existingonlynow
Mindful Meanderings through Space and Time
-
The consonances between E = hv, E = mc2 and Kepler’s 3rd law of Planetary Motion in clarification of Planck’s equation E = hv or hf relates to his law of radiation which states that: “Energy only exists in multiples of whole numbers. The total action of energy is always a whole-numbered multiple of h.” (postulate of quantum theory).
In this equation the energy of electromagnetic radiation E is the product of a universal and fundamental physical constant h = (6.62 x 10-34 joule/seconds -, Planck’s constant) times a frequency f or v, which can only be emitted or absorbed in discrete packets or quanta. This leads to the concept of energetic periodicities, which can be variously interpreted as longitudinally pulsative, cyclical, rotational, helical or wave-like forms of motion, Nature expressing herself physically and exclusively through the properties of the whole number or the creation of discrete individualities, atoms, trees, humans, etc.
The analogous Hasenohrl- Einstein equation E = mc2 on the other hand states that energy E is the product of mass m times the speed of light c squared. However, since electromagnetic radiation can only be manifested in discrete quanta, as above, then the speed of light squared as a factor in electromagnetic radiation, which according to relativity is assumed to be an invariable constant, should also be interpretable in terms of periodicities - whole numbers and their reciprocals, the latter being inversely proportional to and therefore true harmonics of the former.
If in consequence of this, as Walter Schauberger claimed at the time, radiation is propagated through space not in linear fashion, but spirally, then the absolute speed of light, i.e. the combined spiral and translatory (radial) velocities at which light travels along a given trajectory through space, must vary according to frequency, its speed being a product of angular acceleration and spiral radius of action.
Evidence substantiating this spiral movement was produced by Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft at the Physics Department of Vienna University in 1949 through a process known as photophoresis. Reported in the Acta Physica Austriaca (Vol. 4,1950 and Vol. 5,1951), the behaviour of barely perceptible particles of matter and gas particles enclosed in glass tubes were observed when illuminated by concentrated light-rays of various frequencies. Observations of this phenomenon were made under conditions varying from high pressure to high vacuum (30 atm to 1 x 10-6 mm Hg [Hg = mercury]) and it was concluded that since the spiral movement of the observed particles was caused by light-rays, the particles had to be propelled along the same spiral path as the light itself ( http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/photophoresis/ - fourth image ).
It was also determined that light magnetises matter and noted that while some particles spiralled away from the light source, others such as chlorophyll, gyrated towards it. Measurements also determined that the observed particles orbited up to 650 times per second while rotating at 4,000 cps about their own axes, an effect only possible because the calculated energies involved, apparently endowed with antigravitational properties, were 70 times more powerful than gravity. According to Walter Schauberger’s formulation derived from standard physics, where energy E in the form of work W is the product of mass m x acceleration a x displacement s, e.g. W or E = mas, the speed of light squared c2 can be equated with as, or more specifically as, angular acceleration rw2 x radius r.
For each rotation through 360°, long wavelength, low frequency radiation would therefore describe a wider (greater radius) and thus longer (slower angular acceleration) spiral path than short-wave, high frequency radiation. In view of this the absolute speed of light as it travels forwards along a given axial path over this same distance is NOT CONSTANT, but as stated above is the varying product of the reciprocities of spiral radius r x angular acceleration rw2. Wavelength thus becomes either the spiral or axial distance between 360° nodes and frequency the number of 360° rotations within a given period of time.
Longwave and short-wave frequencies would therefore arrive at fractionally different times over a given distance. This may well account for the equally fractional differences in the measured speed of light to be found in various textbooks, different because the frequencies of the light measured were marginally different. By extension the mass m of a given elementary particle, atom, etc., or its momentum could therefore be deemed to be dependent upon its characteristic rate of rotation, which in turn is the product of the energy-packet’s or quantum’s radius of action and angular acceleration; the tighter the radius, the faster the angular acceleration and periodicity (frequency), the more powerful the energetic effect and the greater the mass, and vice versa. This reciprocity would also explain why the measured intensities and energies of cosmic radiation, for example, are higher than those of x-rays, the radius of the cosmic ray spiral being significantly smaller and therefore its kinetic energy and translatory velocity commensurately higher. With implosive vortical motion, where the radius of action constantly reduces, the increase in angular acceleration and therefore the magnification of the energetic effect would be automatic.
The combined concept that light travelled or orbited spirally about its axis of propagation and the simplification of Kepler’s 3rd Law, may therefore provide the basis for determining the actual speed and radius of action of any given electromagnetic radiation, for once the radius of action of a particular frequency can be determined, then the radii and actual spiral velocities should be determinable for all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is these congruencies that may have provided the “sound… basis on which… to proceed”.
From
Callum Coats: Living Energies - Viktor Schauberger’s Brilliant Work with Natural Energy Explained
Implosion - Viktor Schauberger and the Path of Natural Energy (1985)
Images
http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/photophoresis/
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qb90pZO2BmU/Tk8Z4O5S6fI/AAAAAAAAAWc/oOtET9cF8Io/s1600/free_t3.gif
(what does this image remind you of?)
-
Photo reblogged from DiscoveryNews
life:
I highly doubt any of us would want to go swimming if we saw this guy in the water…
This photo shows a giant stingray that was captured near Kratie, Cambodia, in 2008.
(see more — Freakishly Huge Animals)
whoa whoa whoa
-
”…our current neoliberal, corporate-capitalist economic system/ideology is in need of radical reform. As a millennial—and that may be the only credential I have, aside from blatant idealist—the idea of profit maximization just doesn’t make sense anymore. It never did, not when it comes literally at the (non-monetary, infinitely more valuable) expense of other human beings’ welfare, or even other beings’ welfare in general. As Roger Martin said on BigThink (http://bigthink.com/ideas/40248), my generation cannot make sense of “maximizing shareholder value”. Not only is it uninspiring, it simply doesn’t make sense in a world where everything is so obviously connected to everything else.
The idea of profit-over-others is an abject poverty of the human imagination, discrediting our natural compassion and ignoring our interdependent relationship with and within ecology. This truth is made all the more obvious by our current normative economic ethics; externalities don’t exist, and those who believe they do are blind to the system of interconnection surrounding them.
I’m not a communist, nor a socialist, nor any such label. I’m a human being, and I care enough about humanity and this world to realize that profit is an elaborate mendacity carved out of an entrenched philosophy about human nature established in an era prior to globalization. As Jeremy Rifkin noted in his RSA speech, our empathy now extends to the human race writ large in a single biosphere, and because of that, justifying profit-at-others’-expense in our day and age translates to willful blindness.
It is time we rethought “normal”, as Mr. Hall-Tapping suggests. Elsewise we are tyrants, and we steal the future from our children, and our promise from ourselves.”
- Alex Blanes.Alex Blanes. A random comment on a random blog somewhere in the cybersphere. -
Photo reblogged from DiscoveryNews
Monstrous Sunspot Rotates Toward Earth
There’s a storm brewing on the sun’s surface and it could unleash its magnetic fury on Earth within the next five days.
That ominous warning comes from solar scientists at the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center who are tracking a huge group of sunspots that are slowly rotating to face our planet. As imaged by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) in Friday, this is the largest group of sunspots seen on the sun since 2005. The largest sunspot (pictured above) is 17-times the width of the Earth.
-
Link reblogged from Phuck Yeah Physics
[This New Scientist article is only available to subscribers so it has been presented in its entirety.]
SUBATOMIC particles have broken the universe’s fundamental speed limit, or so it was reported last week. The speed of light is the ultimate limit on travel in the universe, and the basis for Einstein’s special theory of relativity, so if the finding stands up to scrutiny, does it spell the end for physics as we know it? The reality is less simplistic and far more interesting.
“People were saying this means Einstein is wrong,” says physicist Heinrich Päs of the Technical University of Dortmund in Germany. “But that’s not really correct.”
Instead, the result could be the first evidence for a reality built out of extra dimensions. Future historians of science may regard it not as the moment we abandoned Einstein and broke physics, but rather as the point at which our view of space vastly expanded, from three dimensions to four, or more.
“This may be a physics revolution,” says Thomas Weiler at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who has devised theories built on extra dimensions. “The famous words ‘paradigm shift’ are used too often and tritely, but they might be relevant.”
The subatomic particles - neutrinos - seem to have zipped faster than light from CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, to the OPERA detector at the Gran Sasso lab near L’Aquila, Italy. It’s a conceptually simple result: neutrinos making the 730-kilometre journey arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than they would have if they were travelling at light speed. And it relies on three seemingly simple measurements, says Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyon, France, a member of the OPERA collaboration: the distance between the labs, the time the neutrinos left CERN, and the time they arrived at Gran Sasso.
But actually measuring those times and distances to the accuracy needed to detect nanosecond differences is no easy task. The OPERA collaboration spent three years chasing down every source of error they could imagine (see illustration) before Autiero made the result public in a seminar at CERN on 23 September.
Physicists grilled Autiero for an hour after his talk to ensure the team had considered details like the curvature of the Earth, the tidal effects of the moon and the general relativistic effects of having two clocks at different heights (gravity slows time so a clock closer to Earth’s surface runs a tiny bit slower).
They were impressed. “I want to congratulate you on this extremely beautiful experiment,” said Nobel laureate Samuel Ting of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after Autiero’s talk. “The experiment is very carefully done, and the systematic error carefully checked.”
Most physicists still expect some sort of experimental error to crop up and explain the anomaly, mainly because it contravenes the incredibly successful law of special relativity which holds that the speed of light is a constant that no object can exceed. The theory also leads to the famous equation E = mc2.
Hotly anticipated are results from other neutrino detectors, including T2K in Japan and MINOS at Fermilab in Illinois, which will run similar experiments and confirm the results or rule them out (see “Fermilab stops hunting Higgs, starts neutrino quest”).
In 2007, the MINOS experiment searched for faster-than-light neutrinos but didn’t see anything statistically significant. The team plans to reanalyse its data and upgrade the detector’s stopwatch. “These are the kind of things that we have to follow through, and make sure that our prejudices don’t get in the way of discovering something truly fantastic,” says Stephen Parke of Fermilab.
In the meantime, suggests Sandip Pakvasa of the University of Hawaii, let’s suppose the OPERA result is real. If the experiment is tested and replicated and the only explanation is faster-than-light neutrinos, is E = mc2 done for?
Not necessarily. In 2006, Pakvasa, Päs and Weiler came up with a model that allows certain particles to break the cosmic speed limit while leaving special relativity intact. “One can, if not rescue Einstein, at least leave him valid,” Weiler says.
The trick is to send neutrinos on a shortcut through a fourth, thus-far-unobserved dimension of space, reducing the distance they have to travel. Then the neutrinos wouldn’t have to outstrip light to reach their destination in the observed time.
In such a universe, the particles and forces we are familiar with are anchored to a four-dimensional membrane, or “brane”, with three dimensions of space and one of time. Crucially, the brane floats in a higher dimensional space-time called the bulk, which we are normally completely oblivious to.
The fantastic success of special relativity up to now, plus other cosmological observations, have led physicists to think that the brane might be flat, like a sheet of paper. Quantum fluctuations could make it ripple and roll like the surface of the ocean, Weiler says. Then, if neutrinos can break free of the brane, they might get from one point on it to another by dashing through the bulk, like a flying fish taking a shortcut between the waves (see illustration).
This model is attractive because it offers a way out of one of the biggest theoretical problems posed by the OPERA result: busting the apparent speed limit set by neutrinos detected pouring from a supernova in 1987.
As stars explode in a supernova, most of their energy streams out as neutrinos. These particles hardly ever interact with matter. That means they should escape the star almost immediately, while photons of light will take about 3 hours. In 1987, trillions of neutrinos arrived at Earth 3 hours before the dying star’s light caught up. If the neutrinos were travelling as fast as those going from CERN to OPERA, they should have arrived in 1982.
OPERA’s neutrinos were about 1000 times as energetic as the supernova’s neutrinos, though. And Pakvasa and colleagues’ model calls for neutrinos with a specific energy that makes them prefer tunnelling through the bulk to travelling along the brane. If that energy is around 20 gigaelectronvolts - and the team don’t yet know that it is - “then you expect large effects in the OPERA region, and small effects at the supernova energies,” Pakvasa says. He and Päs are meeting next week to work out the details.
The flying fish shortcut isn’t available to all particles. In the language of string theory, a mathematical model some physicists hope will lead to a comprehensive “theory of everything”, most particles are represented by tiny vibrating strings whose ends are permanently stuck to the brane. One of the only exceptions is the theoretical “sterile neutrino”, represented by a closed loop of string. These are also the only type of neutrino thought capable of escaping the brane.
Neutrinos are known to switch back and forth between their three observed types (electron, muon and tau neutrinos), and OPERA was originally designed to detect these shifts. In Pakvasa’s model, the muon neutrinos produced at CERN could have transformed to sterile neutrinos mid-flight, made a short hop through the bulk, and then switched back to muon before reappearing on the brane.
So if OPERA’s results hold up, they could provide support for the existence of sterile neutrinos, extra dimensions and perhaps string theory. Such theories could also explain why gravity is so weak compared with the other fundamental forces. The theoretical particles that mediate gravity, known as gravitons, may also be closed loops of string that leak off into the bulk. “If, in the end, nobody sees anything wrong and other people reproduce OPERA’s results, then I think it’s evidence for string theory, in that string theory is what makes extra dimensions credible in the first place,” Weiler says.
Meanwhile, alternative theories are likely to abound. Weiler expects papers to appear in a matter of days or weeks.
Even if relativity is pushed aside, Einstein has worked so well for so long that he will never really go away. At worst, relativity will turn out to work for most of the universe but not all, just as Newton’s mechanics work until things get extremely large or small. “The fact that Einstein has worked for 106 years means he’ll always be there, either as the right answer or a low-energy effective theory,” Weiler says.
(via New Scientist)
Related reading » Neutrinos: Everything you need to know
