# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?  (Read 16569 times)

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #25 on: 18/09/2014 13:49:40 »
The equivalence creating physics, repeatable experiments. To get to it you need to make all 'points' equivalent relative constants.
I'm sorry yor-on, I'm still not clear what you mean.

As for Robert Close, he's new to me. had a look and read.

"A Dirac-like equation is derived by factoring the one-dimensional wave equation..."

That's not in the paper I said you should read. The paper I said you should read starts off saying this:

"Einstein’s special theory of relativity postulates that the speed of light is a constant for all
inertial observers. This postulate can be used to derive the Lorenz transformations relating length
and time measurements by different observers. In this paper it is shown that the Lorentz
transformations can be obtained for any type of wave simply by defining distance to be
proportional to wave propagation time..."

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #26 on: 18/09/2014 13:59:41 »
'Locality' versus observer dependencies. One assumption physics make is that you can place yourself anywhere in this universe and find constants locally equivalent. How would a wave universe define (explain) it, in your own words please.
=

We can put it this way, assume it is a wave universe. How do you define positions to it? What should 'dimensions' be seen as? In what way should every position in 'time and room' be considered equivalent? That as it needs to build on a equivalence too, unless it is a new logic system, defining it otherwise than from any idea of constants. And what would a arrow be? And gravity?
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 14:16:29 by yor_on »

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #27 on: 18/09/2014 14:27:37 »
'Locality' versus observer dependencies. One assumption physics make is that you can place yourself anywhere in this universe and find constants locally equivalent. How would a wave universe define (explain) it, in your own words please.
You define your second and your metre using the local motion of waves, then you use them to measure the local motion of waves, so you always measure the same value. It looks like the speed of light is absolutely utterly constant, even though it's not. Hence you have the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507 :

"Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is “one light-year per year”, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

We can put it this way, assume it is a wave universe. How do you define positions to it?
Using the motion of waves.

What should 'dimensions' be seen as?
As now, the motion of waves through space over time.

In what way should every position in 'time and room' be considered equivalent?
Because you measure both using the motion of light.

That as it needs to build on a equivalence too, unless it is a new logic system, defining it otherwise than from any idea of constants.
You don't need a new logic system, you just need to appreciate how the wave nature of matter relates to special relativity. Read that paper.

And what would a arrow be? And gravity?
The arrow of time is an abstract thing. Gravity is where light curves and matter falls down because a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star conditions the surrounding space altering its properties such that motion through it is modelled as curved spacetime.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #28 on: 18/09/2014 14:43:15 »
Maybe it's about where we stand looking at it, I stand locally anchored. This mean that the common universe we see becomes somewhat of a mirage to me, at least as defined from any 'commonality', aka a seamlessly existing 'same for us all' universe. Presuming this universe to be the exact same for you as for me, ignoring what time dilations and Lorentz contractions tell us, the problem could be reduced to what the 'stuff' inside it is made of.

Most people probably do so, and so they do not see it as I see. You might put it as they have their minds made up. 'This universe exist, I can 'touch  it', and so can you, therefore we exist in it together'. If you don't use that prerequisite, the 'field' becomes open for other interpretations. When Einstein looked for that fifth dimension I see it as he used that prerequisite, the definition of a 'container' in where we all exist. That container then ruled by logics, and causality. One of the reasons Einstein found 'spooky action at a distance' so uncomfortable too, as another guess of mine. The funny thing is that those people thinking purely in QM terms tend to look at this universe much the same. I don't agree to that.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #29 on: 18/09/2014 14:47:22 »
Don't want to be rude, but I think we need to move this one to 'new theories' John. You should really read that article I linked, about lights duality. That one contradicts any pure wave theory as I see it. But I need to look more at his paper on special relativity.
=

Here it is http://www.mpg.de/511738/pressRelease20051011
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 14:52:52 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #30 on: 18/09/2014 15:55:59 »
Let us define it such as I did before, this ideal system of observers, observing each other uniformly moving in a 'common space'. There I stated that each observer, ideally now, would find his relation time and lengthwise, relative the point observed, to differ from any other, although they all observed the same 'point'. Assume this to be true, then apply it on a idea of waves communicating creating it.

at the same time allow all of them to keep constants equivalent. If we assume it to be some 'containing space' I actually believe we also have to assume each point, between the observer and the observed, also to contain those same constants, and so define a own relation relative all other points.

so each point would then define the waves coming and leaving differently, also, those agreeing on observing one specific point should then each one give a unique definition of what types of waves communicating between that agreed on 'point' and themselves. If I'm thinking right here :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #31 on: 18/09/2014 16:04:34 »
What does it presume?

Well, first of all a absolute space, secondly I would expect to need some ground state from where those waves emanate, and then differ depending on relations. That should mean absolute motion.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #32 on: 18/09/2014 16:19:15 »
In relative motion, as in Earth moving, it shouldn't matter what speed we define to it, as I gather. The energy (waves) measured from a light bulb should be the same, no matter what uniform speed I define relative something else. In a acceleration it is different though, there I will find a blue respective redshift emanating from that light bulb, depending on my position relative the light bulb, versus the overall direction of acceleration.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #33 on: 18/09/2014 16:30:33 »
Alternatively we can forgo any demand of a 'ground state', instead assuming it all to build on the relations between the objects (points) involved, as if there would be no building blocks for defining a energy.
=

But I don't think we can do that.

(Now it's definitely belonging to new theories John:)
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 16:34:02 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #34 on: 18/09/2014 16:47:24 »
Above all, it's hard trying to see how all points simultaneously hold those constants, keeping them equivalent to each other, at the same time as they define unique relations with each point existing in a universe, or maybe we should call those points 'space time positions'. And none of them (ideally) agreeing on the others measurement. Then again, the same can be said for relativity as it is. The difference seems to me to be that where Einstein used a duality, your idea uses waves. I need to think more about this one :)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #35 on: 18/09/2014 17:24:33 »
Ah well, there's another aspect there, but that one is not as obvious maybe? You also assume a variable light speed. Now, if you do and also connect 'c' to your local clocks oscillations, you automatically define it as we must grow old differently 'fast' depending on mass, relative motions, accelerations.

Then you, being stationary relative a event horizon, still measuring 'c', must define that as a lie. Also defining yourself to grow old much slower that you would on Earth :) But allow me to differ there. You will not, and that one I guarantee, notice any difference locally. Your local lifespan won't allow you any more reading, or writing, than if you had stayed on Earth.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #36 on: 18/09/2014 17:39:52 »
Using my brand of locality it doesn't matter how one want to define the common universe, not for what is measurable, and what create the sciences we relies on. Locally 'c' will be 'c', your life span the same, no matter where you go, no matter what mass. And only when comparing frames of reference to your local, will you define time dilations and Lorentz contractions. And they won't be yours.

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #37 on: 18/09/2014 17:57:48 »
Don't want to be rude, but I think we need to move this one to 'new theories' John.
It isn't some new theory. Have a look at the Baez article:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory.  In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity.  A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position."  This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers..."

Most people just don't know about it, that's all.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #38 on: 18/09/2014 18:19:08 »
Yeah, I like Baez too, but the modern definition is still 'c' as I think. It's you measuring that light, and it should be 'c' when counted on 'path taken' according to your measurement. But it's a interesting idea, although one I tend to veer from as it contain so many difficulties in defining how it should work for a whole concept of a 'common universe'. Locality has a simplicity making it attractive, although it has nothing to say, as I see, about how frames of reference connect, or whether a light path consist of a variable speed. We have 'c' though, and those other locally measured constants. they are what makes our world go round, and my computer work. If you can make that idea work, I think you will find it to become very complicated, which doesn't state it has to be wrong because of that though. But if you have two equivalent theories, one complicated, and one simpler, which one would you go for?
=

That's also why I refer to decoherence as some principle for what makes our common universe. It seems to come into play automatically in all macroscopic definitions of clocks and rulers.
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 18:32:39 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #39 on: 18/09/2014 18:52:41 »
There is another point where I differ, I don't like light paths :)
Never have, I much rather prefer light to be expressed through a 'field', even though I don't understand how that exist. The duality expressed through a field should make it simpler, if just someone could explain how observer dependencies can be in-cooperated in such an idea. Maybe that is where your ideas might have a relevance? Although, even if it is a field we still should find a arrow, and causality, to it. The really weird universe, to me that is, would be one where causality disappear.

#### JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #40 on: 18/09/2014 19:12:35 »
Yeah, I like Baez too, but the modern definition is still 'c' as I think. It's you measuring that light, and it should be 'c' when counted on 'path taken' according to your measurement.
It isn't a modern definition so much as a popscience myth and a tautology that contradicts Einstein. Look at the Irwin Shapiro quote on Wikipedia: "The proposed experiment was designed to verify the prediction that the speed of propagation of a light ray decreases as it passes through a region of decreasing gravitational potential".

There is another point where I differ, I don't like light paths...
You should. But you should remember the light takes many paths. I think a good analogy is a seismic wave moving from A to B. It isn't just the houses sitting on the AB line that shake.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #41 on: 18/09/2014 19:24:57 »
heh, should what? Like light paths, or not like light paths? If you make a sheet, then light it up from under we have that rule, that for 'meaningful information' you have to use 'c'. Doesn't state that you can't move that flashlight faster, just that it is not allowed to contain any information. As for gravity and 'c', well, defined locally 'c' is 'c'. You might think of it as wondering where 'locality' reside. Magnifying a spot, will gravity disappear?
=

the sheet should be a simplified idea of a field here, with us inside the sheet, following the light path. Although, take away the flashlight, but keep the 'light path'.
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 19:30:09 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #42 on: 18/09/2014 19:34:28 »
That one wasn't that good. In reality you have light only in your measurements. There are no paths other than those we define through causality. So you have a source, and a sink, from that follows, over time, a path. But it's no ball propagating.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 12001
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #43 on: 18/09/2014 19:57:49 »
The Shapiro delay is fascinating. Seen it defined both as an example of time dilation as well as a result of the path taken in a gravitational potential. This one though refer to it as a result of the path, maybe you could define a path as result of the time dilation, observed by you measuring, too? http://physicspages.com/2013/08/08/delay-of-light-passing-a-mass-shapiro-delay/
==

Actually you should be able to apply this to the NIST experiments with synchronized atomic clocks too, finding them starting to differ at centimeters (placed height wise). Now we can make our pick, the light path changing due to your observation of a differing gravity, or the time dilation you define from your frame of reference, slowing the 'photon' down, or maybe both? And then one can walk over to that table, putting both clocks beside each other, comparing them to ones (formerly synchronized atomic-mechanical) wristwatch, finding the time to be 'synchronized' again.

(Eh, that should preferably be read as the oscillations from all three clocks becoming equivalent, at close proximity. Otherwise we need to move this to New Theories asap..)

It is interesting, isn't it :)
« Last Edit: 18/09/2014 21:00:23 by yor_on »

#### acsinuk

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 236
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #44 on: 22/09/2014 11:37:44 »
Hi all
Just caught up with you.  Went to a IET presentation at Surrey uni on Wednesday on EM transmission band and the lecturer say that we can now get up to 8 messages on K, Ku and Klow bands because of using not just quadrature phase shift keying but 8-PSK . There was an article in IET magazine dated 20 February 2010 explaining this way of modulation.
This technology requires exact synchronisation of the start switching of the carrier wave magnoflux helix.  The article you read I would think is trying to show how this could be possible using existing physics.
If we can 8-PSK all the micro-wave fibre optic cables under the sea then I think you can see how important it is to implement this and understand the new electro-magnetic physics involved
CliveS

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: does light 'bend' to a magnetic field?
« Reply #44 on: 22/09/2014 11:37:44 »