Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
Like Tree1Likes

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

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

    Default Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    I stumbled across this article yesterday and thought it was interesting.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0123144158.htm
    The claim basically states that a team of researchers at the University of Glasgow have used spatial structuring to demonstrate a group velocity of very slightly less than 'c' for the propagation of light in a vacuum.

    Here is the report presented by the team.
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.3987.pdf

    The team used a Bessel beam to create conical light-wave fronts. This is what spatial structuring means, it produced a group of photons that were set at an angle to the beam. What this may mean is that the photon group needed to travel a bit of extra distance to reach the target.
    This is analogous to a basic race with two teams at the starting line. One team, however, must start at the inner most edge of the track and race toward a goal out the outermost portion of the track at the end. The other team would take a straight path.
    What is interesting is that it effected the beam as a whole.

    This leads me to believe that the beam and the photons were not slowed down. Rather, the distance of travel was increased and the individual photons still moved at "c."
    Thoughts? Is the article claim misleading?

    ETA:
    This comment appears to agree:
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06059.pdf
    Last edited by Neverfly; 04-28-2016 at 01:16 AM. Reason: Corrected misplacement of link. And typoes...
    --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. #2
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ETA:
    This comment appears to agree:
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06059.pdf
    Correction, that linked article definitely agrees. I guess I should have read that before I posted. OH well...
    An interesting piece on the "Spin" often seen in popsci style articles.
    --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

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

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    So, I slept on it. Got up this morning, did some work and stuff, you know how it goes... Around noon I went back and re-read the original article:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0123144158.htm

    Ohh... Stupid ScienceDaily dot com... You really went and did it, didn't you?
    ScienceDaily swiped the whole thing from here, which is the Universities Newspaper. Probably an automated function.

    I quote:
    Scientists have managed to slow photons in free space for the first time. They have demonstrated that applying a mask to an optical beam to give photons a spatial structure can reduce their speed.
    Right off the bat, the article is making wanton assumptions and jumping to conclusions while being very vague. What the devil is the "mask?" Why did the author call it that?
    Anyway, the author claims, "for the first time." The research teams own abstract made it clear that this is not the first time this has been done. The team was using another method in this experiment.
    The author then states that it reduces the speed of the photons. False.
    ... it has generally been thought impossible for particles of light, known as photons, to be slowed as they travel through free space, unimpeded by interactions with any materials.

    In a new paper published in Science Express (snip), researchers from the University of Glasgow and Heriot-Watt University describe how they have managed to slow photons in free space for the first time.
    The premise is that it has thought to be impossible but then these scientists went and done it.
    Wrong.
    The researchers found that one photon reached the finish line as predicted, but the structured photon which had been reshaped by the mask arrived later, meaning it was travelling more slowly in free space.
    Wrong.
    The work demonstrates that, after passing the light beam through a mask, photons move more slowly through space. Crucially, this is very different to the slowing effect of passing light through a medium such as glass or water, where the light is only slowed during the time it is passing through the material -- it returns to the speed of light after it comes out the other side. The effect of passing the light through the mask is to limit the top speed at which the photons can travel.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
    I am embarrassed. When I first read the article, I was intrigued, too. I suckered in, too. I started to make the O.P. but even as I was typing, questions were popping up in my mind. In the end, I put my foot in my mouth...
    But I figured that it still can stand as an example of bias or spin to an article. At this point, I could chalk the whole thing up to a writer that adds "flavor" to his piece in order to get views and hits. But it gets More Interesting as you read the commentary from the Research Team Itself:

    Co-lead author Jacquiline Romero said: "We've achieved this slowing effect with some subtle but widely-known optical principles. This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum.

    "Although we measure the effect for a single photon, it applies to bright light beams too. The effect is biggest when the lenses used to create the beam are large and when the distance over which the light is focused is small, meaning the effect only applies at short range."

    Professor Padgett added: "It might seem surprising that light can be made to travel more slowly like this, but the effect has a solid theoretical foundation and we're confident that our observations are correct.

    "The results give us a new way to think about the properties of light and we're keen to continue exploring the potential of this discovery in future applications. We expect that the effect will be applicable to any wave theory, so a similar slowing could well be created in sound waves, for example." and we're confident that our observations are correct.
    The wording used by each of those team members makes it very clear that they knew exactly what was going on and it was their intention to be misleading.
    Note how it is carefully put, in a way that if confronted about it, they can easily backpedal. But if not confronted, they can as easily stick to their guns. The author of the article, not knowing any better, was probably excitedly writing it down.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 04-28-2016 at 01:15 PM.
    --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. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    To the reader: I started a more relevant discussion (from my perspective) in post #18. Until then, I hadn't really read the paper - my bad..

    ================================================== ==========================

    If you always use quantum mechanics to test the speed of light you will always come out with c a constant.

    The key issue is by Maxwell's equation, for linearity, , where is the "permittivity" constant (from Coulomb's law) and is the "permeability" constant (from Ampere's law) from Maxwell's theory, using the concept of displacement current for space-time between two plates of a theoretic capacitor connected to an AC source. It is responsible for his theory of propagation of light, where the "vacuum" is the path between the plates. Permittivity and permeability parameters are tweaked to agree with experiment, but if they fail, so do Maxwell's equations.

    The "current" in the Electromagnetic Field Tensor (A) is a statement of this, since it basically models the energy=momentum of light and is constant with gauge (so with choice of gauge, local theories are gauge invariant).

    Anything that can contribute to a change in either permittivity (D field) or permeability (H) field will thus change the "speed" of light, and also its relativistic expression. To see this, consider

    where is photon mass at a given frequency, and m0 = ct. Obviously, c is dependent on the constancy of other parameters, so any argument depending on qm parameters is circular; the MEASURED speed of light depends finally on permeability and permittivity if Maxwell's equations (and the whole validity of QFT) are valid.

    Within a material, D and H field apply instead of the E and B fields that characterize the Electromagnetic Field Tensor in vacuo. This is because permittivity and/or permittivity change within a material due to the atomic structure within and their corresponding fields, which produce effective light/on light interaction due to mass interactions of the A' field (which has changed) within the material. So the MEASURED speed of light in a material really does slow down, as is the foundation of theory of quantum optics, where these interactions are taken into consideration.

    General Relativity assumes that locally (in our solar system) the "speed" of light is constant on a curved geodesic (but a photon will take longer than a photon on a straight geodesic where gravitating matter is not present - this effect is responsible for "Einstein rings" which assumes light-on-light as the cosmological lens material.
    Locally, it is the polarization spin (a very, VERY small effect between individual photons), but which produce an effect over cosmological distances - this is the basis of "dark matter" the photons one doesn't "see" produces the effect (since they are not in line of sight) (although one can detect such clouds using sensitive equipment these days)

    Einstein's "curvature" is simply a model of this effect - it can also be modeled by a model of differing photon/density with photon interactions over large volumes of flat space. However, because the speed of light is not constant over these large distances, the Christoffel symbols do not cancel, and global energy is not conserved (since in Einstein's view, action at a distance is rejected, and only local interactions apply - for curvature, at infinitesimal points on the geodesic so tensor analysis can be used.

    The GTR interaction (where curvature models mass interaction) is similar to the end result of the D and H interactions (which change the EM Field Tensor by altering A) - Newton's Gravitational law (action at a distance) does not model "spin" (global polarization) which is necessary for curvature.

    The model in QFT has its roots in the Pauli/Dirac equations, which include the effect of spin for Relativity. This can be shown to be related to the Lorentz force by the proper interpretation of the Lorentz transform. (via the extra piece that makes it different from the "time dilation" equation in the frame x = ct

    Locally photon on photon interaction is very small (gravitational interaction between photons, but including spin polarization). The experiment is trying to create the environment in a material by using photon interaction only, without D and H fields, thus providing a second order change ("acceleration") in the "velocity - 0 momentum" of A (the key requirement in the EM field equation is there is no first order change in A).

    IMO these are the key concepts one needs to master to understand the ideas behind "the constancy of c" - especially the conditions of the measuring apparatus and the error bars that mitigate absolute assumptions.

    But you really have to do the math....

    IMO, Neverfly's declaration of the constancy of c is one of faith in the popular literature (without measurement or even a quantum analysis of the MM experiment), whereas Einstein declared it a constant locally based on conservation of mass of non-interacting particles (including photons and electrons), and the idea that c is invariant locally at infinitesimal points on a given global geodesic (where the actual gravitating object is filled in by the imagination - otherwise known as "dark matter").

    If one can bend a laser beam with a local "H" EM field in vacuo, one can also "slow it down" using a similar "D" field.

    "Overall, the self-bending beam does have its limits—the bullets do not deviate from a straight line by more than the beam's diameter. "If the beam is one centimeter [in diameter]," Polynkin says, "it won't curve more than one centimeter."

    (the above quote is due to quantum mechanics)

    Cosmologically, these effects are referred to as "Einstein Rings" and "Red Shift" (which actually means that photons are losing energy, rather than the universe "expanding") respectively. The Gravity B probe tested "frame dragging" (along geodesic w.r.t earth) and "geodetic" effect directed toward the center of the earth .... but the bottom line is a local change in c - either conceived as mass of "speed" (The experiment was arguably successful - the effect is VERY difficult to measure locally, which is why c is a constant for all practical purposes (Earth is very big, and the accelerometers/gyroscopes are very "small"....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 05-05-2016 at 11:18 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. #5
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    BuleriaChK,
    You fail to grasp that photons always move at "c" and there is no time at which photons move at less than "c."
    You mistake the illusion that light can be slowed when interacting with a medium to mean that the constant "c" is being changed, changing or is a Variable.
    As has been repeatedly explained:
    - The constant "c" is a constant and is not dependent on the Speed of Light.
    - Photons always move at "c" even in a gravity well or through a medium.
    Everything you typed out below is based on the mistaken assumption that the end result of delaying photon passage through a medium means that "light slowed down" and that "This also magically changes the value of the constant "c."
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Anything that can contribute to a change in either permittivity (D field) or permeability (H) field will thus change the "speed" of light, and also its relativistic expression.
    This statement is wrong and this is not what Einsteins equations describe.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Within a material, D and H field apply instead of the E and B fields that characterize the Electromagnetic Field Tensor in vacuo. This is because permittivity and/or permittivity change within a material due to the atomic structure within and their corresponding fields, which produce effective light/on light interaction due to mass interactions of the A' field (which has changed) within the material. So the MEASURED speed of light in a material really does slow down, as is the foundation of theory of quantum optics, where these interactions are taken into consideration.
    Partly correct. Your measured speed is delayed, and therefor must be corrected. However, this demonstrates that correction by conservation of energy is necessary to account for those interactions, not that "c" changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    General Relativity assumes that locally (in our solar system) the "speed" of light is constant on a curved geodesic (but a photon will take longer than a photon on a straight geodesic where gravitating matter is not present - this effect is responsible for "Einstein rings" which assumes light-on-light as the cosmological lens material.
    This is very much in tune with the article topic in which:
    - Photons move only at "c" and
    - The distance traveled was increased generating a longer time for light to arrive.
    Nitpick: GR does not assume the value of "c" to be a constant. Now, it is true that Einstein did need to accept that as an axiom 100 years ago. But in the time since, experimental verification has repeatedly supported it as a Standing Theory and Working Model in mainstream science.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    However, because the speed of light is not constant over these large distances
    This is your assumption.
    In fact, a great deal of what you wrote in this section leads me to believe that you are operating under another assumption; One produced from a personal model. Do you have an hypothesis that Unifies the Standard Model with Relativity? It certainly appears that way. It appears as though you are saying that there are particles out in the vast empty spaces between galaxies that are entangled with particles here in local space. It appears as though you are using formulas for correcting the distortion of values from shining of a laser through a medium on Earth to make predictions about light in the vacuum of free space, between galaxies.
    I could be wrong, please correct me if I am.
    A lot of what you have written is quite brilliant, but I also think; mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    The experiment is trying to create the environment in a material by using photon interaction only, without D and H fields, thus providing a second order change ("acceleration") in the "velocity - 0 momentum" of A (the key requirement in the EM field equation is there is no first order change in A).
    This is incorrect. In fact, the experiment did not deal with polarization at all. The experiment relied on the beam as a whole, while suggesting that groups of photons affected the entirety by being "Spatially structured" but it merely increased the distance within which light had to travel, something you alluded to above with your example about Einstein Rings.
    The rebuttal by Horvath in which he mathematically took it step by step makes it quite clear that the research team was well aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    IMO, Neverfly's declaration of the constancy of c is one of faith in the popular literature (without measurement or even a quantum analysis of the MM experiment)
    Itis not a declaration of faith. Rather, it is supported by a multitude of experiments including a variety still ongoing by CERN, many of which are based on laser measurements here on Earth, Lasers used to measure in space, aboard missions, using the lunar reflectors left by Apollo astronauts and so on.
    You reference the Michelson-Morley experiment which was conducted in 1887 but neglect hundreds of experiments and their data in the time since.
    This is not faith, BuleriaChK, it is the Scientific Method.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    whereas Einstein declared it a constant locally based on conservation of mass of non-interacting particles (including photons and electrons), and the idea that c is invariant locally at infinitesimal points on a given global geodesic (where the actual gravitating object is filled in by the imagination - otherwise known as "dark matter").
    This entire statement is false. So false, in fact as to be very self-contradictory. If what you say is true, there would be no Theory of Relativity. If Einstein had followed your reasoning, if he thought that "c" was a variable, as you state, then he would not have fit the puzzles together to understand that given the factors, something had to give and if it was not "c" that was changing, the "t" was.
    You see, Einstein knew that Photons always propagate at following a rigid constant. That meant that the Lorentz contraction must apply to Mass and Time.
    Your version is that "c" changes with interaction with matter (It doesn't. At All. Ever. Only light appears to and that is due to delays caused by photons being absorbed and then emitted. But Light is Not "c". Light is only limited by "c.")
    That bit about Dark Matter is entirely misplaced. Einstein had nothing to do with Dark Matter nor did his theory have any relation to it. It is irrelevant. Dark Matter was the brainchild of Fritz Swicky. It has no bearing on the formulation of Relativity.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    If one can bend a laser beam with a local "H" EM field in vacuo, one can also "slow it down" using a similar "D" field.
    Misleading. Photons are not being demonstrated to move at less than "c" in either of those experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Cosmologically, these effects are referred to as "Einstein Rings" and "Red Shift" (which actually means that photons are losing energy, rather than the universe "expanding") respectively.
    Again, it sounds as though you are pushing Pet Hypothesis into threads. You disagree with Dark Energy, I take it? Start your own thread in the ATM section to discuss it, then.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    The Gravity B probe tested "frame dragging" (along geodesic w.r.t earth) and "geodetic" effect directed toward the center of the earth .... but the bottom line is a local change in c - either conceived as mass of "speed" (The experiment was arguably successful - the effect is VERY difficult to measure locally, which is why c is a constant for all practical purposes (Earth is very big, and the accelerometers/gyroscopes are very "small"....
    This entire statement is very misleading.
    Gravity Probe B was not devised nor operated under any assumption that "c" is in fact, not constant. You injected that in there as your own assumption. The experiment, in fact, relied on the constant "c" in order to yield its very successful results.
    --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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    BuleriaChK,
    You fail to grasp that photons always move at "c" and there is no time at which photons move at less than "c
    .
    This may be your religion, but is based on a logical postulate of Einstein's (which satisfies local conditions) , and even he would not accept it as a universal absolute, especially within materials - that's what the "time dilation" equation is all about. And certainly no one else within the scientific community, especially within materials.

    In fact, GTR and geodesics are just an alternative to the specification of media, in order to avoid action at a distance in favor of a field theory.. but you have to know what a field theory means in terms of gauge invariance....

    (I didn't see any equations in your post).

    Even in the time dilation equation where ct' = ct0, t' can be considered a scaling factor on c given a specific t0 as an initial condition (e.g., t0=1), thus effectively changing it. (Hey work out the equation; it ain't all THAT difficult) That is, it takes longer for a photon affected by v to travel a given distance than an unperturbed photon.



    That is, the density increases with v; for space, a photon affected by a change in v will not travel as far as a photon in vacuo - x'/= x0 (you have to deconstruct v/c to see this, as I did in my pdf.)

    You are obviously not at all interested in the Lorentz transform or its relation to the Electromagnetic Field Tensor... (you may even think electromagnetic fields are unrelated to the properties of light as electromagnetic radiation.)

    In the latter link, scroll down to "Propagation Speed" and then read the main article.

    "In a medium (other than vacuum), velocity factor or refractive index are considered, depending on frequency and application. Both of these are ratios of the speed in a medium to speed in a vacuum"

    (If Wiki is not satisfactory, I can find many, many other references at this "first year" level of physics....)

    Otherwise known as = v/c

    But there is no point in going further - since for you, it is a question of faith, not science. You are beginning to sound very much like John Gabriel (but without even any equations) ...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 04-29-2016 at 08:26 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.

  7. #7
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    This may be your religion, but is based on a hypothesis of Einstein's, and even he would not accept it as a universal absolute.
    And certainly no one else within the scientific community, especially within materials.

    But there is no point in going further - since for you, it is a question of faith, not science..
    I disagree. It is based on hard evidence, not on any kind of religious faith. You misquote Einstein and you present your faith based on your own misconception of what it means for light/photons to interact with matter.
    As such, I have challenged you in Cage Match. There, you have the option to vigorously defend your position and so do I.
    There, you may put up evidence to support your assertion that "c" changes, that photons change "speed" and so on. Until you do so, your claims must be taken with a grain of salt: Assertions without Support.
    --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

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Where have I misquoted Einstein? "Hard Evidence?" I'm interested... (well, ok, not really...)

    And I am absolutely, totally uninterested in a cage match. Anyone with a scientific background will understand both the Wiki links and my analysis.

    I have offered to walk you through the Lorentz transform as the foundation for both Special and General Theory of Relativity, and can quote from innumerable sources, but if you are not interested in what Einstein (or even Maxwell) actually proposed (or the Christoffel parameters mean eventually) then I have no more to discuss with you.

    But here is one of the books I am familiar with:

    "The Principle of Relativity" by Peter S. Bergmann; (forward by Einstein) it is inexpensive, and I will be happy to work (and quote) from there or any other reference of your choice (other than your imagination).

    Here's another (easier):

    "Introduction to Tensor Calculus, Relativity, and Cosmology", by D. F. Lawden

    (I have read and can quote from Einstein's original papers, as well, and will discuss those)

    Relativity Theory: Original Papers of Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein

    All of the above ONLY in terms of the equations and their interpretations... not mental mind groping.

    Otherwise, I call bullshit on such a Cage Match... and I'm ending my participation here, you can talk to yourself there....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 04-29-2016 at 09:16 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.

  9. #9
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    This may be your religion
    You keep claiming "religion" or "faith" as a red herring. This is, interestingly, what religious people do when debating with an atheist; they claim that the atheists lack of belief is a faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    (I didn't see any equations in your post).
    I see some in yours. Let's take a look:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Even in the time dilation equation where ct' = ct0, t' can be considered a scaling factor on c given a specific t0 as an initial condition (e.g., t0=1), thus effectively changing it. (Hey work out the equation; it ain't all THAT difficult) That is, it takes longer for a photon affected by v to travel a given distance than an unperturbed photon.



    That is, the density increases with v; for space, a photon affected by a change in v will not travel as far as a photon in vacuo - x'/= x0 (you have to deconstruct v/c to see this, as I did in my pdf.)
    Slight of hand and misapplication of the equation. You are trying to apply the Time Dilation equation to a photon. Einstein would have called that total nonsense. A photon has no mass.
    Additionally, in order to set time at zero, (because for the photon, time does not even exist since it has a 100% time dilation factor) something has to give. So you change "v"... but "v" cannot be changed since light only propagates at "c." Since the equation must balance, you and up changing "c" and while that may look interesting, it's only an erroneous result of misapplying the wrong formula to the wrong task.
    Didn't you just say that doing the math wasn't all that difficult?
    Let's try that again:
    Photon v;


    This is why you cannot change "v."

    I guess that, like John Gabriel, you decided that I am only a mechanic and wouldn't know anything about Relativity. Guess again.
    I'm actually pretty smart.
    I enjoy my work. Doesn't mean that I am limited to it.
    As you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Anyone with a scientific background will understand...
    On that, we agree.
    This also goes back to me pointing out that you are misattributing things to Einstein which I'll go into a bit more later.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    [B]"In a medium (other than vacuum), velocity factor or refractive index are considered, depending on frequency and application. Both of these are ratios of the speed in a medium to speed in a vacuum"
    Again, these are mostly true. But only to a point.
    Light appears to slow down through a medium. However, photons always move at "c."
    I have explained both the math, the Laws of Conservation and the reasoning to you repeatedly but this has become more about your ego and less about science. You reject the science, the math and the laws of conservation because it conflicts with your idea. All the while claiming I am the one clinging to faith. No, you are clinging to ego and rejecting the science along with the proper application of the mathematics.
    You can't just stick equations where they don't fit and claim you got a result.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Where have I misquoted Einstein?
    And now we go to this. You have, several times, made the claim that Einstein didn't believe in his own theory etc. etc. You have quoted him without quote tags. This is nonsense. IF you are going to quote the man, supply evidence. Supply a quote to reference. Don't just assert that Einstein said such and such and expect the readers to believe it.
    What you appear to be misquoting him on is the topic of his "Cosmological Constant."
    The cosmological constant was not necessary for Relativity in any way. It served the purpose of keeping local space static. Nothing more. He did retract it and expressed regret for it, calling it his greatest blunder. How ironic...
    But he has never expressed doubt nor regret for the constant "c" as you claim. But... if you can produce evidence that he did... As you say...

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    And I am absolutely, totally uninterested in a cage match. Anyone with a scientific background will understand both the Wiki links and my analysis.
    I have understood them and as above demonstrates- Refuted them. This is why the cage match was offered; to prevent the War of Egos in thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I have offered to walk you through
    And I have offered you the evidence and mathematics of why a photon is demonstrated to always move at "c" and how "c" is still the same constant uniformly. You reject it, however, because you are, I think, having great difficulty coping with being wrong about something.
    --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

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

    Default Re: Photons slowed to less than 'c' in vacuum by reconfiguring spatial orientatation

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    Snip
    You don't understand space-time and its relation to either the Lorentz transform or the time dilation equation. So you are stuck in inertial frames where c is assumed to be constant (flat, local space-time) so you're position is circular; a tautology. "c" is constant because it is constant. 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". 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.

    Einstein is only interested in making Maxwell's laws consistent with Newton's (E and B fields consistent with an auxiliary condition on A in the 4-imensional EM field tensor (which includes permittivity and permeability as constants, BUT the trace of the matrix is zero...)

    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.

    However, it is true that local c is the only filter we have through which we see the universe, since all our observations are local; there are no "two observers" - there is only photon impact on a focal plane. So we are doomed to our limited perspective, except that we are just discovering dark energy and matter...

    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)

    (Einstein interpreted this in frames, but it is better interpreted in terms of mass of a increased mass of a medium - compared to no medium (i.e., in vacuo), which is the environment in which we live and breath (although this medium actually does exist - it is our electromagnetic/gravitational environment).

    But within matter, signal propagation speed decreases, which is what that v indicates, which is really, really obvious if you understand the Lorentz transform... B

    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...)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 04-30-2016 at 12:47 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.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •