A Brief Self-Introduction

# A Brief Self-Introduction

## A Brief Self-Introduction

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. A Brief Self-Introduction Thanks go to Mr. Volk, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Acheson and all other organizers • Name: Guangjun (广军) Cao (曹) • Employer：Georgian College，Ontario， Canada • Date and place of birth： June 15， 1966 in China’sHenan Province • Citizenship: Canadian • Interest: Mathematics, physics, religion, and philosophy

2. A New Non-locality Feature and Some of Its Physical Implications • Background information • Theoretical assumptions • Experimental evidences • Major conclusions • Physical & philosophical implications • Further discussions • The question of scientific attitude

3. Background Information light speed (constancy); principle of relativity; non-locality; ECI; SSBCI or SCI. • Light speed (constancy) (1) c=1/√(ε0*μ0); ε0permittivity and μ0permeability of the vacuum; and c=299792.458 m/s. (2) As a medium property; its independence of source motion yet dependence on observer motion.

4. Background Information • Light speed (constancy) (cont’d) (3) Equation of light propagation; 1-D idealized situation: |()-()|=c|-|; , signal emitting and observing times, , source and observer positions. (4) A direct consequence of (3): A measured light speed of c±v relative to observer. (5) Dynamic simulations: Cases 1 (alternative 1), 2 (alternative 2).

5. Background Information • The principle of relativity (1) Formulation: Uniform motion is not detectable if (a) the inertial frame in concern is a means of transportation and (b) if the experiment used is strictly confined within this frame. (2) Examples Example 1: Radio signals sent between two planets in the solar system do not reveal this system’s motion relative to the Milky Way.

6. Background Information • The principle of relativity (cont’d) Example 2: Radio signals sent between an Earth-born antenna and an Earth-born receiver do not reveal the Earth’s motion relative to the Sun. (3) Other equivalent formulations: Motion is purely relative; the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames of reference; there is no preferred inertial frames, etc.

7. Background Information • Non-locality (1) Definition: An interaction or influence that goes beyond a local space-time region; existence of superluminal influence. (2) Examples: (a) quantum correlations of entangled particles; (b) interference patterns in a double-slit experiment; (c) the way how objects are physically connected. (3) Comment: Non-locality directly contradicts special relativity.

8. Background Information • ECI: Earth centered inertial; the revolving (around the Sun) but not rotating (around its own axis) Earth; associated with GPS range measurement equation (GPS-RME) • SSBCI: Solar system barycenter inertial; occasionally approximated by the Sun centered inertial (SCI);associated with the Interplanetary range measurement equation (IP-RME)

9. Theoretical Assumptions • If each of the GPS-RME and IP-RME can be true, then they can be true at the same time A non-trivial assumption; an example • Absolute simultaneity An implicit assumption, also a disproof of relativity simultaneity. • Newton’s law of gravity, plus potential second & higher order revisions Basis for fundamental ephemerides of Sun, Moon, and all planets.

10. Experimental Evidences • GPS range measurement equation (GPS-RME), simpl. & ref. to ECI: |()-()|=c|-| (1) • Interplanetary range measurement equation (IP-RME), simpl. & ref. to SSBCI, or approximately to SCI: u=|(-d)-(-d-u)|/c (2a) d=|()-(-d)|/c (2b) • Sagnac effect in the GPS (GPS-SE) Non-detectable orbital motion but detectable self-rotational motion

11. Experimental Evidences • Comment 1: The GPS-RME explains the null result of the MMX within first order accuracy (referred to Sagnac effect). • Comment 2: The IP-RME explains the astronomical phenomenon of stellar aberration. • Comment 3: GPS-SE and traditional SEs are believed to be of the same origin and nature.

12. Major Conclusions • GPS-RME & IP-RME  non-locality or equivalently • light speed’s independence of source motion & principle of relativity in its modified form  non-locality Simulation 1 (alternative 1) • If GPS-RME represents a physical law, then GPS-RME & GPS-SE  non-locality Simulation 2 (alternative 2)

13. Physical Implications Principle of relativity; apparent conflict between stellar aberration and MMX; the origin of Moon; ether. • The principle of relativity (a) The need of revising the concept of inertial frame to properly formulate it ([Cao11]); (b) The need of introducing the concept of physical connection to understand it ([Cao11]).

14. Physical Implications • The apparent conflict between stellar aberration and the null result of MMX According to earlier Comment 2, IP-RME explains stellar aberration, while according to Comment 1, GPS-RME explains the null result of MMX, thus non-locality explains both phenomena at the same time.

15. Physical Implications • The origin of Moon (theories) Pure fission; capture; giant impact. Key observations: (a) If Earth and moon formed separately and then came together into their common orbit around the Sun, then this orbital information is discernible through radio signals sent between them; and (b) if Earth and Moon formed together as a physically connected whole in their common orbit around

16. Physical Implications • The origin of Moon (cont’d) the Sun and then somehow separated (fission, impact, etc.), then this orbital information is not discernible through radio signals sent between them. So from the non-locality perspective, the capture theory is clearly favored. • Ether If the argument in this presentation is sound, then ether is nothing less and nothing more than vacuum itself.

17. Philosophical Implications • Matter works on matter, but not directly on space (vacuum); however, the interaction between material objects could be preserved as information as a result of this interaction • The world in its profound nature is informational as well as material Example 1: All planets within the solar system carry the same orbital information around the Milky Way as

18. Philosophical Implications (Example 1 cont’d) the Sun, and that’s why radio signals sent between any two of them could not reveal this orbital information. Example 2: All Earth-originated, Earth-orbiting artificial satellites carry the same orbital information as the Earth, and that’s why radio signals sent between any two of them could not reveal this orbital motion around the Sun.

19. Philosophical Implications Example 3: When antenna A sits on Earth and spaceship S on the Moon, radio signals sent between them do reveal their common orbital motion around the Sun; but when spaceship S departs from the Moon and comes to and descends on Earth, radio signals between A and S can no longer reveal this orbital motion, since now both and A and S carry the same orbital information of the Earth.

20. Further Discussions • What happens if the GPS-RME and IP-RME cannot be simultaneously true in the sense defined in this paper? Not a problem, if we allow two adjacent groups of scientists to successfully test GPS-RME and IP-RME, separately and along roughly the same direction. • Could the experimenter(s) have a role in choosing which one of the ECI and SSBCI ranging equations come into play?

21. Further Discussions In Reference [26] it implicitly assumes that the IP-RME applies to an Earth-born antenna and an Earth-originated but Moon- or planet-missioned spaceship; however, according to this paper, either this assumption is wrong or it is true but the experimenter has a role in setting which one of the ranging equations into effect. Note that non-locality is still true in the latter case but the role of the experimenter has to be summoned.

22. Further Discussions • Could the idea of ether explain the ranging data mentioned in this paper? This author believes not; challenges include: (1) What evidence unequivocally supports an ether that is more than just vacuum? Note: The classical idea of inertia or the modern idea of non-locality successfully explains all current light speed data.

23. Further Discussions (2) If ether is assumed to remain stationary relative to a local gravitational field or an inertial frame that is associated with such a field, then why do radio signals sent between the Earth and Moon reveal instead their common orbital motion around the Sun? See here for what Moon-Earth ranging data say. (3) How does the idea of ether explains the (envisioned) fact that the Moon and an Earth-originated,

24. Further Discussions Earth-orbiting satellite of roughly the same height show fundamentally different quantum properties? (4) Assume that the GPS-SE had never been known to you, would you still predict that the ether is carried by the Earth’s orbital motion but not by self-rotation? (5) How does the idea of ether explain the simultaneous truthfulness of both the GPS-RME and IP-RME?

25. Scientific Attitude • Dedicate to truth itself, not to dogma or self-interest or anything else If we serve the wrong “guy”, we are almost certain to end up with the wrong destinies. • Be open and objective-minded enough to be able to evaluate both the pros and cons of anything If we allow prejudice and/or stubbornness dominate us, we are sure to miss many subtle truths.

26. Scientific Attitude • Be courageous and forthright enough to admit making a mistake and to correct it. If we are not willing, and able, to challenge ourselves by admitting and correcting a mistake, then there is no effective way to make sure that we are on the right track. • Whenever possible, see things as they actually are, not as what we believe them to be Facts are the life of science.

27. Scientific Attitude • When we criticize others, have we upheld the same academic and moral standards as have been demanded of those being criticized? And lastly • When I derive the conclusions in this paper, I followed all the above guidelines; so if you want to challenge me, would you do the same please? Reference: [Cao11] Guangjun Cao, Physics Essays 24, pp. 381-394 (2011)