Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: "The constant 'c' has variable value" by BuleriaChk

  1. #21
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Nah, this discussion is no longer worth it.
    Dodging, avoiding, not accepting the challenge. Anyone can see you are dodging. You fail to address it under the rather juvenile excuse that it's not worth it merely because you know you cannot support your claims against it.
    Now, I could post something like this:
    Address the actual scientific points instead of sliming your way around it or You Will Be Banned.
    But I don't believe in that kind of authoritarian behavior. I believe that the readers have intelligence and can see clearly and make up their own damn minds.
    Science is about challenging ideas. It's about presenting data. It's about questioning everything. Science is not about dictating and Authoritarianism. Just as I am free to call you willfully ignorant, you are free to be a weasel. It is the observation of the evidence that matters, not the bringing of the dictators gavel.

    You have done nothing except dodge and weasel and have yet to answer ANY of my questions. And when you later claim I posted no links... I will refer back to this thread and the evidence will be on the table.
    The paper supports what I have been saying, genius.
    This is where you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Dodging, avoiding, not accepting the challenge. Anyone can see you are dodging. You fail to address it under the rather juvenile excuse that it's not worth it merely because you know you cannot support your claims against it.
    Now, I could post something like this:
    Address the actual scientific points instead of sliming your way around it or You Will Be Banned.
    But I don't believe in that kind of authoritarian behavior. I believe that the readers have intelligence and can see clearly and make up their own damn minds.
    Science is about challenging ideas. It's about presenting data. It's about questioning everything. Science is not about dictating and Authoritarianism. Just as I am free to call you willfully ignorant, you are free to be a weasel. It is the observation of the evidence that matters, not the bringing of the dictators gavel.

    You have done nothing except dodge and weasel and have yet to answer ANY of my questions. And when you later claim I posted no links... I will refer back to this thread and the evidence will be on the table.

    The paper supports what I have been saying, genius.
    This is where you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.
    As far as your role as moderator goes, fuck you. But I will try once again, now that I see where you're coming from in your model.

    Consider three systems. A steel plate, a total vacuum (which can be imagined as a volume in the parking lot of the same size and shape as the plate for all practical purposes; i.e., classical quantum mechanics), and a photon.

    If there is no steel plate, the context is only that of light. One can speak of curvature as either light on light interaction or gravity; they are words for the same observation.. Einstein rejected Newton's gravity as "action at a distance". Since there is no matter in the volume in the parking lot, the speed of light is a constant, c. If there is matter, than one can model it by a curved line and constant c, or just simply say "it takes longer" by ignoring the path and only considering the source and sensor.

    If there is a real steel plate, then for classical physics (light and matter) which is what we're discussing here in, STR is irrelevant; Quantum mechanics introduces Planck's constant to describe photo-equivalent electrons in terms of the deBroglie wave in terms of the Schroedinger equation - the simplest form is:



    Consider the quantity (Px - Et) and compare it with its relativistic expression:









    Then , which shows that STR and the speed of light (c) as a "Universal Constant" is irrelevant in the case of classical quantum mechanics (which applies to the world in which we try to send photons through steel plates).

    For QM, the universal constant in context is Planck's constant h, and only the difference between Px and Et is relevant; if Px = Et (the vacuum) the result is the same as for STR

    The DeBroglie wave length then characterizes the system, which will change according to P and E, where x and t have their normal interpretations as space and time.

    The steel plate. the volume in the parking lot, and the velocity of light must be explained classically.

    In the parking lot and the steel plate, the velocity of light light must be explained classically, not relativistically, and in a vacuum (the parking lot) is given by:



    from Maxwell's equations by considering the linear displacement current between two plates of an imaginary capacitor in terms of Coulomb's and Ampere's laws, and models the propagation of light in terms of E and B fields.

    However, within the steel plate, the velocity is given by:



    where the change in the speed of light is represented by D and H fields instead, due to the changes in permittivity and permeability.

    The speed of light therefore slows down in matter in the real world.,..

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Your model seems to be of that of an atomic gas, where electrons are absorbed/re-emitted locally at each atom, with the only criteria being the delay in the process. But if no energy is absorbed/emitted (the plate doesn't heat up), the photons and atoms don't interact, and the process from one side of the plate to the other doesn't change (Px - Et) = 0. That is, the steel plate might as well not be there.

    Real matter is not modeled in this way. A lattice is modeled in terms of overlap integrals (Bloch functions), where the individual transitions are included the field of atoms plus overlap in terms of Fermi energy levels. Energy is deposited/re-emitted in terms of acoustic vibrations - the actual process depends globally on the arrangement of atoms in the lattice.

    Relativistic quantum field theory is a different context. In this case, point interactions are modeled as "events", where the lines are straight lies if there are no events; otherwise, the matter and energy are modeled by Feynman propagators at each interaction site. Again, the only consideration here is the CHANGE in energy at each site, so the probability has to be re-normalized, which conflicts with the idea of the existence of initial and final states (one doesn't have to calculate what happens at the bottom and top of the diagram). (This is the QFT "cutoff" where the whole system is the model of photon-equivalent particle collapse - the Big Bang/Crunch).
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 02:12 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  3. #23
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    I refer back up to your own link where they use the methodology of describing photon motion and The Conservation Of Momentum.
    Yes, the Standard Mainstream Model does depict photon exchange this way and has for a long time. This is not only not anything new, but there are no models that reject it, either. You are implying that there is a Standard Model in which this is not the case but there isn't. The models depict Photon exchange.
    So your previous post shows that you understand that model: Yet, you persist in thinking that "c" is light and therefor, changes in a medium.

    Let me ask you, is a Car a 65mph?
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Your model of "photon exchange" doesn't include momentum and energy exchange in terms of deposition of energy in the lattice. The potential energy within the lattice is much more dense than that in the parking lot.

    Light doesn't appear to "slow down" through a transparent lens because the atoms are bound tightly in the lattice, and therefore don't interact very much with the photon, so little energy is deposited in the lattice. However, in a spectrum analyzer, light does split into colors because of energy interaction. As the material becomes more dense, light begins to affect the vibration of atoms in the lattice, which is modeled acoustically as phonons. As the energy of the light absorbed increases, the lattice structure vibrates more and more and more, and the the structure eventually changes state (melts).

    The "vacuum" in physics is characterized as its lowest energy level (not that an energy level is absent, at least on/in the surface of the earth. This "zero point" energy is very different in the parking lot vs. the plate of steel because of the binding energy of the atoms in the lattice (again, modeled globally by Bloch functions, Fermi levels, and for semi-conductors, matter and anti-matter. So comparing the physical systems with that of a moving photon has a very different model in terms of its interaction (absorption/emission) in the material.

    I have always said that (especially in matter), v and c are irrelevant as velocities - except in the classical model.
    (in QFT, which combines classical QM with relativity it is a mass creation rate for a single particle of mass at a single interaction site, and is modeled linearly by Green's functions and impulse response models which only involve relativistic momentum and energy.)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-22-2016 at 03:34 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    PS - learn to write tex. Your language sucks. Especially your attitude. I have no idea of your academic credentials or where you studied, but they can't have been significant. Your conceptual level is that of a high school textbook, and you even reject that. And now you threaten to put my posts in cage match or ban me because of your pompous preconceptions. You should never, EVER, have been granted the power of moderator. I have a message into Tom about all of this. We'll see what happens, but if I never post again, readers will understand why.

    Tex is difficult and I often have to re-edit. You wouldn't understand because you are incapable of the only technical language available in this forum.

    I call bullshit; your quote of Tyson in your signature is the most hypocritical I have ever read from anyone except Donald Trump.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  6. #26
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Your conceptual level is that of a high school textbook, and you even reject that.
    No, what I am saying is what is in the textbooks; you are the one rejecting it. You believe that the value of "c" changes due to a medium. This is the opposite of what ALL physics texts demonstrate.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    And now you threaten to put my posts in cage match
    Yes. You heavily edit your posts even months after the fact, changing the integrity of the record.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    or ban me because of your pompous preconceptions.
    You clearly did not read what was said. You often don't actually read what is said.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I call bullshit; your quote of Tyson in your signature is the most hypocritical I have ever read from anyone except Donald Trump.
    The only hypocrisy is the way you dodge the nature of scientific examination while trying to misrepresent information.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Your model of "photon exchange" doesn't include momentum and energy exchange in terms of deposition of energy in the lattice. The potential energy within the lattice is much more dense than that in the parking lot.
    Agreed. However, that has no relevance to whether or not indeividual photons move at "c" within that system.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Light doesn't appear to "slow down" through a transparent lens because the atoms are bound tightly in the lattice, and therefore don't interact very much with the photon, so little energy is deposited in the lattice.
    Which leads back to when I asked you directly about why a pavement gets hot on a sunny day and about how different materials have different indexes for refraction and for absorption.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    However, in a spectrum analyzer, light does split into colors because of energy interaction.
    Yes, and this is the field that developed Spectroscopy, used to determine the chemical composition of stars far distant from us.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    As the material becomes more dense, light begins to affect the vibration of atoms in the lattice, which is modeled acoustically as phonons. As the energy of the light absorbed increases, the lattice structure vibrates more and more and more, and the the structure eventually changes state (melts).
    And this still relates above: That some materials absorb more energy and contain that energy. However, different structures have different results. When energy is added to a system, it must be balanced. Conservation of energy applies. The laws of physics are not part-time workers.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    The "vacuum" in physics is characterized as its lowest energy level (not that an energy level is absent, at least on/in the surface of the earth. This "zero point" energy is very different in the parking lot vs. the plate of steel because of the binding energy of the atoms in the lattice (again, modeled globally by Bloch functions, Fermi levels, and for semi-conductors, matter and anti-matter. So comparing the physical systems with that of a moving photon has a very different model in terms of its interaction (absorption/emission) in the material.
    No, it isn't. And all the links presented so far demonstrate this. It is all the same system and all the same model.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I have always said that (especially in matter), v and c are irrelevant as velocities - except in the classical model.
    The only velocity is "v." But "c" is not a velocity, it is a constant: The upper bound of any velocity. It can be included as a velocity only when something is moving at that upper boud, such as how light does in a vacuum. Otherwise, it is used to balance the equation, not as a velocity.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    (in QFT, which combines classical QM with relativity it is a mass creation rate for a single particle of mass at a single interaction site, and is modeled linearly by Green's functions and impulse response models which only involve relativistic momentum and energy.)
    And in Relativistic calculations, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy apply. They are calculated with relativistic formula.
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...relmom.html#c1
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...relmom.html#c2
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...relmom.html#c4


    This big long song and dance distraction DOES NOT ADDRESS YOUR REPEATED CLAIM THAT THE VALUE OF "c" CHANGES.
    It's a Red Herring where you pasted a bunch of valid information that contradicts your very claims. There is not one bit of it that supports your claim that the value of "c" is a variable.
    emperorzelos likes this.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

    (The lowest possible vacuum state in the universe is when nothing exists)
    Other than that, different physical objects (galaxies, quarks, steel plates, parking lots) have different vacuum states (zero point energies)

    The speed of light is constant only in the vacuum state, which varies depending on the energy of the total state. ct' - ct = t' - t (in QFT, this is a dirac delta function the ground state is given by this equation.)

    The lowest possible energy level is different in a steel plate and a parking lot because of the binding energy I atoms, which effectively continuous (and constant if the material has a constant density) given by c'/c, where c' > c and c refers to a reference energy between two physical systems. The reference energy (rest mass) can change as well as the perturbation when the same scaling factor ("period" in a deBroglie wave) is applied: c(t-t') =(c'-c)t.

    Every textbook in the world says the speed of light changes in a medium:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

    The only reference vacuum that doesn't change is the one where there is nothing there. Even one photon will change this reference , and if there are two different photons the one with the least energy then becomes the reference vacuum for describing any possible interactions.

    A diamond has greater density than a piece of steel than a parking lot. If the model is assumed to be a parking lot, the reference is the zero state of the surface of the earth for relations between the earth and the parking lot.

    For the relation between the speed of light in the diamond vs the speed of light in the piece of steel, the steel becomes the vacuum state (the invariant reference), and the diamond becomes the state at a higher state. The speed of light moves at c in the steel and v/c in the diamond.

    That is why it is called STR (Einstein's formulation was only in terms of light paths in a true vacuum (photons vs no photons) and it is constant because c doesn't include the concept of quantum mechanical wavelength, only the classical definition (which is unknown, since the only c we know is in the parking lot.)

    I grow weary of arguing with this blockhead. The reader is invited to google "the speed of light in a vacuum" and then "vacuum" to understand the terminology used.

    I am not going to respond to neverfly further in this thread. He can go fuck himself.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  8. #28
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I grow weary of arguing with this blockhead. The reader is invited to google "the speed of light in a vacuum" and then "vacuum" to understand the terminology used.
    Wrong.
    You are being misleading. You are trying to use the Group Velocity of light as being synonymous with the constant "c." You then go on to misapply this mathematically and claim that the value of "c" changes.
    You even went so far as to apply Lorentz time dilation to a photon!
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Hey Malaria! What does it feel like being incompetent in 2 fields?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: "The constant 'c' has variable value" by BuleriaChk

    If c is a constant, it is merely an integer; a single number - it is one dimensional, like a radius or a single axis.
    That is, it is a "length" in itself, a position on the number line, or a "metric" with a single value. In physics, that "length" can be interpreted either as a ruler or a mass with a single value.

    In physics, c usually means a ratio; that is, two dimensions: c = x/t in the two dimensional space (x,t), otherwise known as a "space time" diagram. A constant c means a constant reference velocity:
    c = (ax/at) does not change the value of c in an "inertial frame", generally taken to be a volume just above sea level (or the parking lot) without the water or air molecules.

    x = ct then defines a distance, where x' = (v/c)c(t) defines a "distance" other than that determined by c in terms of a velocity v. (This also can be interpreted as a mass, where mass increases as the distance; at the "origin" (0,0) there is neither a length or a distance. One an also set c = 1, so x' = vt and the question is moot; doing so is the foundation of Galilean transformations in space-time, or Newtonian physics (in which mass can be added or subtracted independently of c)

    The Lorentz transform assumes that c can change in a relative inertial frame; this is because in the mass/energy domain c is related to an initial and final condition in terms of scaling factors, where ct is an initial condition, ct' is a final condition, and vt' is an excitation independent of the initial condition, and is related in two dimensions by (ct, vt'), the resultant of which is ct'. If ct' is the final state, there is nothing else, the system doesn't change further, there are no further excitations.

    In physics (inside matter), ct (the initial condition) is the "rest mass". This can be scaled by t' or changed by c to c' to specify an additional initial condition. If ct is considered to be a single "period", then it can be changed either by c or by t, but it only references one frequency - reality at sea level specifies a black body. (One sets t = 1 for a single cycle of a photon at a single wavelength)

    Neverfly's error is in not recognizing the significance of the space-time model in two dimensional characterization of c in physics (uh, space AND time, duh!). c is only constant if there are no other interactions (the photon as a black hole) so that ct' = c't = 1. This model also ignores rotations ("spin polarization") as a mechanism for interaction (a photon remains of a different wavelength if only some of the photon is ejected - i.e., it loses energy, or "red shifts" in spectrum.

    The "vacuum" immediately above sea level is taken to be the lowest possible energy level (without molecules). Adding either steel plates or molecules or even additional photons changes the density of this vacuum (by particle count if nothing else). A particle (photon) will take a longer time to traverse a given distance with an increased density than at the "vacuum".

    The energy level of the "vacuum" can change by gravity (or another external force - e.g. air) So the vacuum level on the moon is different from that on earth because the moon is smaller and there is an insignificant amount of air.

    The speed of light (and/or energy) has been shown to change due to gravity (GTR) by many experiments which compare space and time in different conditions than that at sea level on earth. It also has been shown that this change is due to spin polarization interaction in terms of E and B fields (E models a rest condition of charge, and B a "current", or change - both are necessary for a complete description of light (as determined by the permittivity and permeability constants at sea level in a vacuum). In optics, a change in density is modeled by refraction, which changes the direction of a light beam in geometric optics, and is modeled by D and H fields in electromagnetism. In solid materials, such a change is modeled by a change in the Fermi level which changes the "effective" mass of an electron therein to a different value than that of a photo -electron (the latter modeled as ejected from a flat surface, NOT an atom, since electrons ejected from heavy atoms have different momentum/energies from those ejected from a hydrogen atom for an equivalent excitation.

    Bottom Line: Neverfly and the "Naked Emporer" have their heads far up their asses where there is, in fact, no light....
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •