. This gives the same kinematics results but means a different cause to the behavior. This is the alternative to the proposition of mass variation in the Relativity Theory. Then, if we denote Bc and FBc the field and force of Classical Physics it is proposed that the actual Magnetic Field and Magnetic Force are: B = sBc FB = sFBc Where is defined: s = (1-v2/c2)1/2 for vR ≤ c, s = 0 for vR ≥ c vR is the relative velocity between the source of the field B and the particle where the force is applied For the Electric Field E and Force FE, the new theories propose the same modification, the factor s, to take into account the behavior when large relative velocities are present between the source of the field and the particles. If Ec and FEc are the classical Electric Field and Force then the actual ones should be: E = sEc FE = sFEc Where in this case vR is the relative velocity between the source of the field E and the particle where the force is applied It is interesting to note that the Electric and Magnetic Forces become zero for velocities greater than c. The new theories does not limit the velocity of every object to be less than the value c but as the forces becomes zero at this speed it seems not to be possible to accelerate something to a speed greater than c. ... NOTE: The new Electric and Magnetic Fields will verify the classical Maxwell Equations at small velocities (s ≈ 1). The validity of the equations at high velocities and the form they can have for the new fields in the general case is a subject for future study. ... I must comment here that if the factor s appears in both the Electric and Magnetic Fields and it cancels out in experiments where the Electric Force is opposite to the Magnetic Force. Is the case in some velocity selectors apparatus. I never seen or heard about this possibility being taken into consideration before anywhere. The question now here in the forum would be which would be the problems I must consider against this possibility. I have already considered that if the factor s = (1-v2/c2)1/2 is attached to the fields and not the mass the Kinetic Energy of the particles wold be the clasical one K = mv2/2 in discrepancy for instance with Bertozzi's Experiment where very high ("relativistic") energies are measured for the electrons. I have reviewed the experiment and found that it haven't been considered in it that when electrons collides in a target at very high velocities radiation energy is produced in the form for instance of X-rays and the phenomena of annihilation of electrons transforming them in other "subatomic" particles and photons, like in the known electron-positron pair annihilation producing gamma rays, could be present. So in this cases other phenomena could explain the same results for the experiment. It would be a very big unlucky concidence I know, but it is possible...

Seems you are confusing something. MOND theory (or theories) modifies Newton's Second Law F = ma by placing a factor µ = µ(a/a0) in the equation: F = m.µ(a/a0).a which, as it is said (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics), introduces effects in systems with very slow accelerations. This would produce the effect of a centripetal force varying with 1/r in distance in spite of the classical 1/r2 in the outer stars of the galaxies. What I'm talking about is to NOT modify Newton's Second Law F = ma but modify the Gravity Force Law: F = Gm1m2/r2 which would have two terms: F = Gm1m2(f1/r2 + f2/r) where f1 would be a relevant factor at the "small" planetary scales and neglihible at the "big" galactic scales and inversely f2 would be a relevant factor at galactic scales and neglihible at planetary scales. This could perfectly be done in Classical Physics but the question is if it cannot be done in Relativity Theory because seems this possibility isn't being considered. This would remove the necessity of the Dark Matter hypothesis...

Why, in spite of modifying Newton's second law, not to modify the Gravity Law? Why not, just for instance, to just consider it having two terms one relevant at planetary systems (proportional to 1/r2) scale and the other at galactic scales (proportional to 1/r)? This could be if each term would have a factor making them neglihible at the other scales something not so difficult to imagine, I think. Afterall Newton didn't know about galaxies dynamics. Is that this cannot be compatible with Relativity Theory?

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll take a look. You know, I'm interested to know if a Turing machine could surge from an underlying basic "mathematical structure". I was thinking in something like a "fields foam" which could be "continuos" in its nature but this is not essentially necessary and may be graphs or hypergraphs of nodes an edges could be a great one as a source of a Turing machine. A Turing machine has the same computational capability of any computer and so it can run any program a computer does and has the advantage of being a very simple machine. This way, anything from video games to artificial intelligence could run in it and this turn it possible to produce a Universe with intelligent life in it. Its inefficiency of having to run in a much higher speed to achieve the same results is not a problem for me. I can set any unveliebable huge number for its speed as it would be needed. I'm just interested in a possible explanation of the origins of the Universe, not to build a practical one. I think you could feel that this is actually possible like I feel. Thanks a lot.

Very, very appropriated... 😄

That way there would be an alternating state of the particles but not all the particles synchronized and as there would be an innumerable quantity of particles in the global Space there would be always at least one particle (actually much more I think) in the "something" state. So there always be something. So there's no nothing, never. Always something.

I couldn't stop thinking about this and I think now that "unstable nothing" is not the same as just "nothing" because it contains something that makes it unstable. Something that could eventually "explode" and turn into a Universe. That counts as something for me, not nothing. This way Parmenides premise remains as true and the derived statement that then "Something always existed" is also true. The question would be what would be that eternal something always existing. The answer for me is that for "Quantum Physics" the always existing something would be a "fields' foam" or "particles foam" as whished. In other theories would be other thing. For instance in the "Simulation" theories it would be an eternal "computing machine". I don't know if only one is true or if they are compatible one being a consequense of the other one. For instance, a "quantum foam" could be "simulated" in a "computing machine" or the inverse, a "computing machine" could surge from a "quantum foam". After any of these a Universe can surge. Whatever would be the case, this way there would be no problems between Philosophy and Physics. Subject solved for me this way. It would be just our instinct that leaves us to think that the Universe must have come from "nothing". Just our instinct has problem to conceive an eternal something ever existing and we must override it...