Can Shadows Move Faster Than Light?

A delightfully clear demonstration of a bug crawling up a window and casting a monstrous shadow across the universe is provided by David Griffiths on page 427 of his 2005 Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. This is touted as a demonstration of movement faster than light that carries no energy, cannot transmit a message, and cannot be causal
 
The author's first response (remember “intuition: useful, powerful, possibly wrong, potentially dangerous”) was that no shadow would move faster than light, that it could carry “energy”, can transmit a message, and can be causal. Careful geometry (2012-02-29) leads to the suggestion that, while message of the shadow takes distance/c seconds to arrive on the screen, multiple points on the screen may fall into shadow in less time than it takes light to travel from one of those points to the other. Afterward, those points can compare notes on when the shadow fell and decide how fast the “event” might have been traveling. As humans we have no trouble saying “those happened at the same time” or “everything happened at once.” So we should have no trouble imagining two events that happen so close together that one could not warn or notify the other. “It happened so fast, I couldn't put on the brakes” or “the wave came in so quick I couldn't shout to warn the other surfer.”. So the author was wrong to suggest (as written 2012-02-22) that “seeing the shadow or its edge moves faster then light is based on experimental and experiential fallacy.” Investigating why the edge may move faster is an interesting education.

If our creepy bug moves up at v, the image on the screen moves up at v' If the bug is 1 meter from the light source moving at 3m/sec (one hundred millionth the speed of light) and the screen is a 1x10^8 meters from the source, v is 3e-8c and v' is apparently 1c. Light takes longer to get to the screen the further the bug gets from the center line from projector to the screen. For now the screen is perpendicular to that center line. If we increase the screen distance to 2x10^8 meters, v' is apparently 2c. This will take some care to work out.

The bug starts at time 0 on the line from the projector to the screen, perpendicular to the screen's position. The bug is Bd from the point light source, the screen is Sd. The bug moves upward at v. The bug's position is measured as s above mid-line perpendicular to the screen and s=vt. Bd is considered tiny compared to Sd. At time 0, the screen has been lit. Light takes Sd/c to reach the screen, so screen position of the shadow s' = 0 occurs at t' = Sd/c. As the bug moves up, s=vt. At a given t, the shadow position will be s' = vtSd/Bd and the time for light to get to that point (or stop getting to that point) will be t+sqrt(Sd^2+s'^2)/c. The ds'/dt' with respect to t is the “speed” of the edge of the shadow. Numerically, calculating delta s'/delta t' makes it clear that if one is far enough away and the angle between the screen and the ray of light is not too great, that derivative will be higher than c.

The shadow can transmit information to a point on the screen, it can effectively transmit a lack of energy to trigger a reaction at that point on the screen, and it can be causal. That point on the screen cannot communicate with any other faster than the speed of light, so it may not be able to warn a nearby point that the shadow is coming if the shadow has also have fallen on that point before the message arrives. But there is no cause to abandon causality and no point in losing energy over the lack of energy in a shadow.

While the two turning points in the education of a physicist are Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Mechanics, we want to avoid over-learning and over-generalization too.

The Education Continues

Bell's Theorem is too Narrow to Prove Useful to Quantum Mechanics

Bell's Theorem, that “all theories” about paired or entangled quantum information are inherently worse than quantum mechanics, is considered fundamental to physics and the philosophy of science.

The author respectfully suggests that Bell's inequality formalizes “all theories” into a narrow band, allowing “all theories” only information about the results of two experimental tests done on the quantum information and the rights to use only a hypothetical and unmeasurable angle lambda that relates to that quantum information, further requiring that “all theories” create a function in lambda that must be multiplied by the results of the two measurements. The formalism of Bell's Theorem claims to cover “all local hidden variable theories” but the physics community seems to have taken that to mean “all theories” in spite of warnings from Gerard t'Hooft and seems to have given up on causality and realism.

Ingenious experiments have verified Bell's inequality, which the author does not dispute. The interpretation and formalism are what have gotten physics into trouble. The author will take four approaches in this discussion, two theoretical and two practical. The theoretical discussions involve asking a “physicist” with programming/information theory skills and a “physicist” with statistical or bio-statistical experience to create a predictor function that will be better than the results from quantum mechanics. Discussions of experiments with polarized light and with the spin of particles follow, but cast more doubt on the interpretation of results than the results themselves.

Objections from a Object Programming Approach -or-
Dysfunction from a Functional Programming Approach -or-
Contradiction/Confounding/Clarification from a Contractual Programming Approach

Assignment: Function rho is passed one parameter, lambda, which ranges from -pi to pi inclusive. The value returned for pi will equal that for -pi. The integral of rho over the range of lambda is to be 1. We may require it to return a value 0 or greater and less than 1. The function receives no information about A, a, B, b and is not allowed to make predictions based on A, a, B, or b. When multiplied by A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) and the result integrated over the range of lambda, it is expected to provide a result similar to (a dot b) when we (not you) integrate rho(lambda)*A(a,lambda)*B(b.lambda) over lambda.[1]

Good luck. 
 
Failure will lead to stagnation in a field of physics to be determined later.

Programmer's Response: We cannot use a or b or A or B or A(a,lambda) or B(b, lambda) to predict rho or better yet that integral? You've prescribed how P will be calculated? Are you serious? Sounds like a setup for failure to begin with; a self respecting programmer would not accept the contract. No thanks. Stagnate. Go ask a statistician.

Statistician looks at Bell's Theorem

Assignment: We have run a few experiments that show a correlation between measurements of a physical phenomenon we can rerun. You are to create the best description of that variance using only single variable analysis: we will tell you what the correlation is with one variable and the correlation with another variable and want you to improve on the prediction results. You are expected to use those results multiplicatively with the function of your creation. Oh yes, we will tell you the main independent variable, but not the value of the other two independent variables used to determine the dependent values we will give you. You are not allowed to make predictions based on the value of those two independent variables. Analysis of variance is off limits. That is reserved for the one true theory. Failure will lead to you being banned from publication on this or any other topic within the field. Worse, failure will leave the one true theory able only to describe and without any means to discuss why; causality will be forbidden.

Statistician's Response: In statistics, especially bio-statistics, we rarely get the chance to rerun an experiment as often as we want, even when we have the money to do it. How exciting. But why, with three independent variables, are you allowing me access to only one? And why are you telling me that I must multiply by the linear results? Really? Do you want my theory to fail? It will, you know. We are used to looking for hidden variables all the time and describing results without knowing mechanisms, but to be told I won't be able to use known information in my analysis is almost a guarantee of failure. I'll pass. What is it you were trying to predict, anyway?

Conclusion to Theoretical Approaches

Bell's Inequality is ably described in Griffiths 2005 Introduction to Quantum Mechanics p425; the author even thinks he understands it. Yet Bell's Inequality is based on a straw man: if rho(lambda) is a multiplicative factor which must integrate to 1 over lambda and that cannot know anything about a or b or use them as variables, it is a pretty dumb hidden variable theory and should not be expected to do much. Quantum mechanics P is allowed to know a and b, and is rightfully proud and embarrassed that (a dot b) is as good as it can do.
Back to the statistician's question: what was to be predicted?

Polarization Experiments

Freedman and Clauser's experiments suggest a “new” phenomenon of signal enhancement would be required for the tightly confined theories of local realism to do better than Bell's inequality for experiments with and without polarizers.

Yet polarization DOES lead to signal enhancement in some cases. A polarizer is oriented horizontally in front of a sensor that only senses vertically polarized light. The sensor sees no light, no matter what is sent to the first polarizer. (If the polarizers are perfect or the first is “over aggressive” and the sensor slightly imperfect.)

Yet adding a polarizer in between, oriented at 45 degrees to vertical, does enhance detection. One eighth of the incident light will be detected. So in at least one situation, a Bell's Inequality is counterproductive.

The mnp Model suggests that experiments with polarized light depend on whether the photons being tested are part of an ongoing stream of radiation (with the attendant existing attenuating fields) or if they are emitted far enough apart to not be affected by recent fields.

The author suggests Freedman and Clauser's experiments are probably fine, just that the interpretation and formalisms are flawed.

Spin Experiments

Looked at from any axis, electrons have spin (angular momentum) of h/2 “up” or “down.” Measuring one electron a second time at a different angle leads to a (more or less) random result. Measuring a paired electron after the first is measured at a different angle leads to a similarly random result. The author wonders if the distribution is any different when the spin of the first of a pair has NOT been measured but its presence merely sensed. He suggests not. Quantum mechanics sees that spin as an intrinsic property of the fermion, with no clear idea how the tiny mass of the electron could create that much angular momentum without spinning with surface faster than the speed of light. So the author needs to ask:

What is Spin? 
 
Ohanian's description of spin as circulation of energy in the fields from 1984 published 1986, following work by Belinfante in 1939 and suggestions by Gordon in 1928 is interesting. [2] Am J Phys. 54 (6), June 1986 from aforrester.bol.ucla.edu/docs/Spin_Ohanian.pdf (thanks for the reference to Griffiths [1] 2005 pg171 footnote 25) Seeing spin as a wave property works for both classical waves and quantum mechanical waves. Ohanian's treatment is compatible with (and uses) quantum field theory to quantize the effects, but is fundamentally compatible with classical wave treatments as well. In fact, the emphasis on circularly polarized fields sounds familiar. Conservation is met by circulation within a field! 
 
Ohanian's description is in keeping with the mnp Model's view of electrons as surfaces of electric charge material rotating in rings either left or right, which would create “vortexes” in the field around the electron but no net effect unless an interaction/measurement occurs. The spin measured (or captured) by the Stern Gerlach magnets is apparently not a direct reflection of the left or right spin of the electron's charge structure, but an effect on the field that then effects the electron's travel, much as polarization filters affect electro-magnetic fields (and in the mnp Model, which then affect the photon) In the mnp Model, photons have two different “halves” with the first half consisting of magnetic entities with spin in one direction and the second half with spin in the opposite direction. Why that would create, independent of the photon's mass and energy, a spin angular momentum in the field with exactly twice the magnitude of an electron's or quark's angular momentum is a question that shows the current limits of the author's understanding and education. 
 
Conclusion

Physicists should have no trouble seeing quantum mechanics as an incomplete theory. Feynman is quoted as saying “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” All hope of causality has been abandoned, prematurely in the author's estimation. Quantum mechanics is wonderful, beautiful, eminently descriptive, reasonably predictive, and may have put many physicists out of work. Quantum mechanics should be comfortable with the “incomplete” label.

Bell's Theorem need not confine theory to multiplicative factors that are distributive over addition, so quantum mechanics too has hope of expansion. The reliance of quantum mechanics on commutative relations when it suits the purposes of development and description may well be appropriate for charge based issues which seem to be symmetrical or commutative, but may not work with gravity.

To paraphrase an adventurous friend, The Education Continues

To speak for causality and realism: I'm not dead yet.

References:
[1] D. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NY, 2005).
[2] H. Ohanian, “What is Spin?” Am. J. Phys. 54 (6), 500 (1986).

Light Speed is Constant, Time Dilates, Length Contracts, Gravity Slows - Absolutely

Light speed tests in one direction are claimed, but most miss a length contraction or a time dilation somewhere. This is important to quantum mechanics, quantum loop theory, and all the theories of everything.

At least one Model shows time dilation and length contraction as properties of matter, which agrees with Michelson -Morley (length contraction suffices), Kennedy-Thorndike (needs length contraction and time dilation) and Ives-Stillwell (time dilation only with transverse doppler effect). The Model passes the Mossbauer rotation (time dilation) tests, claimed Mossbauer type anisotropic tests (which fail to account for time dilation affecting both emitter and receiver), and Cole Very Long Baseline Interferometry (contraction in the baseline and the angle of the celestial body account for claimed anisotropy). Zhang suggests any tests will be indistinguishable from SR anyway. Does that mean that time dilation and length contraction are sufficient in a theory to be indistinguishable from Special Relativity? Thanks to Tom Roberts for the list of tests (http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html and elsewhere)

The “One-way speed of light” Wikipedia article claims NO one way tests have been done, that all merely appear to be one way tests, mentioning 2009 Greaves, Rodriguez and Ruiz-Camacho AmJP, 1990 JPL maser/fiber optic measurements analyzed by Will and Zhang, and Romer's early measurement analyzed 1997 by Zhang. Special Relativity postulates that the one way speed matches the two way speed, but the 1904 Lorentz/Poincare Ether Theory and 1963 Edwards Theory of anisotropic space AMJP, while out of fashion, are considered experimentally indistinguishable.

The Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy and the ongoing long-term AGASA experiment measuring proton/cosmic ray energies against the maximum expected by the GKZ theory may someday support the anisotropy of light speed, but are certainly not yet strong enough.

A large portion of the physics community seems to be comfortable with “experimentally indistinguishable,” which the mnp Model can survive.

From that portion of the physics community still looking for proof of the one-way speed of light in support of Special Relativity, the author is seeking suggestions. Experiments that are current gold standards in different related areas and studies that explain their methodology are especially prized.

A universal reference frame, even if only local to the galaxy or galactic cluster, would make life easier for many theories and theorists, not just yours truly. The author suggests that ANY theory or Model attempting to explain mechanism will need to see the one-way speed of light as varying in the local reference frame.

Speed of Light Experiments Revisited

Classic (and incredibly precise) experiments on the speed of light show that the orientation of the light bouncing back and forth does not affect the time needed for the round-trip. This has been taken as proof that the speed of light in an inertial reference frame is constant. The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with differing path lengths showed that the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, which calls for all objects to physically contract along the line of motion, would be false unless the predicted time dilation is correct. The kinetic interpretation was considered ad hoc until Einstein described that physical contraction as kinematic, due to changes in space and time.

The mnp Model suggests that matter moves only by dilating its own measurement of time and compressing itself along the direction of movement, that space can be seen as a uniformly static/expanding/contracting Euclidean stage on which movement takes place. Light, fields, the rotating constituents of matter, and the random constituents of the vacuum potential all move at the speed of light in the one and only reference frame. How could that possibly be consistent with the round-trip experiments done with such great precision?

At rest, one might expect light bouncing between mirrors L distance to take 2L/c. If there is only one reference frame, in a frame moving at v, light moving between mirrors perpendicular to v would take 2L/(c*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) to make the trip due to a longer path. Light moving parallel to v would take 2L/(c*(1-v^2/c^2) ) to make the round-trip due to a longer path parallel to movement and a shorter return path. The difference in round-trip times is a factor of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).. But all the experiments done in the last 120 years show light taking the same time to make the trip at all orientations. Pause for dirge music on behalf of the single reference frame.

Look a little closer. If the clocks in the moving frame all move slower by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the perpendicular to travel case shows the round-trip time as 2L/c. In the parallel to travel case, the clocks are still slow. But the length L is measured with rulers that are shorter parallel to travel in the moving frame as well. So the moving frame sees the round-trip time parallel to motion as 2L/c as well. So the gloriously precise round-trip experiments have made physics and the speed of light in an inertial frame safe for two options: one theory (Special Relativity) and one type of diametrically different model (mnp Model or cousins, with a single reference frame).


The difference in the travel time forward and backward has not been fully examined, as far as this amateur can discover. That should not be a surprise or a criticism. The apparent galactic motion compared to the Cosmic Background Radiation is “only” 627+-22 km/s, or .002c. The time dilation would be only 2*10-6. True one way experiments might be diffraction of a known extra-terrestrial source such as the Cosmic Background Radiation at different orientations. Care with interpreting the width of the slit, the distance to the receiver, wavelengths, and the time over which photons are counted is needed. If the source is terrestrial, care with mirrors (and smoke) will be needed.

So, admitting that 100 years of tradition has had glorious success, the author agrees with the professional physicist's judgment. That's nutty. Really nutty.

Yet kernels remain to be found. Thought experiments like the mnp Model might even have some.

Neutrinos at the OPERA

The OPERA results of neutrinos traveling slightly faster than light have virtually all physicists rooting for the speed of light (and for the researchers to find a mistake.) The results affected the development of the mnp Model as well. Only with the attitude “surely it is wrong” could I create the image of how mnp rings move and have momentum without depending on the surrounding field. Time dilation as a byproduct of that movement was a surprising development.
With movement and momentum understood in the developing mnp Model, I could then ask the question, “Well, how could the neutrinos arrive slightly early?”

The explanation (if needed) is that the mnp Model sees neutrinos as not really quantized, but as dual rings of n's/negatives and p's/positives rotating opposite each other. The neutrino could be recruiting n's and p's at the front edge within the tiny range of influence that the basic entities have. The neutrino would be growing at the front, as a tube. If the experiment is showing the “front edge” which is equivalent to something like an electron neutrino with the bulk of the energy and balanced charge following, arriving at the speed of light, then no further explanation is needed.


If the massive neutrino appears “all at once” then the mnp Model explanation gets more convoluted and ugly. The mnp Model would need to consider “collapse” of the extended tube of the neutrino as a result of the figments of the front rings being turned or the front part of the tube being pulled apart. When the leading rings are no longer circular and balanced, they collapse. Traction (the attraction of figments of nearly the same spin perpendicular to the native speed of light travel) would pull in the figments around the tube. As they turn, Traction pulls the trailing figments in as well. Finding that the neutrino arrives over the course of 18 or more meters travel at c would lead to the simpler explanation.

We have not heard the final song from OPERA. I applaud the researchers' diligence and care, and look forward to hearing more.

mnp Model Introduced as a New View of Elementary Particles and Forces

What would it take to explain gravity and the other three forces? Can a model simpler than 34 elementary particles exist? Can the explanation be based on units that interact only over short distances?

Those questions led to the mnp Model, which suggests that three entities can account for gravity, light, static charge, magnetism, and the elementary particles. All entities travel at the speed of light. The three types differ by "spin" axis only. All entities attract others, repel others, attempt to match "spin", and attract strongly if "spin" matches over a tiny distance. Entities can travel through each other.

The mnp Model is descriptive and does not calculate quantities at the present time. See URL www.worldlyte.com/physics/mnp


Light is a photon (a line of oriented m-figments/mediators) which causes electric and magnetic fields to appear by reorienting the random entities in space. Those fields then affect the photon a little and following photons to a greater extend. The double slit experiment makes intuitive sense in the mnp Model. Static charge fields are caused by the charged body redirecting like charge entities away from the surface of charge, which then recruit m-figments to form a field parallel to the surface, which then directs incoming like charges to move more parallel to the surface and opposite charges more toward the surface.

Matter and mass are based on rings of charge entities, which when combined with a ring of the opposite charge rotating counter to the first, forms a neutrino. Electrons, positrons, and quark units or bulbs are seen as "spheres" formed of rings of one type of charge all rotating the same direction. The rings move when the entity's direction of travel is changed to include a lateral component. Time dilation (slowing of the rings) results from this redirection at velocities a fraction of the speed of light. It appears that length dilation is required for time dilation to match exactly the predictions of relativity (more slowing occurs if length dilation is not present).

Electrons are a surface of rings Standing waves at deBroglie wavelengths do not cause disappearance of the electron but adjustment to a stable orbital. The electron around a nucleus  need not be orbiting, but waves and perturbations will travel across the surface at approximately 2c/pi. Around a nucleus, an electron has mediators/m-figments flowing on the surface. Mediators/m-figments released through rings no longer parallel to the orbital surface when the orbital shrinks may organize themselves as a photon.

Quarks are seen as having structure, but with five models and counting, the exact form at "normal" conditions is not decided. Quark units and their connectors (and electrons in shells) recruit the third type of entity (mediators aka m-figments) to flow over the surface and act as glue at the connection between string and unit. At relativistic speed, the mnp Model predicts that more mediators/m-figments will be recruited over the surface of the quarks. The quark units, covered with mediators/m-figments do not act as strongly charged surfaces. The covering attracts other covered surfaces with compatible spin. The covering of the connecting strings probably recruits charge units to form rings which could lead to quark change (or repair).

Gravity is stochastic. All three basic entities act as gravitons. Since the entities behave differently and combine into structures differently, gravitational calculations at an astronomic scale become astronomically more complicated.


The author does not contend that the mnp Model is complete. With 4 forces and 4 or 5 degrees of freedom in how each of those forces interact, the computational work is formidable before the mnp Model claims to model the real universe.