# Thread: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

1. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Whereas locally, all experimental science proves you wrong, as my numerous Wiki links have made clear, among thousands of other references if one Googles "speed of light".
"Proves" and "proofs" only exist in mathematics.
No, your links have not "proven" me wrong. The opposite in fact. That you say this, however, suggests that you are still operating under the same assumption all along:
You are assuming that light really does slow down in a medium. You take light at a velocity of less than "c" and then you can calculate it using the Time Dilation equation. But this is wrong.
You cannot calculate it. Every first year physicist knows this. Your claim that your links and references "prove" me wrong would be quickly dismissed by any student that already knows that photons only move at "c." They already know that the wiki link saying that "light slows down in a medium" is only a vague generalization. They already know that applying the refractive index is a shortcut to get a semi-accurate answer because that is all that is needed for that application. For speed, they sacrifice accuracy. Much like calculating the motion of a ball without accounting for friction: It's close enough. But that does not apply here, where more accuracy is needed.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
An inertial frame inside matter is different from and inertial frame in vacuo, but the signal that is propagating is still electromagnetic; that is, light.
This statement is flat wrong.
Photons propagate at "c" in a medium or in matter. I have repeatedly explained to you how this works.
You, simply, reject the science because it conflicts with your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
What Einstein is saying is that Maxwell's equations are consistent with Newton's with c a local constant whatever the value of c actually measured at a local field point, and in particular, not any other field point at a different "location" on the geodesic. (Of course one can claim that c is a global constant, but that is only a fantasy, since it is unprovable - it is a hypothesis for the Friedman equations, but there are many other alternatives theoretically.
I already explained the fallacy of this claim. If this was the case, there would be no Theory of Relativity.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Anyway, just what the hell do you think "v" refers to if not signal velocity through a medium - that is a signal traveling at ? (t' t0 = tc)
No, "v" referes to velocity independent of vacuum or medium. If it is moving through a medium, then you must correct for that with another formula, it is not automatically (Or magically) included in "v."
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
But you still have said NOTHING except "c = c" in a medium as well as in vacuo, against all experimental evidence of the past two hundred years... (starting with Ampere and Coulomb through Maxwell...)
This statement is wrong.
Your claim that experimental evidence for the past two hundred years showing that "c" changes due to a medium is WRONG.
The experimental data demonstrates exactly what I have described. I have explained it to you several times but you reject evidence, the scientific method and the data because it conflicts with your preconception and your pet hypothesis.
I have also explained that the indexes you refer to for the interaction of light through a medium is a General Work-around and is accurate enough for many systems, but it is not accurate enough for this topic which is why correcting for it with Conservation of Momentum clarifies the photon interaction with matter and increases accuracy.
Over on your page, you performed the Lorentz equations based on this assumption and you keep saying that the transform shows you as correct but it doesn't because you did the math wrong.
You spent years on it. It is no surprise that that is not what you want to hear.
But this is Science. I have shown why it is known that photons always move at "c" even in a medium. I have shown above how your math was misapplied.
Science is about the most accurate model and not about sympathy for how much time was spent on an error.
Einsteins assumption was that "c" was a Universal Constant and it was that which inspired him to realize that it must be Time and Mass that had to change value in order to balance the equation.
BuleriaChK you are a brilliant man and it perfectly understandable why you would reject these corrections. But in science, you gotta be willing to trash even a decades worth of work if an error in it brings it down.

2. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Snip

Bullshit, you haven't shown jack. Take a course in Modern Physics and/or Electromagnetism somewhere at a junior college somewhere.

I'm outta here.

3. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Bullshit, you haven't shown jack.
Denying reality does not change reality. I have shown it, repeatedly. You clench your eyes shut and refuse to see.

4. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by Neverfly

(snip)
I wasn't going to continue on with this, but just to be clear:

Neither Special Theory of Relativity or Quantum Field Theory apply to Classical Physics in the domain in which the speed of light is actually measured through ponderable matter (which includes the lenses used in Geometric Optics. The theory says that whatever the speed of light (c) is measured at, it travels at v/c through an "ether"' that is, either gravity or light-on-light interaction. It doesn't apply to Macro media such as steel plates, the skins of fast burn boosters, or lenses as formed glass.

The effect of light-on-light "in vacuo" is very small (which is v/c, where v is the velocity of an "ether" as interpreted by the Michelson-Morley experiment); the fact that no ether was detected has nothing to do with a medium that includes ponderable matter.

Vacuum

Refractive Index

Measurements of c in the real (material, not quantized) world of Coulomb, Ampere, Newton, and Maxwell apply to vastly different scales than those relevant to either STR or QFT.... and in these domains, light is an electromagnetic wave, with energy transfer at everyday scales described by the Poynting vector, not the photo-electric effect (which applies to photo-electrons of Einstein. (E = hv says nothing about the interior of the material from which the photo electrons were ejected[ there is only a "hidden variable" assumption about the atoms on the surface that are ionized to eject the electrons).

The PE effect also depends on a constant electron mass; which is certainly different in a material (e.g. the "effective" mass of the electron in a photo-conductor, defined by the different values of the Fermi energy over the zero-point energy).

Effective Mass (Solid-State Physics)

5. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Neither Special Theory of Relativity or Quantum Field Theory apply to Classical Physics in the domain in which the speed of light is actually measured through ponderable matter (which includes the lenses used in Geometric Optics. The theory says that whatever the speed of light (c) is measured at, it travels at v/c through an "ether"' that is, either gravity or light-on-light interaction. It doesn't apply to Macro media such as steel plates, the skins of fast burn boosters, or lenses as formed glass.

The effect of light-on-light "in vacuo" is very small (which is v/c, where v is the velocity of an "ether" as interpreted by the Michelson-Morley experiment); the fact that no ether was detected has nothing to do with a medium that includes ponderable matter.
This is 100% correct in its depiction on what Einstein himself described and the basis of his conclusions. I think your wording here is better than mine, in where you said "it does not apply."
I must point out, however, that in the days since Einstein, other scientists have continued to study and expand on the Theory of Relativity. In a modern age, it is no longer exactly how Einstein described it around 1920 or so. Parts of the Theory have been modified or tweaked in order to achieve greater accuracy.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Measurements of c in the real (material, not quantized) world of Coulomb, Ampere, Newton, and Maxwell apply to vastly different scales than those relevant to either STR or QFT.... and in these domains, light is an electromagnetic wave, with energy transfer at everyday scales described by the Poynting vector, not the photo-electric effect (which applies to photo-electrons of Einstein.
Agreed, and I am confident that it is this scale you have worked with in your career and this scale you spoke of earlier which is where we started butting heads.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
(E = hv says nothing about the interior of the material from which the photo electrons were ejected[ there is only a "hidden variable" assumption about the atoms on the surface that are ionized to eject the electrons).
Particularly at this point and I have supplied the equations of how to compute in the Theory of Relativity the Conservation of Momentum/ Conservation of Energy for a photon.
Calculating these, at the proper scale, we see that the photon must transfer its energy to an electron and then the photon is no more. We also see that the energy must be conserved. We see that this is done by ejecting a photon to balance the equation. Thus; we see that the photon always moves at "c" even through a medium.
You are correct that in the macro world scale of Newton and Coulomb, that light was viewed as an electromagnetic wave alone. To their scale, to say photons do not move at any speed other than "c" would sound like nonsense. But this topic, this thread, is about some researchers claiming to have slowed photons to a speed less than "c" in a vacuum. They did not do what they claim they did and ample evidence shows this. In it, we must examine Photon Behavior at a much smaller scale.

6. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Solid State Physics

Again, electrons have an "effective" mass in a medium, e.g. an optical glass with a lattice structure; to the concept of photo-electron does not apply. A "photon" conceived as a signal through a medium will lose energy, which is equivalent to "slowing down" quantum mechanically. If it is completely absorbed it has lost all its kinetic energy, and only contributes to local potential energy. That is, its relative velocity in the medium has slowed to zero

Of course one can postulate that a "photon" ceases to exist as a particle in a medium, since QM depends on probability, but individual quantum effects are irrelevant in describing a macro medium (otherwise, one would have to discuss atomic structure, local ionization, overlap integrals that describe the fields between atoms, etc.). Nevertheless, one can still characterize a generalized photon stream through a glass as an electromagnetic characterized by D and H fields, rather than E and B fields, as "in vacuo".

The point about the experiment is that light-on-light means that the "on-light" is a medium just like any other, although exceedingly "thin", so with the "on-light" turned on, light slows down compared with the "on-light" turned off (which is "in vacuo"). That is, light can interact with other light, but barely (and is actually a linear "gravity", since in this case, both frames are inertial, "meaning instantaneous" exchange of light mass is involved in the interaction)....

(One of the difficulties with STR is that it is pseudo-Rimannian - all interactions increase the "rest mass" of bosons. QFT introduces "creation and destruction operators", which are characterized by complex numbers - a "created" mass m^2 can be destroyed by "(i'm)^2" via Dirac's equations.... (the "sea of negative electrons" is actually imaginary i.e., electrons and holes (positrons) are fermions)...

(One really needs to study the Lorentz transforms, Einstein's modifications, and then Pauli and Dirac's enhancements to see this)

7. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
A "photon" conceived as a signal through a medium will lose energy, which is equivalent to "slowing down" quantum mechanically.
I do not agree. In this case, the photon is an "all or none" bet placer. Energy must be conserved. So, here, if the photon loses any energy at all, it loses all of it. Which - see below.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
If it is completely absorbed it has lost all its kinetic energy, and only contributes to local potential energy. That is, its relative velocity in the medium has slowed to zero
Yes. But I want to clarify, it does not 'slow down until it reaches zero.' It effectively goes from "c" to zero since all energy was absorbed into the electron.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Of course one can postulate that a "photon" ceases to exist as a particle in a medium, since QM depends on probability,
With all energy transferred, yes.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
but individual quantum effects are irrelevant in describing a macro medium (otherwise, one would have to discuss atomic structure, local ionization, overlap integrals that describe the fields between atoms, etc.). Nevertheless, one can still characterize a generalized photon stream through a glass as an electromagnetic characterized by D and H fields, rather than E and B fields, as "in vacuo".
I disagree. It is quite relevant. The reason being is that "c" is still a constant, even in the Earths atmosphere and even if light is refracting through it. "c" remains constant regardless of what emitted light is doing.
You are correct that it would be a helluva calculation... but it is physically possible to compute it. Generally, we don't, because close enough is good enough for our applications.
But for the topic of this thread, that clarity is relevant.

8. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

I just wrote another reply, but it got trashed somehow, and I don't want to do it again, but basically, the gist of it is that I finally actually read the article, and from what I think it says, I think you might have a point - they seem to be confusing classical physics and quantum mechanics, unless the light in the conic sections are interacting with each other (which is inertial effect - "gravity"); otherwise it is difficult to see why all frequencies shouldn't propagate at c no matter what the spatial configuration, since they are all traveling "in vacuo".

This sentence bothers me:

"A single pulse of light contains many photons, and scientists know that light pulses are characterised by a number of different velocities" - And what do they mean by "applying a mask"? Not only that, I'm not at all sure it makes sense to talk about the "group velocity" of individual photon, en masse or not. It seems to me they are confusing classical and quantum aspects of light - and I think one needs QFT to "count" photons or even characterize them correctly ...

And what the hell is an "axicon" Oh, ok Axicon

Silly me, I really don't know what I'm talking about, vis a vis the experiment. That said, it is a classical lens, so I'm suspicious about the qm aspect of it...

The only thing I can figure is that because the conic s03ections are not plane waves, transverse sections of the conic will have different E and B fields, but then the "spatial structures" are non-linear to begin with. The wave packet will be different, but each individual photon represented by a frequency will travel at c if its energy does not change through interaction, either with a different aether, or other photons.

If there is photon-on-photon interaction, it will change the energies, which will change the wave packet, which may be what they're referring to. (I gotta admit, I'm still trying to understand the actual physics underlying the Pauli and Dirac equations/matrices so didn't give the problem the tender, loving care it deserved. But then it took me awhile to figure out what the hell JG was trying to do, too (and was actually an interesting question in some ways). So my bad - the aether/media has nothing to do with the question of the experiment/paper.

But light does actually slow down in a media, as they point out in the first paragraph of the paper... it was rejection of this concept that goes against every known physical theory that I know of - refraction, effective mass, etc. This threw me off of actually reading what the paper said - and I had just gotten JG out of my head.....

Anyway, I've already been way too involved with this question, since I am intensely grinding other axes. It may be that I don't understand their experiment, also, so I'll take another look at it sometime in the next decade or so...

Note/Update: The analysis does seem to result from photon-on-photon interaction from the Huong-On-Mandel effect which is totally new to me, and may be way beyond my pay grade. I'll read it again, but I am kind of suspicious; nevertheless, it apparently is well known and referenced.... I am very suspicious of the mixture of geometrical optics, wave mechanics, and quantum field theory, though.

Nevertheless, I've only been wrong once in my life, and that was when I thought I made a mistake...

9. ## Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
they seem to be confusing classical physics and quantum mechanics, unless the light in the conic sections are interacting with each other
Given their abstract and description, I do think that light interacted with itself and that was where I raised the question as to how the group was affected as a whole.
But... after I read the rest and the response abstract, I concluded that I was wrong. I agree that light interacted with itself but isn't relevant. The reason that the beam was affected as a whole is quite obvious and the question itself merely an affect of how misleading the articles were: The group was affected as a whole because the entire beam was traveling in a straight line.
Some readers may wonder what was misleading... well that bit is both simple and technical at the same time. I'll stick the simple... The beam was offset at an angle. This meant that part of the beam width extended past the edge of the lens on the other side. That part was not registered by the equipment.
So, the research team could say that "only a part of the beam could be observed as being affected by the Bessel apparatus but the beam seemed to be affected as a whole." Well, of course it was! Unless light beams have started slithering in recent times...
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
This sentence bothers me:

"A single pulse of light contains many photons, and scientists know that light pulses are characterised by a number of different velocities" - And what do they mean by "applying a mask"? Not only that, I'm not at all sure it makes sense to talk about the "group velocity" of individual photon, en masse or not. It seems to me they are confusing classical and quantum aspects of light - and I think one needs QFT to "count" photons or even characterize them correctly ...
Yes, that "mask" description was... absurd. I can only hazard the guess that the article writer was possibly a student journalist. The article was written for the University newspaper where Mainstream News picked it up from.
It also appears none of those news agencies did any fact checking.
The "mask" description is terrible. A mask is very different from a lens.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
The only thing I can figure is that because the conic sections are not plane waves, transverse sections of the conic will have different E and B fields, but then the "spatial structures" are non-linear to begin with. The wave packet will be different, but each individual photon represented by a frequency will travel at c if its energy does not change through interaction, either with a different aether, or other photons.
Yes, exactly, but if they increase the distance it has to travel... then it will seem to take longer to reach the other end than it would in a similar experiment if the bessel beam was not used.
The difference in measurement between the two must have been very minute.

So, that really makes me wonder:
Pure and simple, were the teams motives (and possibly the article writer too) intentionally deceptive or misleading?
Given all of it, I have great difficulty extending Benefit of the Doubt. I suspect a bit of a Funding Issue.
Which is a problem, in my book. If scientists deceive donors and contributors in order to make a buck, they give everyone a bad name. While I certainly understand the troubles in securing research funding, things like this can decrease funding in the long run.
Why donate to an institution that swindled you before?

10. ## Relativistic Considerations

Well, I looked at the picture again, and from what I can tell, there are two light beams /lenses/ sources aimed directly at each other. But they are not meeting head-on, the conical lens orients the plane waves from each source at an angle. This creates a photon density between the lenses where the photons are interacting (the cross-hatched area), so the photons from any one side will be interacting ("slowed down" by the beam on the other side; remove one side, and the photons travel at c. The idea of the "mask" is to be able to remove one of the beams so create the initial condition of unimpeded light, and then remove the mask to apply the interacting beam.

However, if the waves were plane waves (no lenses), the beams would not interact either, and STR and momentum/energy conservation would apply.

This means that the photons must be interacting through their "polarization", or "spin". For this, one has to look at the Lorentz equations. There are two of them:

"Space" transform:

"Time" transform:

with

If one sets the observers' frame to x = ct, the "time-like" equations give t'=t, and one is left with the "space-like" transform:

Multiplying by c, we have:

This is the "Lorentz/Fitzgerald" contraction, where the leg of the MM is conceptually "shortened" to compensate for the null results of the experiment.

(bear with me, it takes awhile to prepare these equations.)

Note that this contraction is still in Galilean coordinates, with x, t, and v along the same axis:

The "Time Dilation" Equation"

Einstein made to postulates for STR.

1. The speed of light is constant in all inertial (non interacting) frames
2. The speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source.

Let's assume 1. is true for the time being.

Then v and c are independent of each other (no longer Galilean), and are described as vectors (v,c). If this is to be true for all possible values of v and c, they must be related by the scaling parameters t and t', so the vector space is now (vt',ct) with the auxiliary equation:

(ct')2 = (vt')2 + (ct)2,

better known as the "time dilation" equation:

Multiplying by c on both sides gives:

Note that this is the Lorentz equation in the unprimed frame, where the term has been dropped.

The relativistic expressions for Momentum and Energy conservation can be directly derived from the "time dilation" equation.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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