Interpreting Photon Behaviour and Gravity: A Classical Mechanics Perspective Supported by Experimental Results.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

ORCiD: 0000-0003-1871-7803

04-07-2024

A1. A photon's speed can be expressed as Planck length divided by Planck time, ℓP/tP = c, which is approximately 3 × 10⁸ m/s.

A2. The path of a photon is bent due to the momentum exchange of the photon with the external gravitational field of massive bodies, and not due to curvature in spacetime.

A3. There is no question of relativity ruling out Newton's gravity as a force, with the relativistic interpretation of gravity as curvature of spacetime—which appears to be flawed.

A4. Any mass (M or m) is the property of gravity that generates a gravitational field around it. A single mass does not experience gravitational force unless there is another massive object within the gravitational influence of the mass (M or m). Generally, M or m represents the masses of two objects, where one mass (M) is more massive than the other mass (m). This interpretation is in accordance with Newton's Law. That is why the equation (F = GMm/r²) represents the force of gravitational attraction between two masses, M and m.

A5. According to relativity, no mass can reach the speed of light in a local sense. This statement primarily applies to mass within gravitationally bound systems, where immense force is needed to accelerate a mass. This force generates so much kinetic energy that it distorts the body beyond recognition as mass, causing the atomic structure to undergo transformation much before it reaches the speed of light. However, in intergalactic space dominated by dark energy, the situation differs. Here, the effect of dark energy, causing antigravity, may cause galaxies to recede at speeds exceeding that of light due to gravitational-antigravitational interactions between the gravity of galactic masses and the antigravity effect of dark energy. This does not involve the local acceleration of mass to the speed of light but rather results in galaxies covering more distance than light can travel in the same amount of time

Reference:

My earlier research titled, "Direct Influence of Gravitational Field on Object Motion invalidates Spacetime Distortion" provides a mathematical framework supporting the idea that the path of a photon is influenced by momentum exchange with an external gravitational field rather than by spacetime curvature. The research outlines the following key points:

The total energy of a photon under gravitational influence (Eg) remains equivalent to its intrinsic energy (E), ensuring energy conservation (Eg = E).

Changes in photon momentum (Δρ) exhibit symmetry, represented by Δρ = −Δρ.

The constant speed of electromagnetic waves (ℓₚ/tₚ = c) is maintained, highlighting the significance of energy conservation in gravitational interactions.

This mathematical presentation elucidates the behaviour of photons in strong gravitational fields, emphasizing their energy-momentum relationship and wavelength variations under gravitational influence. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and the interplay between photons and gravity, enriching our comprehension of the universe's fundamental principles.

Fundamental Physical Constants and the Role of Dark Energy in the Expansion of the Universe

These are some of the physical constants of the universe, some of which are fundamental:

Gravitational constant, Planck constant, Planck length, speed of light, electron mass, proton mass, neutron mass, Boltzmann constant, Avogadro number, elementary charge, strong coupling constant, Bohr magneton, and the gas constant. Additionally, the six types of quarks are fundamental particles.

However, there are observable events where speeds appear to exceed the speed of light, such as the phase velocity of waves, Cherenkov radiation, and the recession of distant galaxies due to the increase of distance between galaxies driven by dark energy. These phenomena do not violate the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, which remains a fundamental constant and the ultimate speed limit for information and matter.

More Information on the Subject:

These empirical observations indicate that distant galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light due to the antigravitational effect of dark energy. This phenomenon occurs at intergalactic or galactic cluster scales, in regions well beyond the gravitational influence of individual galaxies. In these areas, only cosmic redshift occurs, not gravitational redshift, due to the absence of significant gravitational influences.

Observational calculations of motion and gravitational effects on these galaxies are derived using classical mechanics, specifically Newton's laws of gravitation, rather than relativistic interpretations of gravity as curved spacetime. These calculations consider gravity as a force and ignore the concept of distorted spacetime. As a result, the empirical observations, calculations, and applications of classical mechanics confirm that the effective motions and gravitational-antigravitational interactions between celestial bodies are due to forces, as per the classical interpretation of gravity.

This approach establishes that the galaxies are influenced solely by gravitational-antigravitational effects as forces, without involving relativistic gravity as spacetime distortion. Reference: 'Dark energy and the structure of the Coma cluster of galaxies'.

In this context, three masses characterize the structure of a regular cluster: the matter mass Mᴍ, the dark-energy effective mass Mᴅᴇ (which is negative), and the gravitating mass Mɢ = Mᴍ + Mᴅᴇ. Cosmic antigravity can be stronger than gravity both globally and locally on scales of approximately 1–10 Mpc. The local weak-field dynamical effects of dark energy can be described using Newtonian mechanics. Gravity dominates at distances R < Rᴢɢ, while antigravity is stronger at R > Rᴢɢ. A gravitationally bound system with mass Mᴍ can exist only within its zero-gravity sphere of radius Rᴢɢ. The matter content (dark matter and baryons) of the cluster is characterized by the mass Mᴍ(R) inside radius R.

Studies of nearby systems like the Local Group and the Virgo and Fornax clusters suggest their sizes are close to their zero-gravity radii. Around them, galaxy flows are observed; these systems are in gravity-dominated regions (R < Rᴢɢ), and the outflows occur at (R > Rᴢɢ). If these local systems have nearly maximal sizes, this may explain the apparent underdensity of the local universe.

Comparing Planck Length (Lᴘ) and Minimum Radius (Rₘᵢₙ): The Smallest Meaningful Scale in Physics

Soumendra Nath Thakur

01-07-2014

The smallest possible radius for a mass m is given by the equation: Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m (correctly 2Gm/c²). This equation describes the Schwarzschild radius, which is the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is the critical radius at which the escape velocity from the mass m becomes equal to the speed of light c. Any mass compressed within this radius will form a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is derived from the concept of escape velocity. The escape velocity (vₑ) from a spherical mass m is given by the formula: vₑ = √2Gm/r. For the escape velocity to be equal to the speed of light (c): c = √2Gm/r → c² = √2Gm/r → r = 2Gm/c². This radius is called the Schwarzschild radius (Rₛ): Rₛ = 2Gm/c². 

Comment:

This claim was made in response to my statement that the Planck length (Lᴘ) is the smallest perceptible length. Therefore, to evaluate this claim, the value of the relativistic mass (m) was calculated using the relation Rₘᵢₙ = Lᴘ, to find m = Lᴘ⋅c²/G, when radius Rₘᵢₙ is equal to the Planck length (Lᴘ), the calculated mass found to be approximately 21.77 micrograms:

m = {(1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵) × (2.998 × 10⁸)²}/6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ = 21.77 micrograms

Thereafter I realize that this derived mass is also very close to the Planck mass (Mᴘ), which is approximately 21.76 micrograms.

Therefore, the relativistic mass (mᵣₑₗ) is actually the Planck mass (Mᴘ).

mᵣₑₗ = 21.77 µg ≈ 21.76 µg

A claim involves the idea that the smallest possible radius for a mass m is given by the equation:

Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m

where:

• G is the gravitational constant (6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²)
• c is the speed of light in a vacuum (2.998 × 10⁸ m/s)
• m is the mass in question

1. Derivation and Verification

To understand what this equation implies, let's break it down:

• Gravitational Constant (G): This is a fundamental physical constant that measures the strength of gravity.

• Speed of Light (c): This is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel.

• Mass (m): This is the mass of the object being considered.

The equation suggests that there is a minimum radius below which a given mass m cannot be compressed. This radius is determined by the constants G and c, as well as the mass m.

Let's calculate Rₘᵢₙ for a specific mass to see if it is smaller than the Planck length 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters.

Calculation:

First, we rearrange the equation to find Rₘᵢₙ:

Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m

Plugging in the values for G and c:

G = 6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²

c = 2.998 × 10⁸ m/s

Example Mass Calculation:

Let's calculate Rₘᵢₙ for a mass of 1 kg:

Rₘᵢₙ = (6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹)/(2.998 × 10⁸)² × 1

Simplifying:

Rₘᵢₙ = 6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹/8.988004 × 10¹⁶

Rₘᵢₙ ≈ 7.426 × 10⁻²⁸ meters

Comparison with Planck Length:

The Planck length is 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters

7.426 × 10⁻²⁸ meters > 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters

Conclusion:

The calculated Rₘᵢₙ for a mass of 1 kg is much larger than the Planck length.

Thus, for any realistic mass, Rₘᵢₙ as given by the equation is much larger than the Planck length. This implies that Rₘᵢₙ does not suggest a scale smaller than the Planck length, and for any mass m, Rₘᵢₙ will generally be larger than the Planck length, indicating that the Planck length remains the smallest meaningful scale in physics according to current understanding.

2. Let's calculate Rₘᵢₙ for a mass of 1 gram (which is 0.001 kg) using the equation:

Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m

where:

• G = 6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²
• c = 2.998 × 10⁸ m/s
• m = 0.001 kg

Calculation:

First, substitute the known values into the equation:

Rₘᵢₙ = (6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹)/(2.998 × 10⁸)² × 0.001

Simplifying:

Calculate the denominator:

c² = (2.998 × 10⁸)² = 8.988004 × 10¹⁶

Now calculate the fraction:

G/c² = (6.67430×10⁻¹¹)/(8.988004×10¹⁶) ≈ 7.426×10⁻²⁸ meters/kilogram

Finally, multiply by the mass m:

Rₘᵢₙ = 7.426 × 10⁻²⁸ × 0.001 = 7.426 × 10⁻³¹ meters

Comparison with Planck Length:

The Planck length is 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters

7.426 × 10⁻³¹ meters > 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters

Conclusion:

For a mass of 1 gram (0.001 kg), the calculated Rₘᵢₙ is 7.426 10⁻³¹ meters, which is still significantly larger than the Planck length.

Therefore, even for a small mass like 1 gram, Rₘᵢₙ does not suggest a scale smaller than the Planck length. The Planck length remains the smallest meaningful scale in physics according to current understanding.

• Guinness World Records mentions, 'The Plank Length'. The smallest possible size for anything in the universe is the Planck length, which is 1.6 x 10⁻³⁵ m.

3. The Planck length, 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters, is often referred to as the smallest possible size for anything in the universe. This notion arises from theoretical considerations in quantum gravity and the limits of our current physical theories, particularly where quantum mechanics and general relativity intersect.

Comparing with Rₘᵢₙ:

To reiterate, Rₘᵢₙ as proposed, is given by:

Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m

Let's see if there could be a mass for which Rₘᵢₙ might approach or even be smaller than the Planck length.

Finding the mass where Rₘᵢₙ = Planck length:

Given:

Rₘᵢₙ = (G/c²)·m = Lᴘ

where Lᴘ is the Planck length 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters.

Rearrange to solve for m:

m = Lᴘ⋅c²/G

Plugging in the constants:

Lᴘ = 1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵ meters.

G = 6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²

c = 2.998 × 10⁸ m/s

Calculation:

m = {(1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵) × (2.998 × 10⁸)²}/6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹

Calculate c²:

(2.998 × 10⁸)² = 8.988004 × 10¹⁶

Now, multiply Lᴘ by c²:

(1.616255 × 10⁻³⁵) × (8.988004 × 10¹⁶) = 1.453266 × 10⁻¹⁸

Finally, divide by G:

m = 1.453266 × 10¹⁸/6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ ≈ 2.177 × 10⁻⁸ kg

This mass is approximately 2.177 × 10⁻⁸ kilograms or about 21.77 micrograms.

4. Summary of Discussion

Initial Equation and Concept

• Erroneous Equation: Rₘᵢₙ = G/c²·m

• This equation is intended to describe the smallest possible radius for a mass m, which is related to the Schwarzschild radius.

• Correct Schwarzschild Radius Equation: Rₛ = 2Gm/c²

• This is the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole, where the escape velocity equals the speed of light.

Derivation and Verification

• Setting Rₘᵢₙ to Planck Length Lᴘ:

• Erroneous Equation: G/c²·m = Lᴘ

• Solving for m:

m = Lᴘ·c²/G

• Since Lᴘ = √ℏG/c³:

m = √ℏG/c³ = mᴘ

• This resolves to the Planck mass mᴘ ≈ 21.77 μg.

• Modified Equation: Rₘᵢₙ = 2G/c²·m = Rₛ

• Setting Rₘᵢₙ to Planck Length Lᴘ:

2G/c²·m = Lᴘ

• Solving for m:

• m = Lᴘ·c²/2G

• Since Lᴘ = √ℏG/c³:

m = (√ℏG/c³)·c²/2G = √ℏc/G = mᴘ

• This also resolves to the Planck mass mᴘ ≈ 21.77 μg.

Conclusion

• The multiplier 2 in the equation Rₘᵢₙ = 2G/c²·m = Rₛ does not affect the value of m when Rₘᵢₙ is set to the Planck length Lᴘ. In both the erroneous and modified equations, the mass mᴘ.

• Final Statement: To maintain coherence, the correct form of the equation is Rₘᵢₙ = 2G/c²·m = Rₛ. Setting Rₘᵢₙ to the Planck length Lᴘ, the mass m indeed resolves to the Planck mass mᴘ ≈ 21.77 𝜇g. This consistency underscores the importance of using the correct form of the equation.

This summary confirms that using either form of the equation, the mass m equals the Planck mass when Rₘᵢₙ is set to the Planck length.

Conclusion:

For a mass of approximately 21.77 micrograms, the Rₘᵢₙ given by the proposer's formula equals the Planck length. For any mass greater than this, Rₘᵢₙ will be larger than the Planck length. For any mass smaller than this, Rₘᵢₙ would theoretically be smaller than the Planck length, but physical interpretations at such small scales are not well-defined by our current understanding of physics.

The assertion that the Planck length is the smallest meaningful length scale holds because it represents a fundamental limit below which the classical ideas of space and time cease to be applicable, marking a boundary of our current physical theories.

#planckmass #Plancklength, #Minimumradius, #Quantumgravity, #Gravitationalconstant, #Speedoflight, #Fundamentallimitsinphysics,

My Response to 'Space and Time': Clarifying Misinterpretations with Empirical Evidence

'Space and Time' by Sergey Shevchenko et al.

1. The Contest

I. Original Statement: "The rest of the comment seems questionable. Possibly due to a lack of education in physics."

=> My Response:

This is an incorrect statement regarding the research paper titled "Relativistic effects on phase shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II." The paper scientifically establishes that "Relative time emerges from relative frequencies. It is the phase shift in relative frequencies due to infinitesimal loss in wave energy and the corresponding enlargement in the wavelengths of oscillations, which occur in any clock between relative locations due to the relativistic effects or differences in gravitational potential. This results in errors in the reading of clock time, which is wrongly presented as time dilation." Through experiments and calculations, it shows that for a 1455.50003025° phase shift of a 9192631770 Hz wave, time shifts (time delays) 𝛥𝑡 = 0.0000004398148148148148 ms (approx.) or 38 microseconds per day. 

Therefore, the questioning mainstream philosophical comment is based on preconception from the very beginning and clear ignorance of the content of the paper. So you have rather shown your lack of education in physics and ignorance of the valid submissions in the research paper.

II. Original Statement: "Time is a physical problem because it is a variable/observable in physical equations. Time exists absolutely objectively."

=> My Response:

Time appears physical when considering 'clock time,' as clocks are subject to distortion due to external effects, resulting in erroneous time. However, the concept of time arises from changes in events, and time progresses independently. Without events, the concept of time would be meaningless. Cosmic time is universal, unaffected, un-interactable, independent, conceptually uniformed, and fourth-dimensional, while clock time is a local representation, subject to external effects, modifiable, dependent, designed for uniform succession, and mathematically (hence abstractly) representable.

However, time is not physical; the concept of time arises from changes in events, progressing independently.

Time is not variable either; varying time would violate the scale of time, as the progress of time requires a constant change in unit durations. So, time has a standard unit with respect to a certain frequency. Cosmic time is not observable with events; only events are observable, not time - as time arises from the events. Clock time is a physical representation of cosmic time, which is subject to distortion due to external effects.

'Time exists absolutely objectively' refers to clock time, not cosmic time. Clocks are subject to external effects, so clock time is subject to distortion. Clock time is a physical representation of cosmic time, which purely emerges from cosmic events and progresses independently of the events. Cosmic time is universal, unaffected, un-interactable, independent, conceptually uniformed, and fourth-dimensional, while clock time is a local representation, subject to external effects, modifiable, dependent, designed for uniform succession, and mathematically (hence abstractly) representable.

III. Original Statement: "You can't validly prove time dilation; rather, it is an error in the clock. Clocks don’t measure time intervals erroneously; good clocks tick with stable frequency. The problem arises from human interpretation based on concepts or theories."

=> My Response:

All good clocks tick with stable frequency, but all clocks are also subject to external effects, including speed and gravity. This is an undeniable fact. Clocks measure time intervals erroneously when affected by external effects. So, the objection is baseless.

When human interpretation of mathematical concepts or theories is well-practiced, introducing forceful problems of human interpretation on concepts or theories is undesirable and unintended. The statement, "The problem arises from human interpretation based on concepts or theories" it was introduced by you to forcefully establish time as a "variable/observable" so that you can escape from the valid statement that time is an abstract concept and not observable. What we see in the clock are representations of cosmic time that universally relate to events.

(**) Rest of your Statements:

=> My Response:

My valid counter to all the rest of the questions would be based on the same interpretations as above.

2. Considerations:

Objective Claims. Your statement makes broad claims about the nature of time, asserting it is an absolute, objective phenomenon used in physical equations. However, it lacks detailed empirical evidence to support this assertion.

=> My Response:

Evidence from Research. I referenced a specific research paper titled "Relativistic effects on phase shift in frequencies invalidate time dilation II," which provides experimental and calculative evidence for my claims. This adds substantial weight to the argument by grounding it in scientific research. Clarity in Definitions. I clearly distinguished between "cosmic time" and "clock time," explaining how each concept is understood and measured. This differentiation helps clarify potential misunderstandings about the nature of time.

Your Action:

Dismissal of Alternative Views. You have dismissed alternative interpretations as stemming from a lack of education in physics without providing substantial counter-evidence to the research paper mentioned. This approach weakens your argument as it appears dismissive rather than constructively critical.

=> My Response:

Addressing Misinterpretations. I pointed out how the interpretation of time dilation might be based on misconceptions and provided a detailed explanation of how external effects can distort clock readings. This directly addresses the core of the debate on time dilation.

Your Action of Authority. The statement relies on the authority of established physics theories without engaging deeply with the specific evidence and calculations presented in the research paper. This reliance on authority can be seen as less robust compared to arguments supported by direct empirical evidence.

=> Scientific Concepts:

My response involved detailed explanations of phase shifts, wave frequencies, and how they relate to time measurement. This use of scientific terminology and concepts demonstrates a deeper engagement with the subject matter.

3. Decision:

=> My Response:

My response is stronger scientifically because it is based on specific, cited research and provides a clear, coherent explanation of complex concepts. It also directly addresses potential misconceptions and offers detailed evidence supporting my claims.

Your Action:

On the other hand, your response lacks detailed empirical evidence and relies more on dismissing alternative views without thoroughly engaging with the specific content of the research paper. While it asserts the objectivity of time, it does not provide the same level of detailed explanation or evidence.

4. My Conclusion:

A scientifically strong argument, like mine, is well-supported by empirical evidence, clearly explained, and open to addressing and countering alternative views with specific data and reasoning.

End.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

The Intersection of God, Religion, and Science

God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence, seen as the creator, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. In various religious traditions, God is believed to be the cause of all things, transcending the material world. This view contrasts with pantheism, which holds that God and the universe are one and the same.

Religion, in its essence, is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. This belief often involves accepting truths without proof, based on the authority of sacred texts, religious leaders, or tradition. In fact, most of what we believe is based on authority, trusted sources that we accept as reliable.

In science, an assumption is something accepted as true without proof. Unlike religious beliefs, scientific assumptions are subject to verification through observation and experiment. Science investigates and analyzes the natural world, while religion often deals with the spiritual or supernatural aspects of existence. Despite their differences, many scholars argue for an interdependence between science and religion, noting that religious insights can influence scientific understanding and vice versa.

Scientists adhere to the scientific method, demanding that theories be testable and verifiable by physical experiments. This creates a challenge for religious beliefs, particularly those about God, as God's existence is typically beyond the scope of empirical testing.

The origins of the universe remain one of the most profound questions in both science and religion. While most astrophysicists support the Big Bang theory, acknowledging our expanding universe, the exact nature of its creation is still unknown. Significant discoveries like Hubble's observation of the relationship between a galaxy's distance and its speed, and the detection of cosmic microwave background radiation, lend strong support to the Big Bang theory.

In contemplating the physical universe, human nature, and culture, we may find clues suggesting the existence or nature of the supernatural, or God. The supernatural, by definition, is beyond the explanation of science or natural laws, leaving room for faith and belief.

Faith in scientific theories arises from the scientific method—a systematic way of critically examining the natural world. We encourage students to see science as this method of exploration, emphasizing its basis in observation and reason.

There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on empirical evidence and rational thought. Science tends to prevail in understanding the natural world because it relies on methodologies that consistently yield verifiable results. The laws of science, which may be seen as decreed by God, govern the universe without requiring divine intervention to alter them.

In summary, while religion and science approach the mysteries of existence from different perspectives, both contribute valuable insights. Religion offers a framework for understanding the spiritual and supernatural, while science provides a method for exploring and understanding the natural world. Together, they enrich our quest for knowledge and meaning.