Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Is light constant at all?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Is light constant at all?

    Wow this is so strange. I was going to ask this same question before i made a hypothesis/theory on the multiverse. Is light a constant? Ok so Chk or Neverfly can u answer this pls. How come we know this universe is 13.8 billion years old?? Lets take away the dot.
    13 800 000 000 so when does it become 13 000 000 001? I know this must be estimated but what is it estimated from? If light can fad and xrays ect can fad, then maybe thats the limit of what we can detect, right now. This will change my hypothesis/theory. Let me know what u think tks. Lol also please keep it simple u can show proof but break it down for me because my math is not great and my cosmological terms are worse. However my logical brain may be undisputed lol.

  2. #2
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    We can make a very general estimate of the age of the universe based on how distant the most distant visible object is.
    It is more interesting how we estimate that distance, than it is how we estimate the age...
    But before delving into that, a point: EM radiation does not necessarily fade. Only muilti-amplitude EM radiation fades, light neither degrades nor fades at all.

    How the distance is estimated is by Redshift. The more redshifted an object is, the more distant it is and this can be calculated on a mathematical scale.
    --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
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    222

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Ok so light is a constant and never fades correct?

  4. #4
    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 Jason me View Post
    Ok so light is a constant and never fades correct?
    No.
    Light does not fade. What can happen is a Cone of light, over increased distance, will cause less photons to reach your optical equipment (eyes or camera). This is because the angle of trajectory will grow wider as distance increases, resulting in fewer photons reaching a small area. The photons do not degrade or fade.

    Also, Light is not a constant, "c" is a constant. The number "c" is merely a value that represents the uppermost bound at which anything can move through space in relation to another, but it is not the upper bound for the speed at which space itself can move.
    Light is a form of ElectroMagnetic radiation that is limited to "c." But it is no more "c" than a car is 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

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

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    In physics, c is the speed of light in a medium; it is slower in a plate of steel than in a parking lot. Einstein certainly meant the speed of light, but related to a system in which it exists as a physical property.

    This is because it takes longer; t' = t + for the same distance. In the parking lot, the speed of light is subjectively instantaneous, but it has been measured to be a specific value at sea level, on the surface of the earth. (The energy of light is very small at optical wavelengths, which is why it is irrelevant to Newton's equations.

    It was the problem of resolving the speed of light with electromagnetism (the measured speed of light) that let Einstein to develop STR, in which m' increases with an increase in v, so that m' = m , where m depends on the measured speed of light: m = ct, which can be identified as a distance in coordinate space m = x = ct. When the time dilation equation is applied, mass then increases with v ( is the density of light.

    If there is very little light (between galaxies, for example) the density of light becomes very small; if v decreases, then if v/c is to remaining the same, c must decrease as well. This is why a theory like SRT is called "gauge" invariant. To see this, one has to deconstruct v/c into its space time components, and select a common parameter between mass x = ct, x' = ct'.

    If we set t = t' = 1, then m = c, so a change in rest mass (the zero point mass for a unit time c=m/t = m) to a different value requires a change in c. If c = 0, m=0, and there is "nothing there"

    A different rest mass than the one in the parking lot (the galaxy vs the piece of steel), which will require a different value of c for that zero point energy.

    The experiment where to laser beams are shined at each other is one where the group velocity of a signal with one laser off is compared with that with an interfering laser turned on. The laser that is turned on creates a new reference level ("medium") in which c slows down because of the increased medium in comparison with the laser turned off. (a piece of steel introduces a much more dramatic effect). This is because the total energy of the system is greater than the energy of the single laser beam.

    Neverfly seems to think that if one imagines a delay in a physical process without any energy exchange, that is sufficient (like watching a movie of a laser burning through a piece of steel and timing the process with a stopwatch). It is an absurd position with respect to actual physical processes.

    The real physical process that takes place when the laser hits the steel is much more complicated than that.....

    The universe is NOT the surface of the earth, however, and cosmology is a fools' errand.

    Einstein's equations (The field equations) include the stress-energy tensor, which means much more than a thought experiment. It means that any change in the metric tensor is a perturbation to the "rest" tensor (the Schwarzchild radius), as an "acceleration" - an increase in mass from a source outside the original conserved system.

    In a space time diagram, where x is the abscissa, and t is the ordinate, if the equation x = ct is a distance (the speed of light travels), then if t = 0, x = 0, which means that the only information we have about the outside "universe" is the photons ("information") that are hitting us at any given moment. Anything else is an extrapolation based on our local (experimentally determined) parameters, including galactic motion, etc. which requires interpretation of images on focal planes in terms of the constants of our parking lot. If our position changes from our parking lot to inside a piece of steel (or even swimming underwater in a lake), the physical processes determining the way we will relate to (and interpret) our environment will change drastically).

    We can only imagine existing (observing) from a point between galaxies - but we can do experiments on what happens inside a piece of steel .....

    The so-called "light cone" is only affected by gravity, which is just another name for a different medium of light... red shift is a change in the quantum energy of incoming photons compared to a blackbody at a given temperature on the surface of the earth ... such a change is a change in energy; a change in a so-called "light cone" can only be observed at the origin (where x = t = 0) at our local sensors.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-25-2016 at 05:05 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.

  6. #6
    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
    In physics, c is the speed of light in a medium;
    No, that is not the value of "c" in physics. Right off the bat, you got it wrong.
    You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time...
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Neverfly seems to think that if one imagines a delay in a physical process without any energy exchange, that is sufficient
    Since I have been consistently pointing out the Conservation of Energy in each incident of our butting heads over your "variable Constant c" issue, there is not one single person that could possibly accept your claim that I am "imagining a physical process without an energy exchange." I have repeatedly and clearly described the process, including the energy exchange, a dozen times over.
    I have described it in TEX with formulas, and you say I have not done so.
    I have posted literally dozens of separate links to University and journal pages as well as online references, and you claim I have not done so.
    And you often say I have said thing's that are vastly different from what I have said.
    Chuck, I really wonder about your honesty.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 10-25-2016 at 11:42 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

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    No, that is not the value of "c" in physics. Right off the bat, you got it wrong.
    You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time...

    Since I have been consistently pointing out the Conservation of Energy in each incident of our butting heads over your "variable Constant c" issue, there is not one single person that could possibly accept your claim that I am "imagining a physical process without an energy exchange." I have repeatedly and clearly described the process, including the energy exchange, a dozen times over.
    I have described it in TEX with formulas, and you say I have not done so.
    I have posted literally dozens of separate links to University and journal pages as well as online references, and you claim I have not done so.
    And you often say I have said thing's that are vastly different from what I have said.
    Chuck, I really wonder about your honesty.
    What honesty? He has none. He is just like 777777, Astrotech, and Gabriel. A dishonest crank

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

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    The point is that momentum and energy of light is conserved provided the interactions are accounted for. This is the whole point of Special Relativity. If two photons interact, they interact relativistically, through an interaction. For electrons, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Pauli characterized this interaction as spin (independent of charge.) Dirac applied STR, which includes the relativistic interpretation of "v" as an interaction energy rather than a "space-time" velocity. It is this interaction energy that causes the laser to interact with the potential energy between the atoms in the plate of steel, heating it up, and causing it to melt. Einstein's goal showed that light and matter are equivalent E = mc^2. He then turned to the question of light-on-light (i.e., gravity)

    For the steel plate in the parking lot example, imagine if you can observe from only a single point in the system.

    For local gravity, the total momentum conservation is electromagnetic interaction between our feet and the surface of the earth, with a vastly different h that includes both us and the earth modeled as a total linear system.

    Subjectively, because we "feel" it, we think it is different from light. Because we can observe the physical size of the moon, we assume that its relation to earth is different from light. However, if the earth and the moon are considered an isolated system, they can be modeled as a quantum system, with a vastly different value of h (but there is no "sea" of negative gravitational objects to yield the anti-matter concept.

    For GTR (observation of events far away), one only observes only the one photon of such an interaction; the other is scattered, and becomes part of the CBR (for other observers - that is, if it is observed, it is observed "somewhere" else). But the accumulation of such effects can be observed locally as either red-shift (energy loss by photons in the way/going the other way - spin interactions in the direction of motion) to an incoming photon - assuming the sources and sensors are identical) or Einstein rings - lateral displacements of photons due to spin interactions lateral to a straight (unperturbed) geodesic. We observe these effects as the incoming photons interact with a real lens (more specifically, the potential energy within the lens, which appears as electron charge modeled as overlap integrals of the lattice structure)

    The mass of light in our local parking lot was determined by Maxwell as E and B fields, using permittivity/permeability force constants, related to Newton's laws by the Lorentz force. The problem is relating the concept of charge with the concept of spin, relativistically. Pauli provides a model where only the interaction is modeled, with the torsion as (equal and opposite) rotation around the direction of motion in the two matrices that model the interaction. The third matrix is a model of charge, interpreted as an initial condition. The energy of the interaction is qvB from Maxwell's equations plus mv (momentum from Newton's equations), but the rest mass of the total system is not included in Pauli's characterization. The final result (the "interaction") includes a real component and the initial spin, but there is ambiguity - does the third matrix +/- 1 model spin or charge? the final two perturbation matrices and only model a spin (+/- complex number) and two bosons (real, positive charges), where as the "initial matrix" models only real charge.

    The spin is a torsion around a coordinate axis, so is independent of the three axes of either Maxwell's or Newton's equations, and is modeled by the complex component of the Pauli matrices .
    The rest mass is included by Dirac as a negative "velocity" perturbation provided by a fermion rather than a boson, thus yielding the model of matter/anti-matter.


    Dirac's model solves the issue relativistically provided the interactions are equal and opposite; for STR this is a reasonable assumption for two identical photons with the same mass/wavelength, and so conserves momentum and energy for the interaction - that is, there is no additional energy absorbed/emitted. This is because the final expression is in terms of quantized energy, with relativistically, as observed locally.

    Because of the uncertainty principle, the only way of detecting and verifying light on light interaction would be a change in energy of the total system - a change in group velocity from an unperturbed single photon stream in a recent experiment to that of a perturbed system excited by a second photon beam. Quantum mechanics doesn't help if the "speed" (i.e. mass) of the system is constant - the second beam creates a medium, a perturbation of the ground state.

    It is a difficult experiment technically because of the minimum mass - maximum speed of light is very small/fast, and so requires attention to detail in source and sensor. Other experiments have "stopped" photons in electromagnetic fields, which again, is photon/photon interaction, if photons are electromagnetic in nature, and electromagnetism has mass (which it does).

    For a conserved relativistic system, the momentum is included in the final state, which becomes a new mass (rest energy/ground state)

    For GTR, energy is only conserved in straight geodesics - if photons along a straight geodesic have equal and opposite spins, then if the geodesic is perturbed (curved) they must be excited by photons externally interacting with the geodesic, unbalancing the boson balance in the Pauli characterization, or and additional perturbing matrix to the Dirac gamma matrices.

    The is what Einstein is modeling in the stress-energy tensor, where the additional local energy perturbation is a change in the underlying linear metric. (The Schwartzchild radius models the unperturbed system). These perturbations are "virtual", or imagined from some unseen body (dark matter), which is impossible to locate perecisely in space-time (that's why it is dark). That is why Einstein rejected QM as spooky "action at a distance". (If an Einstein lens is a laser "steel" object, it can only be characterized by observing one photon stream at the sensor, and imagining everything else)

    I am working on the Pauli/Dirac/Lorentz GTR interaction relationship at present (which unifies the theory), but am convinced the equations are much simpler ("Quantum triviality" applies". I am close to a final result, and my proof of Fermat's theorem resulted in my making the connection between it and the Binomial Theorem, which only deals with bosons, and does not conserve energy for n=2, as the non-interacting particles do (and even those particles do not conserve energy in the whole system for one quadrant, since the conserved ). The other three quadrants add sin and cos so the final result is linear.

    Neverfly, like Emperorzelos, has his head up his ass.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-26-2016 at 12:52 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
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: BuleriaChk's Ignore List

    In other words, no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus (that we have detected so far). There are only two observers, thee and me, and I'm not altogether sure about thee....
    _______________________________________
    "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.

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

    Default Special Theory of Gravity

    Gravitational effects can be included as a linear perturbation by analogy with STR.

    If ct' (the final state for electromagnetism on the surface of the earth where all perturbations vt' to the ground state ct have been included), then gravity can be included by adding another term gt", where g is the perturbation (mass creation) due to gravity (photons external to a straight geodesic), and t" is the gravitational mass creation time, integrated along the total path of the geodesic from source to sensor.

    then

    and the equivalent equations for mass and energy apply

    (gt" is the long leg of a triangle that includes the path ct' to the center of the Einstein ring from the surface of the earth at ct', and gt" is the radius of the Einstein ring.

    In the STR diagrams, simply substitute gt" for vt' in the equations.

    Within a plate of steel (a single observer) c is different from an observer in the parking lot. the factor of t" can again be considered as a scaling factor on c. (And/or the perturbation resulting from red shift, if ct' is taken to be the final state and gt" the initial state).
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 10-26-2016 at 01:25 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 7 123 ... 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
  •