THE OPTICAL BOOM

AND CHRONOMETRIC INVERSION

A report by

G. A. Lane

Subject: Natural Phenomenon An Observers Perception of Space / Time Event

Published by the FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF STUDIES IN THE ARTS, SCIENCES & HUMANITIES
TULSA, OKLAHOMA U. S. A.

Price $12.00 in the U. S. A.

Journal Entry: 1 / 1 / 90 Revised: 6 / 25 / 95 Subject: Natural Phenomenon MXMV, Copyright 1995 George Andrew Lane All Rights Reserved.

The Optical Boom And Chronometric Inversion PART 1

This entry is a report to disclose an idea that I have developed over the course of several years. I call it the Optical Boom and associate it with the phenomenon of Chronometric Inversion. The idea is based on the motion of a point source of electro - magnetic radiation toward an observer: the source having a velocity greater than the speed of light. This report is also a consideration of the observed effects of such an event. A serious step is being taken herein. The allowance for speeds greater than the speed of light, C, is not traditional Twentieth Century thinking. Recall that Albert Einstein, working from the Lorentz Transformation Formulae, set C as a limiting velocity, Which can neither be reached nor exceeded by a real body." (Einstein. pg. 36) However, since I am not attempting to discredit any existing theory, I can honestly and ethically ask the reader's mind to open to the possibilities presented in this report. There are some qualifications that should be made at the onset. In the process of compiling this report, many good ideas and outlines on subjects such as; the relative dimensions of bodies, the relative masses of bodies, event horizons, perceptions of the Big Bang, etc., have been excluded. This report could easily be much longer and cover more material. In the interest of focus, the application of the idea of an Optical Boom to other ideas, principles and theories has been suppressed. By doing this, it is hoped that the report will be made suitable to the widest possible audience. Some readers, for example, may note the absence of mathematics. Leonardo da Vinci helps explain my reason for this. "The more minute your description, the more you will confuse the mind of the reader, and the more you will lead him away from the thing described." (da Vinci, p. 2) While da Vinci was a firm believer in mathematics as a means of scientific proof and expression, he was also aware of the tremendous capacity of the human mind to understand concepts that are otherwise presented.

Many of the principles that science and mathematics deal with are first presented as word problems. These are descriptions of observed natural phenomena. It is the goal of science to find a means of expression that allows for technical applications of the phenomena. This report constitutes a word problem, if it may. The scientist will certainly know how mathematics pertains to its subject. Also, the layperson should feel free to imagine the possibilities on their own terms. So far, I have referred to the Optical Boom only as an idea. I hope the reader will continue to do so. Though the idea is based on various theories and principles, it is strictly the result of preponderance. The idea has not been verified by experimental procedure or other means to this date. Therefore, any conclusion that might be made or indicated in this report should not be thought of as theory. Perhaps hypothesis of a most speculative nature would be more accurate.

PART 2
One day as I sat in physics class, (in the fall of 1977, University of Central Arkansas), I imagined that there were particles moving all around me. Some of these particles moved slowly, others moved much faster. I recalled that Einstein had established C (the speed of light in a vacuum) as a limiting velocity. Therefore, I concluded that none of the particles were traveling at or faster than C. For fun, I imagined that one particle (P1) was approaching me from the right at three quarters C. Because it was traveling directly toward me, I was able to define a line that passed through it and me and stretched to both my left and my right into infinity.

Figure 1a

When I looked to my left to see how far infinity was, I noticed another particle, (P2), traveling toward me from that direction. It was also traveling along the line at three quarters C.

Figure 1b

So now there were two particles traveling toward me along the same line but from different directions. I could not see that either P1 or P2 had reached or exceeded C, so I felt that the situation was in accordance with the theory of relativity. After class was dismissed and I had gone home, I thought of the two particles I had left behind. It occurred to me that they were no longer traveling toward me but rather toward each other. I began to think that the sum of their velocities, or relative velocity, could be calculated as .75C + .75 C = 1.5 C. I want to note at this time that when I first imagined P1, I thought of myself as the stationary body with it in motion toward me. I could easily have thought of P1 as stationary with me in motion toward it. This Principle of Relativity, or Reference Space, is treated thoroughly by Einstein. Here I will simply say that in Figure 1c I have considered P2 to be at rest with P1 in motion toward it at 1.5C.

Figure 1c

The astute reader will notice that the situation in Figure 1c is not in accordance with the theory of relativity. Well, this is only an idea and the story about P1 and P2 is only an example of how questions arise in the field of science.

PART 3
In 1690, Christian Huygens published his Treatise on Light. In it, he put forth some definitive ideas about the wave nature of light. The Huygens Principle, as it applies to optics, states that, All points of a wave front of light in a vacuum or transparent medium may be regarded as a new source of wavelets that expand in every direction at a rate depending on their velocities." (Huygens, E. B. 15, Vol. 6. p. 181). The effect being that the new wave front will propagate from the point source in three dimensions. Under the ideal conditions of a homogenous medium, the wave front will form a spherical envelope with the point source at its center. It has only been three hundred years since humanity stood on the threshold of such an understanding. Though many theories about light existed at the time, those of Huygens gained widespread support. The study of light and electro-magnetic radiation since then has progressed mainly in view of the Huygens Principle. The idea of the Optical Boom is also founded on the principle of a point source of radiation and the propagation of a spherical wave front. Another fundamental theory that is used is the Doppler Effect. First described by C. Johann Doppler in 1842, it is the apparent shift in frequency as a source of radiation moves with respect to an observer. An example of the effect is found in the transmission of sound in air as the pitch of an automobile horn changes as it approaches and bypasses a listener at a high rate of speed. Modern studies in the area of electro-magnetic radiation include also theories concerning the temporal and dimensional aspects of the phenomenon. (T. P. Gill). The speed of light in a vacuum is averaged from several experimental sources as 300,000 km per second or 186,000 miles per second, though we don't actually require these values to continue the discussion. For our model, we first have evacuated space that is bounded on all sides by infinity. Into this space we will place two points, a source of radiation, (S), and an observer, (O). These will be placed so that light must travel for four seconds at the beginning of each observation, T = 0, to pass from S to O. To avoid the complexity of the effects of gravity on light our two points have no mass. Because O is our reference point, it will remain stationary and S will travel toward it. The first observation is shown in Figure 2. The relative velocity between S and O is zero. S is emitting one electro-magnetic pulse per second. When four seconds have elapsed, the first wave front reaches O. Each successive second thereafter O will observe another wave front from S. Note that the pulses are observed in the order that they are emitted, (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4). Because

S is emitting one pulse per second and O sees one pulse per second O will perceive the passage of time for S at the same rate that S does.

Figure 2

In Figure 3 we have a second observation. The relative velocity between S and O is greater than zero but less than C. In this case we see the Doppler Effect. S is still emitting one pulse per second and the first wave front reaches O at T = 4 seconds. However, because S is traveling toward O, the wave fronts are closer together as they travel toward O. Therefore, each second after T = 4 seconds, O will observe more than one wave front. The effect of this observation will be that O perceives time as passing more rapidly for S than S perceives it.

Figure 3

Figure 4 presents a special case. S is traveling at C. This places it at the wave front along the line of travel each time it emits a pulse. In other words, all of the wave fronts and S are traveling toward O at the same point. At T = 4 seconds, when that point reaches O, O will see every pulse that S has emitted. At no other time will O see a pulse from S, so O will perceive no passage of time for S.

Figure 4

This situation raises an interesting question. S can tend to verify its existence because it is emitting one pulse per second. However, O cannot perceive any time lapse between the pulses. Is S a reality to O? Is the lack of perception a valid excuse to disqualify the presence of S? Before moving on it is important to note why Einstein, working from mathematical formulae, concluded that massive bodies could not travel at or greater than the speed of light. Without making a lengthy discussion it can be said that in the Lorentz Transformation formulae, a factor is used which is the difference between the speed of light (C) and the relative velocity between a reference point and a traveling body (Vr). When Vr = C, then (C - Vr) = 0. In two of the formulae, which define the transformation (dilation) of time and mass, this quantity becomes a denominator. We all know that division by zero is mathematically indefinable, and the graphic representation and comments in the previous paragraph are consistent with this property of calculation. Similarly, when this sum, (C - Vr) = 0, is used as the numerator in the dimensional transformation formula (length contraction), then we find that the perceived dimension of a body traveling at the speed of light toward the reference point is zero.

Figure 4 addition
In the figure above there is a situation of two observers with a point source traveling toward them. The relative velocity between S and O1 is C, so we would assume that the source does not appear to exist from the perspective of O1. O2 is essentially parallel to O1 in the plane perpendicular to the line of the sources motion. However, O2 is in motion in the same direction as the source at what we would consider to be, from the human standpoint, an extremely small (negligible) velocity. Because of this motion the relative velocity between S and O2 is less than the speed of light. Therefore, even though S is not a reality to O1 it is a reality to O2. It is quite understandable that O2 is a reality to O1, so could we not also imagine that O2 can confirm the presence (reality) of the source to O1 even though O1 is not able to perceive the source or define it by mathematical calculations?????

We now come to the case that constitutes the Optical Boom. In Figure 5, as soon as S travels toward O at a speed greater than C a situation occurs that is similar to a sonic boom in air. Each time S emits a pulse it is closer to O than the wave front of the previous pulse. This causes the latter pulse to reach O before the former.

Figure 5
S emits the pulses in Figure 5 in the order of 1, 2, 3, 4. The wave fronts are received by O in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1. The observed effect is that O perceives the passage of time for S in the reverse order from what S perceives it. This is the phenomenon of Chronometric Inversion. Chronometric Inversion should have a profound effect on how O sees the motion of S. We have set S in motion toward O, so S will be closer to O when pulse #4 is emitted than when pulse # 1 is emitted. Because O perceives pulse #4 first, S is first seen as being near and with each successive pulse as being farther away, not in the direction it is traveling, but in the direction from which it came.

Epilogue
Hopefully I have illustrated this idea so that the reader will understand it as stated. An Optical Boom occurs when a source of electro-magnetic radiation travels toward an observer faster than the speed of light. The observer will experience a Chronometric Inversion, which is that it will perceive the passage of time for the source in a reversed order from what the source does. Under these circumstances, the direction and speed of the source will appear altered from the reality. This is to say that whereas the source has actually bypassed the observer in one direction at a speed greater than light, the observer will see it as receding in the direction from which it actually came. Its perceived velocity will depend on how much greater than the speed of light the relative velocity between the particles is. The reader must bear in mind that not only is the allowance for velocities greater than C in contrast to the theory of relativity, but also Einstein illustrated the perceived passage of time for bodies in motion in a different manner from what has been done here. It is true that atomic clocks have been used to confirm that objects in orbit around the earth are perceived to experience the passage of time at a slower rate than stationary objects on the surface of the earth. But when we look at the models using the Doppler Effect, we see that such perceptions depend on the relative direction and magnitude of the motions. It is as possible to perceive the passage of time for a body in motion as dilated as it is to see it compressed. One common notion of Sci-Fi notion has been that when a spaceship travels at a velocity near the speed of light the passengers will experience the passage of time much slower than those who are relatively stationary. From the perspective of a Doppler Shift analysis we can easily see that an object traveling away from us would seem to be passing time very slowly. However, when that object traveled parallel to us there would be no perceived shift in time. Also, when the object made its turn to travel toward us once again the Doppler Shift would cause us to perceive that the object was passing time very rapidly. The overall effect of this is that the net dilation and contraction of time passage would be zero for an object that traveled away from us at a high velocity and then returned at that velocity. We would only actually perceive that the object has

experience the passage of the time required to make this maneuver, and there would be no apparent aberration of the passage of time.

WORKS CITED
Einstein, Albert. Relativity, The Special and the General Theory. New York. Crow Publishers, Inc. 1961. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th. Ed. Chicago. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1988. Gill, T. P. The Doppler Effect. London. Logos Press Limited. 1965. IBM. Leonardo da Vinci. New York. International Business Machines. Supplied with a traveling exhibit on da Vinci. No date given. Cir. 1980. Huygens, Christian. Treatise on Light. 1952.

The Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 34. Chi / Tor / Lon. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Special thanks to Alfred Nobel for demonstrating observations in figures 1a & 1b.

10

Addendum
This paper was conceived and drafted at a time when the Super Collider Particle Accelerator to have been built near Dallas was in the planning stage, and also there was a halt placed on that project because of budgetary concerns during the 1980s. So there was no apparatus available for testing this idea when it was being thought out. However, It has been my thinking that such an apparatus as a Super Collider might provide the method of testing the validity of this idea. The purpose of constructing the Super Collider was to have the capacity to accelerate two protons (or perhaps other particles as well) to velocities near the speed of light from opposite directions so that they would collide at some point on their pathways. If we consider this situation to be similar to the one shown in Figure 1b of this entry, then Nobel would represent, in that drawing, the point of impact where observations are made in the Super Collider. In such a facility, observations would be made at the point of impact to determine the energy distributions and what, if any, new sub-atomic particles result from the cracking up of the protons in the collision. In order to gain the perspective of figure 5, and also Figure 1c, where one body is stationary and the point source is in motion toward it at a velocity greater than the speed of light, then we would have to take a ride on the back of one of these particles. In this case, we could think of ourselves as being stationary. The structure of the Super Collider would be rotating with the acceleration corridor traveling toward us at a speed near the speed of light. The other particle would also be traveling within this corridor at a speed near the speed of light and in a direction toward us, so that the relative velocity between us and this particle would be greater than the speed of light. That is a tricky observation to make from the human standpoint, and it would take a masterful manipulation of mathematical formulae to arrive at such a perspective. I do believe that this situation happens quite frequently, where not only particles but also large areas of physical matter travel toward each other at velocities that would be relatively greater than the speed of light. However, I would like to make the qualification that the relativity of space-time continuum physics in the physical realm creates a multitude of possibilities for the way we perceive motion. For instance, if we adhere to Einsteins original premise that it is not possible for one point to perceive the motion of another at a rate greater than the speed of light (literally that matter cannot travel at or greater than the speed of light, although I do not know where the datum point from which such motions are measured is, exactly), then the actual observation of another body that was traveling towards us at such an excessive velocity would necessitate that the S/T continuum was warped in a manner in order to compensate for the excess of velocity beyond the speed of light and cause us to perceive the other body traveling at something less than (C). That is quite possible, and there is a lot of theories that tends to this idea. On the other hand, if we are able to observe such motions from the perspective of an Optical Boom and accept the idea of Chronometric Inversion, then we have a new way of understanding the motion of particles and the properties of energy distribution within the S/T continuum.

G. A. Lane

11

April 8, 2005