Time distortion occurs only in clocks with mass under relativistic effects, not in electromagnetic waves

Thakur, Soumendra. (2023). Time distortion occurs only in clocks with mass under relativistic effects, not in electromagnetic waves. 10.32388/7OXYH5. 

This research paper titled "Time distortion occurs only in clocks with mass under relativistic effects, not in electromagnetic waves" explores the phenomenon of time distortion resulting from phase shifts in oscillating waves, focusing on its effects on clocks with mass under relativistic conditions. Unlike electromagnetic waves, time distortion occurs in oscillators or clocks with specific conditions of mass, velocity, or gravitational potential. The relationship between phase shift and time delay is established, incorporating calculations involving frequency and wavelength. Real-world examples, such as the atomic clocks of GPS satellites, are provided to illustrate practical applications. The distinction between time distortion and time delay in electromagnetic waves is emphasized, with particular attention to the role of Planck time in defining a fundamental limit. The concept of the ratio of Planck period to Planck length is introduced as a representation of the speed limit of electromagnetic waves, resulting in a derived value of time delay per kilometer. This value underscores that electromagnetic waves experience time delay rather than the same type of time distortion observed in massive objects, highlighting their propagation speed and the absence of relativistic effects. 

Relativistic effects on phaseshift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II

Thakur, Soumendra & Samal, Priyanka & Bhattacharjee, Deep. (2023). Relativistic effects on phaseshift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II. 10.36227/techrxiv.22492066.v2. 

𝑨𝒃𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕: Relative time emerges from relative frequencies. It is the phase shift in relative frequencies due to infinitesimal loss in wave energy and corresponding enlargement in the wavelengths of oscillations; which occur in any clock between relative locations due to the relativistic effects or difference in gravitational potential; result error in the reading of clock time; which is wrongly presented as time dilation. 

Cosmic Influence in a Dark Energy Dominated Universe:

This research introduces the idea that gravitational redshift occurs within the gravitational influence of massive objects (e.g., galaxies), but as photons move beyond these regions, they also experience cosmic redshift caused by the influence of dark energy, which results in a greater observed redshift. This is a novel interpretation that suggests that the expansion of space driven by dark energy can affect the observed properties of photons, leading to a greater perceived distance traveled.

The Universe is composed of various components, with less than 5% being interactive baryonic matter, approximately 26% consisting of non-interactive but gravitationally interactive dark matter, and a substantial majority of over 68% being dark energy. This dark energy possesses an effective mass that is less than zero.

The relationship between gravity and dark energy is akin to a cosmic tug of war. While gravity exerts a force that draws galaxies closer together, dark energy exerts an opposing force, pushing these galaxies apart. This dynamic interplay is most evident in galaxies or clusters of galaxies, where zero-gravity spheres exist beyond the reach of gravitational influence. The overall expansion or contraction of the universe hinges on which force holds dominance at a particular time – gravity or dark energy. Dark energy, in particular, creates an anti-gravitational effect, consistently winning in this celestial tug of war. Beyond the gravitational influence of any object, there exists an ongoing contest between gravity and anti-gravity. Many fundamental principles of standard cosmological models describe the roles of gravity and expansion. This universal "tug of war" manifests itself as a dynamic, ever-changing universe, rather than a static one. This raises the fundamental question: How exactly is the universe evolving?

The structure of a typical cosmic cluster consists of three key mass components: matter mass (Mᴍ), dark-energy effective mass (Mᴅᴇ, with a value less than zero), and gravitating mass (Mᴳ). The dark energy backdrop exerts a more potent anti-gravity influence compared to the gravitational force of matter, resulting in the acceleration of cosmological expansion. This anti-gravity effect can be globally and locally stronger on scales ranging from approximately 1 to 10 Megaparsecs (Mpc). The effective density of dark energy, from a gravitational perspective, is negative, thus generating anti-gravity. Gravity dominates at distances within R < Rzᴳ, while anti-gravity becomes more pronounced at distances greater than Rzᴳ. A gravitationally bound system with a mass of Mᴍ can only exist within the zero-gravity sphere with a radius of Rzᴳ.

When considering the propagation of light, the concept of "light travel distance" comes into play. This distance refers to the path that light travels through free space in a given time. It is influenced by redshift and is calculated by measuring 'light travel time'.

In contrast, the 'proper distance' pertains to the separation between an observer and a source at a specific time 't'. This distance is not constant; it changes over time due to the continuous expansion of the universe. It signifies the distance between two galaxies at that specific time 't', which can vary as the universe continues to expand.

Gravitational Redshift:

Gravitational redshift occurs when a photon of light is emitted from a massive object (a "star") located at a distance (r) from the center of the object (the "star").

This process results in the stretching of the photon's wavelength, causing a "gravitational redshift" (λ/λ0) in the observed light.

Gravitational redshift is relevant within the gravitational influence of the massive object, such as a galaxy, specifically within the zero-gravity sphere of that galaxy with a radius (r) from its center.

Anti-Gravity and Cosmic Redshift:

The text introduces the concept of antigravity, driven by dark energy, which opposes gravitational effects.

The argument is that within the gravitational influence of a galaxy (up to the zero-gravity sphere), only gravitational redshift occurs. The speed of the photon remains constant at 'c' (the speed of light).

However, when the photon moves beyond the zero-gravity sphere (at a distance r from the center of the "star"), it begins to experience "cosmic redshift" in addition to gravitational redshift. Cosmic redshift is calculated as {(λ_obs - λ_emit)/ λ_emit}.

Effective Redshift:

The effective redshift of the photon is the combined effect of gravitational redshift (λ/λ0) and cosmic redshift {(λ_obs - λ_emit)/ λ_emit}.

The text concludes that the effective cosmic redshift is greater than the gravitational redshift. This implies that in regions dominated by anti-gravity (dark energy), the photon's relative distance is expanding at a greater rate than in regions of normal gravitational influence.

Interpretation:

The text suggests that the observed cosmic redshift in regions influenced by dark energy results in a "greater light traveled distance" compared to the photon's "proper distance" from its original emission point.

In simpler terms, this implies that in regions where dark energy dominates, the photon, while still traveling at its intrinsic speed ('c'), appears to be covering a larger relative distance due to the expansion of space.

Reference: Thakur, S. N., & Bhattacharjee, D. (2023, October 3). Cosmic Speed beyond Light: Gravitational and Cosmic Redshift. 

#GravitationalInfluence #CosmicInfluence #DarkEnergy #BaryonicMatter #DarkMatter #GravitationalRedshift #CosmicRedshift #EffectiveRedshift #CosmicTugOfWar #ZeroGravitySphere #AntiGravity #EffectiveMass #LightTravelDistance #ProperDistance

Exploring the Limits of Existence: From the Planck Length to the Cosmic Unknown:

Your post seems to be grounded in the concept of existence. You've assumed that existence is eternal, and therefore, there can't be a starting point for existence. Based on this assumption, you've concluded that there is neither a beginning nor an end to the universe.

However, it's crucial to consider what existence truly means. While you might define it based on social or philosophical understanding, this definition doesn't align with how existence is interpreted in the realm of physical science.

Let's explore physical existence in terms of the Planck scale, specifically the Planck length. This scale marks the point where classical notions of gravity and space-time no longer apply, and quantum effects take over. Even before reaching the Planck length, our physical perception becomes ineffective, and we can never fully grasp anything beyond this threshold. The Planck length, approximately 1.616255×10^−35 meters, is defined by physical constants such as the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant. It serves as the limit of physical reality perception.

So, physical reality's inception occurs well before we reach the Planck length, and its end is when it reaches the Planck length. Our physical universe and existence are confined within this Planck threshold. We can't observe or measure anything beyond it, even with advanced technology in the distant future. The Planck length stands as our permanent perceptual limit.

While we may experience gravitational or antigravitational effects from existence beyond our physical perception, such existence holds no meaning within our physical domain because we can't perceive events and time from this imperceptible existence beyond our physical reality.

The notion of a beginning and an end is rooted in our limited perception. The Big Bang and Black Holes, for instance, hypothesize domains beyond our perceptual capabilities. The concept of a beginning and end of physical existence is mathematically possible beyond our perceptible reality.

Therefore, you cannot dismiss the idea of a beginning and an end to existence considering our physical limitations. Furthermore, your post doesn't account for the effects of dark energy and the gravitational influences of black holes, which we can perceive as interactions from the non-existent reality.

It's important to note that the Planck length represents a fundamental limit to our current understanding of physical reality. However, claiming that our physical universe's existence begins and ends strictly at the Planck length might be an oversimplification. While it serves as a lower limit for our perception, it doesn't necessarily define the boundaries of the universe itself.

Furthermore, acknowledging the existence of phenomena beyond our perception, such as dark energy and the gravitational effects of black holes, is essential. These interactions may provide insights into regions of the universe that we can't directly observe.

So in conclusion, it's essential to recognize that scientific understanding of existence and the universe is a complex field that extends far beyond our current comprehension. While the Planck length is a crucial concept, defining the precise boundaries of the universe based solely on it remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. Additionally, accounting for phenomena like dark energy and black holes is crucial in our quest to comprehend the universe fully.

Navigating the Balance Between Abstraction and Physical Intuition in Fundamental Physics:

Physics is ultimately a physical science, and the goal is to describe and understand the physical world. Concerns about excessive abstraction are not new in physics and have been criticized and debated for decades.

I strongly emphasize that physics should be rooted in physical, intuitive concepts rather than highly abstract mathematics. I am therefore concerned with the shift from physical reality to abstract mathematics in fundamental physics, and I present my view that this shift is significant.

Relative time dilation is an example of this concern. It is a "real" or "natural" time that deviates from the concept of abstract time. I have a preprint research paper that addresses the time dilation problem and debunks it.

I strongly take the view that abstract concepts, such as virtual particles, interaction exchange theory, probability waves, curvature of spacetime, black holes, big bang, etc., are mistakenly accepted as physical reality. This concern is shared by a minority of physicists who argue for a more conservative approach to theoretical concepts, demanding a closer connection to empirical data and physical intuition.

The claim is highly plausible that physicists may be driven to adopt highly abstract and sensational models in order to gain public acceptance, leading to the introduction of absurd concepts into fundamental physics. It is true that concepts like black holes and the Big Bang have captured the public imagination and can influence the direction of research.

The tension between mathematical abstraction and physical intuition is a long-standing challenge in physics. Although mathematics is a powerful tool for modeling and understanding the physical world, it is essential for physicists to ensure that their mathematical models are based on experimental evidence and not divorced from reality.

The adoption of abstract concepts in physics often follows from their ability to explain and predict physical phenomena. Although caution is required, some abstract concepts have proven highly successful in doing so, such as the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics.

Public perception and recognition can influence the direction of research, but this is not unique to physics. Many scientific fields experience this phenomenon. The challenge is to balance communicating exciting ideas with maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

Open-mindedness is critical to collaboration and paradigm shifts within subfields. However, specialization is a natural consequence of the increasing complexity of physics, making collaboration and communication even more important.

The idea of an expert panel to evaluate research is attractive but may face challenges related to bias and the potential to slow down the publication process. It is important to ensure that such panels maintain objectivity and transparency.

The discussion raises valid concerns about the state of fundamental physics research. However, it is important to note that the scientific community constantly evaluates and evolves its theories and models. Physics remains a dynamic field, and ongoing dialogue and peer review are essential to its progress.

#Abstraction #PhysicalIntuition #FundamentalPhysics