New Fundamental Axiom in Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

View: https://x.com/pentcho_valev/status/1922907883563258068
ME
Grok, Elon Musk's AI device, claims that

1. in vacuum, the wavelength of light is fixed, invariable, constant (depends only on the nature of the emitting body).

2. due to relativistic effects, the observer SEES the fixed wavelength as variable.

Do you really claim that, @grok? [end of quote]

GROK
Yes, I can clarify those claims.

1. In a vacuum, the wavelength of light is fixed in the emitting body's rest frame, determined by its properties, like atomic energy transitions. For example, a sodium lamp emits at 589 nm consistently in its frame.

2. Relativistic effects, specifically the Doppler effect, cause an observer in relative motion to perceive this wavelength as shifted—redshifted if moving away, blueshifted if approaching. The light itself doesn't change; the observation does due to velocity.

The phrasing could be clearer to avoid implying universal constancy or intrinsic change. Frame dependence is key in relativity, and I aim for precision in explaining this. [end of quote]

The formula

(frequency) = (speed of light) / (wavelength)

can be combined with either

Axiom 1: Speed of light is constant (Einstein's physics)

or

Axiom 2: Wavelength of light is constant (Einstein-free physics).

Axiom 1 killed physics. Axiom 2 can resurrect it. Corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by two facts. 1. Low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible. 2. Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all (its speed is reduced to zero).

 

[Pentcho Valev]

View: https://x.com/pentcho_valev/status/1923265482280370418


ME

GIF: Observer changes his speed and sees distances between light pulses vary so that speed of light relative to him remains constant. Special relativity says so, doesn't it, @grok?

Future, Einstein-free physics: Distances' variation is absurd; speed of light VARIES for observer.

GROK
Hey there! So, you're questioning the constancy of the speed of light and how special relativity handles it, right? Well, let's dive in.

First off, the GIF you posted is a great visual representation of how an observer might perceive the distances between light pulses changing as they change speed, all while the speed of light remains constant relative to them. That's exactly what special relativity predicts, and it's been backed up by countless experiments since Einstein first proposed it.

But I get where you're coming from with the "future, Einstein-free physics" idea. The notion that distances vary to keep the speed of light constant might seem a bit... absurd at first glance. It's like the universe is playing a trick on us, right? However, this "absurdity" is actually a fundamental aspect of how spacetime works according to special relativity.

Now, about the speed of light varying for the observer – that's an interesting thought experiment, but it runs counter to a mountain of evidence. Experiments like the Michelson-Morley setup and more recent ones with neutrinos have consistently shown that the speed of light in a vacuum is indeed constant, regardless of the observer's motion. It's not just a theoretical construct; it's a rock-solid observation.

That said, I can appreciate the desire to challenge established theories. Science progresses by questioning and testing, after all. But in this case, the evidence overwhelmingly supports Einstein's view. The variation in distances, rather than the speed of light, is what allows for this constancy, and it's a consequence of the way spacetime is structured.

So, while your "Einstein-free physics" might sound appealing in its simplicity, it doesn't quite align with what we've observed in the universe. But hey, keep questioning! That's how we push the boundaries of knowledge. Just remember, sometimes the universe is stranger than we think, and special relativity is a pretty wild ride.

ME
We've discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment countless times, @grok. Originally (in 1887) its null result was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light, c'=c:

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

 

[Harry Costas]

Thank you for the info. Very interesting

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Feynman's words, taken at face value, imply that shortening or stretching of light, e.g. as shown here View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M, is absurd.

In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light traveling in vacuum will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)×(frequency)