Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 12:19:45
Post by: Janus on 27/03/2021 15:49:10
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 16:25:53
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
What does that even mean ?
Post by: geordief on 27/03/2021 17:50:21
Do you mean it is a consequence of how spatial measurements and time measurements are related?Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
"Space" and "Time" are not physical objects, are they?
Can we say they are "metaphysical"(if that description is of any consequence)
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2021 18:42:50
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 18:53:04
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
I am sorry to ask but how can an equation be the cause of a speed ?
Post by: charles1948 on 27/03/2021 19:12:01
No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
But Maxwell only worked out his equations in the 19th Century.
In all previous centuries, light was going at the same speed, without his equations.
So you surely can't claim that the speed of light is a "consequence" of Maxwell's equations.
That's the wrong way round.
What you should say is that Maxwell's mathematical equations are a "consequence" of the speed of light.
But, does that in any way explain why light goes at that particular speed?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2021 20:56:55
It can be observed, that is, measured. Through those observations we can produce the equations necessary to model it.
Maxwell related the laws of electromagnetism to the speed of light. The models describe the laws. They don't create the laws!
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 20:59:49
It is a consequence of the geometry of spacetime,
I am sorry I don't understand how your answer , answers my specific question .
Geometry is also a branch math and as somebody mentioned , Maxwell's equations are a consequence of the speed .
Is it possible the universe is expanding because of an external force ?
This is my second question I was going to ask after I got my first answer .
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 21:05:09
To ask why it is that speed has no meaning.
That is preposterous , the why it has the speed is the physics involved . The measure is the math involved .
Are you really going to suggest that the physics involved are not important ?
What about scientific vigor and understanding ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2021 21:09:11
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
What does that even mean ?
Google time dilation and length contraction.
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 21:21:23
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
What does that even mean ?
Google time dilation and length contraction.
Time dilation and length contraction are physical events that have equations to determine the measure .
Equations do not answer my question about the cause of the speed of light .
If the engine of light was an external force , wouldn't that mean the speed of light was actually zero ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2021 21:28:55
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?No. The speed of light is a consequence of how Space and Time are interrelated to each other.
What does that even mean ?
Google time dilation and length contraction.
Time dilation and length contraction are physical events that have equations to determine the measure .
Equations do not answer my question about the cause of the speed of light .
If the engine of light was an external force , wouldn't that mean the speed of light was actually zero ?
Light doesn't have an engine. It does however propagate. The speed of that propagation is c in a vacuum. Since it is a constant in vacuum there is no force being applied to it. It is affected by gravity, which is a force, and can accelerate light.
Post by: Halc on 27/03/2021 21:42:57
Geometry is also a branch math and as somebody mentioned , Maxwell's equations are a consequence of the speedThe geometry has time and space being different dimensions of the same thing (spacetime). One second of time happens to have the same magnitude (same interval, different sign) as about 300,000 meters, so it seems awfully reasonable to say it is the geometry that defines it.
Quote
Is it possible the universe is expanding because of an external force ?No. A force would cause acceleration of something with proper mass. Light cannot accelerate and has no proper mass.
The expansion of the universe isn't a speed and isn't directly related to the speed of light.
Anything that expands linearly will have an expansion rate of 70 km/sec/Mpc after 13.8 billion years. It doesn't quite work perfectly for our universe which doesn't have linear expansion, but we're awfully close to the average rate right now, so it works out by chance.
Yes, the acceleration of expansion is arguably due to to a pseudo-force of dark energy. That isn't a force proper since there is no action/reaction involved, but it does affect the total energy of a given mass-slice (a chunk of expanding universe with the mass it contains).
Are you really going to suggest that the physics involved are not important ?jeffreyH's response was pretty appropriate. You're asking a 'why' question, which is philosophy, not physics. Science and physics seems to describe what you see and predict future measurements. The 'why' of it all is irrelevant to that. Physics just wants to predict what we'll see tomorrow, to get the spaceship to its destination without failure, etc.
Time dilation and length contraction are physical events that have equations to determine the measure .No. A physical event is a frame-independent point in spacetime.
Time dilation and length contraction are abstract coordinate system differences relating frame independent physical wordlines. For instance, the proper length of an object cannot physically change simply due to an abstract choice made by somebody.
Quote
Equations do not answer my question about the cause of the speed of light .Pretty much all questions in physics are answered by equations. Perhaps not your question, but again, it isn't really a physics question then.
Quote
If the engine of light was an external force , wouldn't that mean the speed of light was actually zero ?No clue what an 'engine of light' is. Light (or even a rock) requires no force to continue on its way, per Newton's first law (which is admittedly more applicable to the rock than to light).
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 21:53:04
Light doesn't have an engine. It does however propagate. The speed of that propagation is c in a vacuum. Since it is a constant in vacuum there is no force being applied to it. It is affected by gravity, which is a force, and can accelerate light.
If light does not have an engine , then the momentum must be a consequence of an external force .
You mention gravity can affect light , is it possible that gravity is the engine of light ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2021 21:58:04
Light doesn't have an engine. It does however propagate. The speed of that propagation is c in a vacuum. Since it is a constant in vacuum there is no force being applied to it. It is affected by gravity, which is a force, and can accelerate light.
If light does not have an engine , then the momentum must be a consequence of an external force .
You mention gravity can affect light , is it possible that gravity is the engine of light ?
No and no. Light, the photon to be precise, is the force carrier of the electromagnetic field and interacts with the gravitational field. It does not require gravity to propagate.
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 22:01:30
gravitational field. It does not require gravity to propagate.
Perhaps not but it certainly requires more than an equation to accelerate when exiting a medium .
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 22:03:38
requires no force to continue on its way, per Newton's first law (which is admittedly more applicable to the rock than to light).
How do you explain light's acceleration when exiting a medium if there is no force involved ?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/03/2021 22:27:57
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?I'll be honest I can't answer this without it being in new theories as at present know one knows.
There are theories about light being pre programmed and relating to space time, whether light travels through space or is merely ejected when a wave strikes an object.
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 22:36:04
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?I'll be honest I can't answer this without it being in new theories as at present know one knows.
There are theories about light being pre programmed and relating to space time, whether light travels through space or is merely ejected when a wave strikes an object.
Thank you for your honest answer but how can a question be a new theory ?
Shouldn't we firstly discuss the possibility of an external force and then discuss what this assumed force may be before finally trying to devise an experiment to test the assumptions ?
Then only if all the above satisfied , write a new theory ?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/03/2021 22:57:00
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 23:19:11
Light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum. Constant velocity doesn't involve a force.
Light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum because of ?
Lights velocity is ? Velocity being speed and direction .
Light requires a force to pass through glass and light requires a force to accelerate on exiting the glass . How can you say a force isn't required when the physics involved requires a force ?
Post by: Janus on 27/03/2021 23:50:12
The problem here is that you trying to apply the same rules to light that you would apply to a massive object like a baseball.requires no force to continue on its way, per Newton's first law (which is admittedly more applicable to the rock than to light).
How do you explain light's acceleration when exiting a medium if there is no force involved ?
But you can't because they are not the same type of thing. To accelerate a baseball, you do have to apply a force to it, because a baseball has something called "proper" mass. Light has no proper mass, and the rules that govern such things require that they have to travel at c in a vacuum. When light leaves a medium, it just begins to move at c naturally as it is required to.
The reason it take a force in order to accelerate a ball is because you need to change its kinetic energy. So if a ball travels through something that reduces it speed it give up energy, and that energy has to be replaced to speed it up again.
The energy of light however is tied to its wavelength, the shorter the wavelength, the more energetic.
When light enters a medium it not only slows down, but it shortens its wavelength, the shortening of the wavelength offsets the lowering of speed. When it exits, if speeds up and lengthens its wavelength. Basically the light slows down in the medium without giving up energy, so nothing has to replace lost energy for it to speed back up again when it leaves.
Similarly, if you toss a baseball up into the air, it will lose KE as it climbs against gravity and slow down.
Light also loses energy climbing against gravity, but instead of slowing down, it lengthens it wavelength while continuing to travel at the same speed. (This is called gravitational red-shift because red light has the longest wavelength in the visible light spectrum.)
Post by: Michael Sally on 27/03/2021 23:52:41
[ Invalid Attachment ]
On the diagram I have also added a force tag F which may or may not be the cause of lights speed . This is to be determined in discussion before any theoretical build , otherwise any presentation would just be speculation .
Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 00:04:47
The problem here is that you trying to apply the same rules to light that you would apply to a massive object like a baseball.requires no force to continue on its way, per Newton's first law (which is admittedly more applicable to the rock than to light).
How do you explain light's acceleration when exiting a medium if there is no force involved ?
But you can't because they are not the same type of thing. To accelerate a baseball, you do have to apply a force to it, because a baseball has something called "proper" mass. Light has no proper mass, and the rules that govern such things require that they have to travel at c in a vacuum. When light leaves a medium, it just begins to move at c naturally as it is required to.
The reason it take a force in order to accelerate a ball is because you need to change its kinetic energy. So if a ball travels through something that reduces it speed it give up energy, and that energy has to be replaced to speed it up again.
The energy of light however is tied to its wavelength, the shorter the wavelength, the more energetic.
When light enters a medium it not only slows down, but it shortens its wavelength, the shortening of the wavelength offsets the lowering of speed. When it exits, if speeds up and lengthens its wavelength. Basically the light slows down in the medium without giving up energy, so nothing has to replace lost energy for it to speed back up again when it leaves.
Similarly, if you toss a baseball up into the air, it will lose KE as it climbs against gravity and slow down.
Light also loses energy climbing against gravity, but instead of slowing down, it lengthens it wavelength while continuing to travel at the same speed. (This is called gravitational red-shift because red light has the longest wavelength in the visible light spectrum.)
Sorry I was posting as you made your post .
You say that when light exits a medium it naturally speeds back up to c . For anything to speed up it would require an ''engine'' , internal or external .
A medium slows down light ! What of the medium slows down the light ?
Is it density or some sort of resistance force ?
For light to slow down in a medium the physics would require an opposing force . If there was no ''engine'' involved , when the light exited the medium , the light would retain the speed it had whilst passing through the medium .
As Newton stated a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces .
Light cannot slow down passing through a medium then speed backup again without some form of force being involved .
Sorry I do not believe in magic .
Post by: evan_au on 28/03/2021 03:54:09
Quote from: OP
Is the speed of a light a consequence of ?Maxwell's equations predicted the possibility of electromagnetic waves.
- Radio waves were discovered soon after, by Hertz and others
- It was also realized that visible light travelled at this speed too, so light must also be an electromagnetic wave
Maxwell's equations imply a speed of light in any material of 1/√(εμ), where:
- ε is the permittivity to electric fields in that material
- μ is the permeability to magnetic fields in that material
- ε and μ can be measured in the laboratory (in that material)
- This equation has some similarities to the equation for the speed of a sound wave in a guitar string.
So when electromagnetic waves (eg light) pass from one medium to another, the values of ε & μ change, and so the speed of light changes.
- This is what allows a camera lens to focus light, because the speed of light is lower in glass than in air
- if you like, entering the glass causes light to travel slower, and re-entering the air causes it to travel faster (ie the original speed)
- It doesn't require an external force to slow it down and then speed it up again.
When we talk about "the speed of light", we imply "speed of light in a vacuum", and we call that c
- Maxwell's equations imply a speed of light in a vacuum c = 1/√(ε0μ0)
- ε0 is the permittivity to electric fields in a vacuum
- μ0 is the permeability to magnetic fields in a vacuum
- ε0 and μ0 can be measured in the laboratory (in a vacuum)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Key_to_the_notation
There are some paradoxes implicit in Maxwell's equations.
- For example, how could every observer measure c = 1/√(ε0μ0), when those observers might be traveling at different speeds?
- This was later resolved by Einstein, who showed that while the speed c is the same for all observers, the units of speed (eg meters and seconds) are not the same for all observers.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2021 05:24:32
Light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum because of ?
Newton's first law.
Lights velocity is ? Velocity being speed and direction .
About 300,000 kilometers per second in whatever direction it happens to be traveling in.
Light requires a force to pass through glass
Citation needed.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2021 09:40:05
The English language has only existed in recognisable form for about 1000 years, algebra about 1500 years, and differential calculus less than 300 years, so your logic implies that no physical phenomenon can be explained or described by the common tools of science.No. It is a consequence of Maxwell's equations.
But Maxwell only worked out his equations in the 19th Century.
In all previous centuries, light was going at the same speed, without his equations.
So you surely can't claim that the speed of light is a "consequence" of Maxwell's equations.
That's the wrong way round.
What you should say is that Maxwell's mathematical equations are a "consequence" of the speed of light.
But, does that in any way explain why light goes at that particular speed?
Or that nothing happened in the universe before 1700, which is an oxymoron since "1700" presumes that something happened at "0" .
So let's adopt a more conventional interpretation of "consequence".
Maxwell showed that the speed of light is a consequence of well-characterised electromagnetic phenomena. A changing electric field generates a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field generates an electric field. The constants of proportionality define the speed of propagation of the resulting electromagnetic wave in any medium.
Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 10:16:46
Quote from: OPIs the speed of a light a consequence of ?Maxwell's equations predicted the possibility of electromagnetic waves.
- Radio waves were discovered soon after, by Hertz and others
- It was also realized that visible light travelled at this speed too, so light must also be an electromagnetic wave
Maxwell's equations imply a speed of light in any material of 1/√(εμ), where:
- ε is the permittivity to electric fields in that material
- μ is the permeability to magnetic fields in that material
- ε and μ can be measured in the laboratory (in that material)
- This equation has some similarities to the equation for the speed of a sound wave in a guitar string.
So when electromagnetic waves (eg light) pass from one medium to another, the values of ε & μ change, and so the speed of light changes.
- This is what allows a camera lens to focus light, because the speed of light is lower in glass than in air
- if you like, entering the glass causes light to travel slower, and re-entering the air causes it to travel faster (ie the original speed)
- It doesn't require an external force to slow it down and then speed it up again.
When we talk about "the speed of light", we imply "speed of light in a vacuum", and we call that c
- Maxwell's equations imply a speed of light in a vacuum c = 1/√(ε0μ0)
- ε0 is the permittivity to electric fields in a vacuum
- μ0 is the permeability to magnetic fields in a vacuum
- ε0 and μ0 can be measured in the laboratory (in a vacuum)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Key_to_the_notation
There are some paradoxes implicit in Maxwell's equations.
- For example, how could every observer measure c = 1/√(ε0μ0), when those observers might be traveling at different speeds?
- This was later resolved by Einstein, who showed that while the speed c is the same for all observers, the units of speed (eg meters and seconds) are not the same for all observers.
Maxwell states the term free space and gives values of e0u0 for free space . Quite clearly when light passes through a medium which in example I gave glass , the e0u0 is greater of the glass than free space which applies a ''stopping force'' on lights travel . When the light leaves the medium to re-enter free space , the light then accelerates to return to c .
This acceleration physically requires a force or the light would maintain the speed it traveled through the medium once it had exited the medium .
Can we assume from Maxwell's work that light is more attractive to freespace than the volume of the glass block ?
If this wasn't true , the light would not exit the glass block .
F=
?Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 10:33:50
Maxwell showed that the speed of light is a consequence of well-characterised electromagnetic phenomena. A changing electric field generates a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field generates an electric field. The constants of proportionality define the speed of propagation of the resulting electromagnetic wave in any medium.
Although Maxwell explains field properties , Maxwell didn't explain lights ''engine'' . An ''engine'' which I believe is an attractive force .
My thoughts in quest to discover this ''engine'' are now considering a freespace force .
From our discussions , I now believe this free space force is something to do with proportionality and the magnitude of energy .
≠ 
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2021 10:49:21
Can we assume from Maxwell's work that light is more attractive to freespace than the volume of the glass block ?No.
If this wasn't true , the light would not exit the glass block .
Because, by the same (questionable) argument, it would mean that light couldn't enter the glass block.
Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 10:57:24
No.
Because, by the same (questionable) argument, it would mean that light couldn't enter the glass block.
Please explain how that means the light couldn't enter the glass block , I think your logic might be flawed in that statement .
I have drawn us another diagram to help us observe the process we are discussing .
cm2.jpg (24.29 kB . 816x460 - viewed 2275 times)Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2021 15:08:15
Why do you keep coming back? I recall you once posted a thread asking to be banned and promised not to come back as a sock puppet. So when you were finally banned, why didn't you keep your promise?
Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 16:39:40
Well, that clenches it. I was suspicious that you were Thebox when I saw you posting those nonsensical diagrams, using sentence fragments as questions and claiming that light needs a force to propel it. Now that you've started posting meaningless equations to go with it all, you've given yourself away.
Why do you keep coming back? I recall you once posted a thread asking to be banned and promised not to come back as a sock puppet. So when you were finally banned, why didn't you keep your promise?
Thebox ?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2021 18:34:34
Post by: Michael Sally on 28/03/2021 19:57:18
Yes, I am 100% convinced
You seem to be convinced of a lot of things including light not needing a force to accelerate when exiting a medium .
I didn't make up any physics of lights nature and have kindly presented a detailed accurate diagram for discussion purposes . Also I have not insinuated any sort of propelled force , my question asks about an attractive force .
I was given an answer that gravity can affect light , could free space have a gravitational constant we have not considered before ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/03/2021 20:29:56
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/03/2021 21:33:27
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?I'll be honest I can't answer this without it being in new theories as at present know one knows.
There are theories about light being pre programmed and relating to space time, whether light travels through space or is merely ejected when a wave strikes an object.
Thank you for your honest answer but how can a question be a new theory ?
Shouldn't we firstly discuss the possibility of an external force and then discuss what this assumed force may be before finally trying to devise an experiment to test the assumptions ?
Then only if all the above satisfied , write a new theory ?
Light is wierd as hamdani yusuf of this forum makes lots of posts about. I'm sure you have heard of the double slit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_physics
Being as questions such as this still remain unanswered light and space remain unexplained.
Post by: evan_au on 29/03/2021 10:52:21
Quote from: Michael Sally
ε0μ0 for free space ... the ε0μ0 of the glassε0 & μ0 refer specifically to a vacuum (the 0 means "nothing")
- Any other substance does not have the values ε0 & μ0, and the speed of electromagnetic radiation is less than c
- Although for air, ε & μ are quite close to ε0 & μ0, and the speed of light in air is just below c
Rather than quote specific values for ε & μ, it is often easier to compare them to ε0 & μ0 by quoting the ratio with ε0 & μ0 (in a particular substance). This gives us εr & μr, where r means "relative":
- εr = ε/ε0
- μr = μ/μ0
Similarly, rather than quote the speed of light in a particular substance (v), it is often more convenient to quote its ratio with the speed of light in a vacuum (c).
η = v/c is called the refractive index of the material.
In most materials, the refractive index varies with frequency (which is how we get rainbows).
You can find a list of refractive index(es)/indices here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
Quote from: Michael Sally
Please explain how that means the light couldn't enter the glass blockInability to think outside the box.... Jumbled equations with no consistency in units....
Definitely The Box!
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2021 11:16:42
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 13:09:25
I came here with this being an English forum and hoped a Cambridge forum would appreciate science returning to home .
I guess you might as well throw this thread into the bin and I'll get my sandals on and go for a walk to another country .
I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .
It is so sad that I am going have to give another country many questions and answers . I bet China would be interested in my scientific knowledge such as hyper-sonic physics . :(
added : If you couldn't understand , energy is attracted to negative energy and the speed of light is 0 . The maximum potential speed of attraction of the gravitational constant of negative energy is c .
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 15:18:32
I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .
Why did you think our responses would be any different from the last time you were here?
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 16:11:22
I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .
Why did you think our responses would be any different from the last time you were here?
When was I last here ?
Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?
This digital age I suppose people can be anybody and your concerns are noted .
Do you disagree with my question ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/03/2021 18:08:12
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 18:33:52
Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.
Isn't that a vivid encapsulation (although you didn't intend it as such!) of how real scientists operate.
Always stumbling, grasping for knowledge and truth, often missing it, but always going forward.
Not just sitting stock-still on the currently fashionable theory, and opposing anyone who questions it?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2021 18:35:30
Do you disagree with my question ?You can't disagree with a question. But the answer is no.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 18:54:24
Actually the person was very inefficient at explaining. Almost as if they had a very low IQ. They were trying to be smart but failed miserably. Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.
I think we all know that there are a few cranks on the internet these days , I can't imagine what they gain out of it , they must have intelligence artificial .
I think they must think that they deserve some sort of equality even though they don't have the credentials .
Perhaps some of them have a caffeine overdose :) and after that , who knows what else , most of them are not even coherent , rather strange people and can't be bothered .
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:01:56
When was I last here ?
If I recall correctly, your last sock puppet was either Starlight or Tass.
Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?
No, it was definitely you. Your scientific knowledge has not improved noticeably since then. So why do you keep coming back? Do you really expect us to react any better to your ideas just because time has passed? Even if you don't end up getting banned, I know you're going to end up getting just as much grief from Bored Chemist as you did before because your ideas don't make any more sense now than they did in the past.
Quote
Do you disagree with my question ?
I'll mirror what alancalverd said in response to this.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:12:22
Since this has obviously strayed away from mainstream science, I have moved this thread to New Theories.When was I last here ?
If I recall correctly, your last sock puppet was either Starlight or Tass.Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?
No, it was definitely you. Your scientific knowledge has not improved noticeably since then. So why do you keep coming back? Do you really expect us to react any better to your ideas just because time has passed? Even if you don't end up getting banned, I know you're going to end up getting just as much grief from Bored Chemist as you did before because your ideas don't make any more sense now than they did in the past.QuoteDo you disagree with my question ?
I'll mirror what alancalverd said in response to this.
I have no idea who you are talking about which I thought I'd explained with my question marks when somebody mentioned this other person.
I can see I am been doubled up against and made to feel unwelcome .
What I have explained about light is true , for some strange reason you are all denying the truth . I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:13:41
I have no idea who you are talking about
Right...
What I have explained about light is true
No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:30:06
I have no idea who you are talking about
Right...What I have explained about light is true
No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.
I disagree , photons do not have an ''engine'' and photons speed up when exiting glass . The acceleration demonstrating an attractive force .
Why are you denying physical process facts ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:33:24
Why are you denying physical process facts ?
It's not a physics fact. None of the explanations for how light changes speed in different mediums requires your fanciful attractive force:
The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 19:35:59
No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.
Is that really true? Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them. Thus causing the light-beams to "bend" away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path.
So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:37:40
Is that really true? Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them. Thus causing the light-beams to "bend" away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path.
So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?
That's not what I meant. I meant there is no attractive force causing light to move in the first place. Light in a perfect vacuum with no gravity around would move without trouble.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:39:42
The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.
Now you have contradicted yourself by admitting it speeds back up when exiting glass . For any thing to speed up , that thing needs acceleration and an applied force . The restriction of the speed of light passing through a medium is an opposing force that slows down the light . The light does not magically speed back up once exited the medium .
You want me or anyone else to believe in magic ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:43:24
Now you have contradicted yourself by admitting it speeds back up when exiting glass .
It depends on how you are defining "speed". The speed of the individual photons doesn't change. In that sense, light doesn't slow down when it enters a material. It's the average speed of the bulk wave interfering with itself that is slower than the speed of light. That interference goes away once the light leaves the material, so there is no more interference and the light goes back to behaving like it did before. Again, no attractive force and no acceleration needed.
You want me or anyone else to believe in magic ?
No, just science.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:48:37
That interference goes away once the light leaves the material, so there is no more interference and the light goes back to behaving like it did before. Again, no attractive force and no acceleration needed.
Complete garbage !
Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up .
Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:49:48
Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up .
Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?
Okay, if this really is "simple school boy physics", then you should easily be able to find a reputable source that confirms there is an attractive force that accelerates light when it exists a medium. I'll be waiting.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2021 19:51:58
I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?Guess again.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 19:55:29
Is that really true? Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them. Thus causing the light-beams to "bend" away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path.
So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?
That's not what I meant. I meant there is no attractive force causing light to move in the first place. Light in a perfect vacuum with no gravity around would move without trouble.
Yes, if the Universe was a perfect vacuum with no troublesome gravity around, light would always go in straight lines.
Unfortunately, the Universe doesn't meet your requirements. It's a bit more complicated.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 19:56:09
Yes, if the Universe was a perfect vacuum with no troublesome gravity around, light would always go in straight lines.
Unfortunately, the Universe doesn't meet your requirements. It's a bit more complicated.
That's still irrelevant to what I was saying. Gravity isn't what makes light travel at c.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 20:06:21
Can you see Bored Chemist ever becoming a celebrity scientist? Or more like a new Dr Strangelove. A dark and sinister figure. Who scares.I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?Guess again.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 20:09:41
Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up .
Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?
Okay, if this really is "simple school boy physics", then you should easily be able to find a reputable source that confirms there is an attractive force that accelerates light when it exists a medium. I'll be waiting.
I asked a new question about lights speed being a consequence of an external attractive force which the physics and observations agree with . I don't expect to find a present citation or reputable source when the reputable source and citations have not yet been created .
For one to create a reputable source one must first find a reputable science body such as a Cambridge science forum .
However , one did not expect to find a moderator on such a reputable science forum who doesn't know the physics of how acceleration works.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 20:12:09
I asked a new question about lights speed being a consequence of an external attractive force which the physics and observations agree with . I don't expect to find a present citation or reputable source when the reputable source and citations have not yet been created .
But you said that it's "simple schoolboy physics". If that's true, then schoolboys should know about it and, by extension, existing physicists.
However , one did not expect to find a moderator on such a reputable science forum who doesn't know the physics of how acceleration works.
The photons don't actually change speed when they enter a material, so there is no acceleration involved:
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 20:26:28
I asked a new question about lights speed being a consequence of an external attractive force which the physics and observations agree with . I don't expect to find a present citation or reputable source when the reputable source and citations have not yet been created .
But you said that it's "simple schoolboy physics". If that's true, then schoolboys should know about it and, by extension, existing physicists.However , one did not expect to find a moderator on such a reputable science forum who doesn't know the physics of how acceleration works.
The photons don't actually change speed when they enter a material, so there is no acceleration involved:
I will not bother watching the video because my blinds stop daylight entering my room .
How do you explain this is you claim photons don't change speed when entering a material ?
My blinds stops the intensity and most frequencies .
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 20:28:40
How do explain this is you claim photons don't change speed when entering a material ?
Because you are talking about a different phenomenon. When a material absorbs photons instead of transmitting them, the photons stop existing. They are converted into heat.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 20:47:35
Because you are talking about a different phenomenon. When a material absorbs photons instead of transmitting them, the photons stop existing. They are converted into heat.
You also said
Quote
The photons don't actually change speed when they enter a material, so there is no acceleration involved:
I'd call not existing anymore a full stop and most definitively a change of speed.
Can I ask is this your regular job because you seem very confused on how acceleration works ?
You also said
Quote
The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.
Acceleration : increase in speed or rate.
Quote
so there is no acceleration involved:
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 20:51:28
No, being a moderator isn't a job. It's a volunteer position. I understand acceleration just fine. The photons don't accelerate because they neither slow down nor speed up. So no need to invoke a mythical attractive force.
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 20:58:51
A photon that doesn't exist isn't a photon. Surely you already knew that?
No, being a moderator isn't a job. It's a volunteer position. I understand acceleration just fine. The photons don't accelerate because they neither slow down nor speed up. So no need to invoke a mythical attractive force.
Light slows down passing through a medium , surely you already knew this ?
When light leaves a medium it speeds up .
An increase in speed or rate is an acceleration , are you arguing against this very established definition ?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 21:04:25
So to answer the question of the OP again: no, the speed of light is not due to some mythical external force.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 21:15:39
How do explain this is you claim photons don't change speed when entering a material ?
Because you are talking about a different phenomenon. When a material absorbs photons instead of transmitting them, the photons stop existing. They are converted into heat.
But how does this "heat" get converted back into photons?
To take, if I may, a specific example - a telescope.
A telescope, in its simplest form, consists of two glass lenses. A lens at the front - the "object glass".
And a second lens at the back, nearest the eye, the "eyepiece".
The "object glass" transmits light, ie photons, through it. To produce an image. Which can be examined, in magnified form, by means of the "eyepiece".
But this is what I don't get -
If the photons, when they enter the front lens - the object-glass - "cease to exist" as you claim, and are converted into mere heat inside the glass - how does the glass transmit a image which can be examined by the eyepiece?
Post by: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 21:17:55
If you had actually watched the video I posted, you'd realize that the speed of the bulk light wave is different than that of the individual photons. The total light wave changes speed due to interference patterns, but the individual photons don't.
So to answer the question of the OP again: no, the speed of light is not due to some mythical external force.
That is impossible physics , a waves speed can't change without the ingredients of the wave also changing speed . A photon is not an independent element of a wave , a photon is entangled with all the other photons of the wave .
A photons energy is expansive (x0,y0,z0,.....n)
=
(I provided a graph to the above formula in the other thread I started)
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2021 22:48:34
Thebox, I take it that you still haven't watched the videos I've posted. Not that I'm surprised.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 23:55:00
Charles, I never said anything about photons ceasing to exist inside of glass. Glass is transparent. I was referring specifically to opaque materials when I said photons get converted into heat.
Kryptid, if you'll forgive me for refreshing your memory, what you said in your post #65 was this:
"When a material absorbs photons instead of transmitting them, the photons stop existing. They are converted into heat"
Now, a material such as glass, does absorb photons. This is a well-known phenomenon in optics. It accounts for why the glass used in telescope lenses, results in a slight dimming of the image viewed through them.
That's why refracting telescopes designed for astronomical purposes, where light transmission is important, usually leave out the extra lenses which are used in terrestrial telescopes to erect the image. It's to avoid the loss of light caused by the extra lenses.
All this is obvious. The only thing I'm disputing with you, is your apparent claim that when photons pass through a glass lens, the photons "cease to exist", as you say, and are converted into "heat".
If that were true, no optical instrument which employed glass lenses would work. Not telescopes, or microscopes, or even simple "magnifying glasses".
According to you, these devices would just get hotter, as many of the photons attempting to pass through ceased to exist and got turned into heat. The resultant heat would hopelessly blur and distort the image emerging from the lens.
Or have I misunderstood what you said?. Best wishes!
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 00:35:08
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 04:20:37
Charles, I never said anything about photons ceasing to exist inside of glass. Glass is transparent. I was referring specifically to opaque materials when I said photons get converted into heat.
Thebox, I take it that you still haven't watched the videos I've posted. Not that I'm surprised.
I have watched your provided video which I found annoying and a poor quality explanation but my name is Michael .
-
is a simple explanation of a laser beams entropy and vector analysis . A note to make is that the hf absorbed by the volume that the laser is passing through , is considerably less in magnitude than the beam .
We can consider this loss to be compared to computer science and packet loss .
Whilst the beam is flowing , tiny amounts of quanta are lost to the bigger picture Δv=ΔF as in accordance with Newtons law of motion .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 05:06:27
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 05:13:15
Care to do some calculations with that equation that you've provided? It would be nice if you could show that it is correct that way.
I was hoping we , I and this forum could do some calculations together .
I can create the formulas that explain the processes physics accurately , I think we just need some values to input .
In reality though sometimes the physics is more important than the measures , math cannot improve the physics .
However, if we want to attempt to form a mathematical construct , we firstly need a starting point .
In laser science the starting point is the source of the laser beam and the amount of input energy to the device .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 05:15:18
I can create the formulas that explain the processes physics accurately , I think we just need some values to input .
If you don't know how to do the math, then how do you know your equation is right?
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 05:25:06
I can create the formulas that explain the processes physics accurately , I think we just need some values to input .
If you don't know how to do the math, then how do you know your equation is right?
I understand in physics the work done and my formula explains the actual physical process in formula rather than words .
in example simply explains that photon energy is divided by any volume , the volume being the function of the work done . To explain a measure for this we'd firstly need to know or decide a value for a single photon .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 05:28:00
photon energy is divided by any volume
What does that even mean?
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 05:52:21
photon energy is divided by any volume
What does that even mean?
It means any system has a constant state and the laws of physics allows for this state . If you add external energy to the system , the system requires that energy to be equally divided by the system to maintain consistency throughout the system .
Of course there is variables involved due to different permeability of systems but in general we can say that hf is divided by the system volume
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 06:05:38
It means any system has a constant state and the laws of physics allows for this state . If you add external energy to the system , the system requires that energy to be equally divided by the system to maintain consistency throughout the system .
Of course there is variables involved due to different permeability of systems but in general we can say that hf is divided by the system volume
And what is that supposed to mean? Can you put that in terms that make sense to people other than yourself?
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 06:33:35
It means any system has a constant state and the laws of physics allows for this state . If you add external energy to the system , the system requires that energy to be equally divided by the system to maintain consistency throughout the system .
Of course there is variables involved due to different permeability of systems but in general we can say that hf is divided by the system volume
And what is that supposed to mean? Can you put that in terms that make sense to people other than yourself?
and the smallest conceivable volume and measure . e.jpg (35.25 kB . 816x460 - viewed 3001 times)Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 06:35:15
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 06:59:29
A picture without a description attached doesn't help.
In dimensional analysis (x0,y0,z0) is any geometrical point
Any geometrical point has the capacity to be occupied by matter
Two adjoining geometrical points (x0,y0,z0) + (x0,y0,z0) form the smallest possible vector space 1x
(1x)(1x)(1x) = 1x³ the smallest conceivable cubic volume possible which consists of 8*(x0,y0,z0)
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 07:03:31
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 07:13:32
And what does that have to do with the equation you posted? Planck's constant multiplied by a photon's frequency is equal to the photon's energy. Dividing that by a volume gives you an energy density. So what is the physical significance of that supposed to be? Are you putting a certain number of photons in a given volume of space? For what purpose?
As explained previously ''To explain a measure for this we'd firstly need to know or decide a value for a single photon .''
I have given a single photon a value of E1 and the dimensions of (x0,y0,z0) . I am putting a single photon in a given volume space and measuring the instance of divide.
The purpose is density and energy physics such as plasma .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 07:23:26
I am putting a single photon in a given volume space and measuring the instance of divide.
Okay, for a red photon confined to 1 cubic millimeter:
hf/V
((6.62607015 x 10-34)(4.3 x 1014))/(1 mm3)
2.8492101645 x 10-19 joules per cubic millimeter
So now you have an example of a calculation using your equation. Tell me the significance of that number.
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 07:39:20
I am putting a single photon in a given volume space and measuring the instance of divide.
Okay, for a red photon confined to 1 cubic millimeter:
hf/V
((6.62607015 x 10-34)(4.3 x 1014))/(1 mm3)
2.8492101645 x 10-19 joules per cubic millimeter
So now you have an example of a calculation using your equation. Tell me the significance of that number.
The magnitude of energy at any given volume at any given time .
My measure starts with free space and according to my thoughts a point of energy (photon) decreases in magnitude by times 8 in a nano second . However , there is considerable thought needed for all the ''overlapping'' energy .
hf / V * hf = E8
According to my calculation any given geometrical point of free space (x0,y0,z0) has an energy level of E8 .
I am not sure this will make a lot of sense to you .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 07:40:50
My measure starts with free space and according to my thoughts a point of energy (photon) decreases in magnitude by times 8 in a nano second .
Unless that energy goes somewhere else, that violates conservation of energy.
hf / V * hf = E8
The two instances of "hf" would cancel out in that equation, leading to V = E8.
Post by: evan_au on 30/03/2021 07:48:07
Quote from: Michael Sally
hf/V and the smallest conceivable volume and measureBecause every photon has a wavefunction, there is a finite probability that it will appear outside any volume you define.
If you choose "the smallest conceivable volume", it is a near certainty that the photon will not be inside it!
Quote from: Michael Sally
hf / V * hf = E8See definition of E8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)
Post by: Michael Sally on 30/03/2021 07:59:07
My measure starts with free space and according to my thoughts a point of energy (photon) decreases in magnitude by times 8 in a nano second .
Unless that energy goes somewhere else, that violates conservation of energy.hf / V * hf = E8
The two instances of "hf" would cancel out in that equation, leading to V = E8.
I am sorry I made an error in my calculation , I did not account for the spatial field points energy , V=E9 which is dynamic in energy magnitude excluding the field energy E1 constant . (Which can curve)
Quote
Unless that energy goes somewhere else, that violates conservation of energy.
Energy does not stop moving from one state to another .
In example if V=E8 it would require +E1 to be consistent with the rest of the volumes V=E9 .
My original question about lights speed being a consequence of an attractive force could be considered as a negative of energy force ?
Chaos theory
vf.jpg (14.59 kB . 816x460 - viewed 2830 times)Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 13:45:09
Post by: puppypower on 01/04/2021 12:07:29
Is the speed of light a consequence of an external force ?
If you plug the speed of light into the three equations for Special Relativity, one each for mass, distance and time, discontinuities appear in all three variables. We know mass cannot move at the speed of light since this would require infinite energy. This reflects the discontinuity of mass as predicted by SR.
The same is true of time and distance, and what we call space-time. These also become discontinuous at the speed of light. The speed of light is where inertial reference and space-time all break down. What we think we know, does not apply at the speed of light, since the c-reference is discontinuous with space-time assumptions.
If space-time broke down, so the integration of space and time was broken, then the speed of light would mean nothing, since v=d/t=c; the velocity equation would not apply. This is because the discontinuity of time and distance means that distance and time do not have to integrate that way. Speed of light is an artifact of inertial reference seeing its own limit. We assign it a number using a space-time concept; velocity, to express that which is not of space-time.
It was sort of like revisionist history, where science applied what we knew today, to something of a different time. It used to be a separate realm in religion. This was revised with space-time concepts applicable to space-time realms. It became a tradition without any explanation, other than that was what we have agreed on.
With space-time discontinuous, one can move in time without the constraint of distance. We become omnipresent. If you look at the inertial universe, from the speed of light reference, everything appears to overlap as a point-instant. We are everywhere via that point-instant at the same instant. One can also move in distance without time. The c-reference can thereby add time and distance potential to space-time, that is not integrated as space-time. Such affects are often modeled with statistics. A worm hole is c-reference distance potential added to space-time. In can move in distance in zero time while maintaining space-time references for its mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2021 13:00:49
A worm hole is c-reference distance potential added to space-time.That probably wins the contest for "most words with least information".
Post by: Kryptid on 01/04/2021 16:53:09
That probably wins the contest for "most words with least information".
I don't know, Thebox probably still holds that record in one of his long ago posts.
Post by: puppypower on 20/04/2021 13:28:56
An analogy is crossing the border between two countries. At the border, the rules are different, based on which side of the border you stand. At the border, where the speed the light breaks down, the rules of space-time end. There are new laws on the other side some of which we are already familiar.
The photon, which travels at the speed of light, stratles the border, since it can go the speed of light, while also showing diversity of wavelengths. The latter is is not expected of something moving at the speed of light; Special Relativity. All photons should look more point-instant like and appear homogeneous. There are not because photons have dual citizenship; diversity of frequency=time and wavelength=distance, and are a bridge between the two states.
At the speed of light and beyond, space-time breaks down into separated variables of distance and time, which can act independently of each other. One can move in time without the constraint of space, and move in space without the constraint of time. A quantum jump moves in space in zero time. If we plug the distance and time parameters, of a quantum jump, into the velocity equation for space-time, speed=d/0= ∞. This exceeds the speed of light and therefore is not stemming from space-time, since this breaks the speed of light. A quantum jump is based on distance potential coming from the speed of light reference, that is acting apart from time=0. It can move matter finite distances in zero time. Energy is the bridge, so we can see an affect in space-time.
Beyond the speed of light, the term speed does not make any sense, since the math tends to become infinite; if we only distance potential, or zero; if we use only time potential, even in a moving reference. Just as the speed of light is the same in all space-time references, a quantum jump takes zero time, and covers a fixed distance, even in a moving space-time reference. This allows the laws of physics to be the same in all space-time references.
I get the impression nobody seems to have much experience or practice thinking from the POV of the speed of light reference. This reference is where the primordial atom of the BB begins. It does not begin in space-time. The border for space-time was not always there. The speed of light reference is where the story of space-time begins. This situation reminds of using the 120 year record to explain climate change, while ignoring the 1 billion year record. You all get two different ways to look at things, with the shorter time scale misleading.
Before t=0, there were plenty of things going on in time without space and space without time. Energy for the singularity was provided by lowering entropy in the speed of light reference. In the speed of light reference, entropy is infinite, due to no limits imposed by space-time on time or space. All combinations, not possible in space-time, becomes possible; infinite entropy. One only needs to coordinate these two separated variables in a way that imposes mathematical limits that we know and love, such as velocity less than c. The loss of entropy becomes very exothermic and the potential of rathe universe is created. The speed of light is the ground state, since infinite entropy minus, still approaches zero free energy. The enthalpy that appears helps to define space-time and matter and places it at higher potential. It has to roll downhill.
The universe is heading back to the speed of light reference; matter is going to energy via the forces of nature; bridge state, and energy is being red shifted to infinity; photon homogeneity. After that the border is gone.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2021 14:50:29
After that the laws change, since speed and space-time does not apply beyond that.In the area "beyond space time" the universe is ruled by unicorns.
Prove me wrong before you go any further.