Yet, if one tries to find the exact process by which light propagates from Point A To B, there is very little information.There is a wealth of information on the process of light propagation. Essentially light is a wave that is an oscillating electric and magnetic field and the speed of the wave is dictated by the permittivity and permeability of free space.
″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere). During the time in which light is travelling from Point A to Point B, it travels through multiple dimensions, that have no existence, in our world, the solar system or the Universe. When the light is finally detected at point B, it once again becomes real this is accompanied by the collapse of the abstract wave function. The collapse of the wave function results in the formation of multiple Universes.″It could travel as a wave until it is interupted by matter forcing a particle.
Perhaps a poll could be conducted to see if any of this makes sense?You can make a poll BUT you need to start a new thread. Choose a forum section and then instead of hitting "new topic", hit "new poll" which is right next to it.
It should be noted that this is not something that I have made up,Although you also stated:
If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.
It could travel as a wave until it is interupted by matter forcing a particle.Thankyou Petrochemicals, it could have happened, light could have started off as a wave and been obstructed by a particle and changed, it could have happened in many ways, let us discuss what did happen. Quantum mechanics as the emergent leader in the discipline of physics, needed to find a way of expressing electromagnetic radiation in terms of Max Planck?s discovery of quanta; namely that EMR was made up of infinitesimal, discrete packets of energy. Instead of trying to find a new expression for EMR, quantum mechanics decided to adopt Maxwell?s equations whole sale and to impose upon his theory, a quantum interpretation. Converting Maxwell's equations to a form suitable for quantum mechanics involves a series of processes beginning with First quantization, followed by second quantisation, followed by normalisation and re-normalisation. What do all these processes mean and what is the end result? Here's a brief overview.
You can make a poll BUT you need to start a new thread. Choose a forum section and then instead of hitting "new topic", hit "new poll" which is right next to it.
″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere).The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B. I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves. The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.
it gets worse than this.Your inability to understand a theory does not make the theory wrong. You do realize how incredibly successful quantum theory is, don't you? Do you find it odd that this 'absurd' theory makes only the correct predictions?
The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B. I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves. The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.
If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it....which is why laymen and chatbots are not useful starting points for understanding physics.
Physics is the business of constructing mathematical models of stuff that happens. We have two models that are useful when dealing with high frequency electromagnetic radiation: a wave model describes propagation, and a particle model becomes increasingly useful when describing the interaction of emr with particulate matter above 1012 Hz.There shouldn't be two models.
Thank you, Origin, you have given a concise and accurate description of Maxwell′s ″A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field″ and of how electromagnetic radiation propagates. This is where the problem begins, Because, Maxwell's theory is a purely wave theory while quantum mechanics wanted a particle theory or at least a wave-particle duality theory. If a layman were to look at what quantum mechanics eventually came up with, this is probably how he would describe it.The experiments below show that light doesn't cease to be ″real″ during the propagation, even in the case of double slit experiment.
″Light as it travels from Point A to Point B, ceases to be ″real″ instead it travels as an abstract mathematical wave form, that undergoes disambiguation, (i.e., it exists everywhere and nowhere). During the time in which light is travelling from Point A to Point B, it travels through multiple dimensions, that have no existence, in our world, the solar system or the Universe. When the light is finally detected at point B, it once again becomes real this is accompanied by the collapse of the abstract wave function. The collapse of the wave function results in the formation of multiple Universes.″
It should be noted that this is not something that I have made up, it is an accurate description of how Standard Theory describes the propagation of light. In point of fact, it gets worse than this. Perhaps a poll could be conducted to see if any of this makes sense?
This video was edited 30-12-2022. I removed everything but the experimental parts of the original video. The reason for this is that I was no longer behind the way I explained the experiments, especially the quantum aspects.
In the video I show you how you can use a microscope to visualize the EM- wave propagation after light has passed the slits.
There shouldn't be two models.Interesting opinion, I guess.
That's an interesting opinion on its own right. Did you find inconsistencies in my arguments?There shouldn't be two models.Interesting opinion, I guess.
Just to let you know, hamdani is probably the most confused person on this site.
That's an interesting opinion on its own right. Did you find inconsistencies in my arguments?I wasn't responding to you, but I didn't see an argument just a video.
There shouldn't be two models.Do you realize that 2 different gravity models are taught in all universities?
There shouldn't be two models.Like we shouldn't have boats and cars. But we do, because amphibious vehicles aren't terribly good at doing either job.
We also have submarines, jetski, trains, bus, bicycles, roller blades, aeroplanes, and helicopter. Seeing this way, 2 looks like a small number.There shouldn't be two models.Like we shouldn't have boats and cars. But we do, because amphibious vehicles aren't terribly good at doing either job.
Do you realize that 2 different gravity models are taught in all universities?I do realise that there are two models of everything in physics, now-days. Two models of gravity, two models of electromagnetic propagation, two models of radio-waves etc., One model is used for performing calculations and the other for philosophical speculation. All I said was why two models?
We also have submarines, jetski, trains, bus, bicycles, roller blades, aeroplanes, and helicopter. Seeing this way, 2 looks like a small number.
Both the wave and photon models have vast areas of direct application. If you can produce a better theory there are multiple Nobel prizes waiting.
A unification between wave model and particle model of lightIt has already happened, it is called Quantum physics.
either modifying the wave to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using particle model, or modifying the particle to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using wave model.It didn't work out that way. In quantum physics it is known that a photon (like an electron or any other quantum object) is not a particle and it is not a wave, it is something completely different it is a quantum object.
@McQueen
You are Cordial & Polite.
A Rarity on Science fora.
(very good)
Nowadays, it's mostly seen as a Boxing ring, & laymen used as Punching bags.
Anyways, back to the Topic...
Missing mass!
You not satisfied with the Dark Matter Hypothesis?
How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?A unification between wave model and particle model of lightIt has already happened, it is called Quantum physics.either modifying the wave to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using particle model, or modifying the particle to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using wave model.It didn't work out that way. In quantum physics it is known that a photon (like an electron or any other quantum object) is not a particle and it is not a wave, it is something completely different it is a quantum object.
I have hypothecated a substance that Dark Matter might be made of and tried to calculate if it would fit the missing mass, using data from the net such as the volume of the Milky Way Galaxy, its mass etc., and got surprisingly good answersInteresting. What is the substance? Could you show the calculations?
How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?I'm sure I have discussed it before on one of your threads. I am not interested in giving you an explanation and then having you spam the thread with 3 or 4 random Youtube videos and proclaiming no one knows anything!!
I do realise that there are two models of everything in physics, now-days. ................................., One model is used for performing calculations and the other for philosophical speculation.
How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?Only a fool would try.
Is it impossible?How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?Only a fool would try.
@McQueen
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...
Can " Space " bend over itself?
Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?
Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?
Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model,Not necessarily. A modified wave model can do the same job.
and at very low intensities you can even count the photons!You don't really count the photons. Only some activations of sensory equipment, which can also be activated by other stimulants, such as temperature and cosmic rays.
The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B. I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves. The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.
The calculations are all done by computer. But how accurate are these computer calculations, when does the computer decide that a signal isolated from the trillions and trillions of different signals, is the one signal denoting gravity? Surely the very noise generated inside the circuits of LIGo should swamp any credible signal? A very dodgy situation.
It isn't dodgy at all. The gravitational waves produced by a black hole merger event is predicted by general relativity to have a very distinct pattern to it. I have a book written long before the first gravitational wave detection that details this pattern. The fact that LIGO has two arms at right angles to each other is critical in detecting it because gravitational waves produce a contraction of space along one axis while producing a stretching along the other axis. As the wave passes, this stretching and contraction reverses and then cycles again and again.
Please explain photographic reciprocity failure and radiographic quantum mottle using a modified wave model.Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model,Not necessarily. A modified wave model can do the same job.
Cosmic rays behave very much like particles in a cloud chamber or a film block, and indeed can be counted individually as particle interactions in electronic detectors. Which is why we call the massless, electrically neutral ones "photons". The effect of temperature on a photocathode will not change when you put a piece of cardboard between your photon source and the detector.Quoteand at very low intensities you can even count the photons!You don't really count the photons. Only some activations of sensory equipment, which can also be activated by other stimulants, such as temperature and cosmic rays.
To detect differences of 10,000th the width of a proton in the presence of so much signal noise, is a bit of a stretch.
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...I'll assume you want short replies.
Can " Space " bend over itself?I'm not sure what you were asking. Here are 2 possibilities:
Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?Yes and it essentially does produce a gravitational effect broadly equivalent to having more mass.
Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?I don't know. The Higgs field isn't an ordinary physical thing and I don't suppose it's very useful to think of it as a thing that can twist and tangle in any ordinary sense. However, such terminology may exist in some very specialised models and areas of Physics that I haven't seen.
The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.Since the end of the last century, the speed of light in a vacuum has been defined as constant, and everything else as potentially variable, so distance is "c x time" and so forth.
Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.
However, it did seem to work. @Kryptid has already mentioned quite a lot about this. Moreover, I don't think we had any idea about how common black hole or neutron stars mergers actually are. The equipment probably is failing to detect a lot of them but it doesn't seem to matter - there are so many of them every year.
Surely, a defense of a result involving such numbers would be purely philosophical regardless of how sophisticated the computers that were used were?
Galileo summed up the argument very neatly: eppur si muove.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Of course it is unbelievable. Like the heliocentric universe, and the idea that I can talk to anyone, anywhere in the world, by pushing a few buttons on a piece of plastic.Heliocentric universe is unbelievable if we still use Aristotelian model of natural world, with many unknowns regarding the masses of celestial objects like planets and stars, and mechanisms that govern their motions and interaction.
What makes you think it will never be changed again in the future?The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.Since the end of the last century, the speed of light in a vacuum has been defined as constant, and everything else as potentially variable, so distance is "c x time" and so forth.
Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.
If somebody comes up with a better model than relativity, we might indeed have to base our physics on a new constant. No big deal, as long at it degenerates to the einsteinian or newtonian solution in appropriate circumstances and predicts what happens when those conditions are not met..Under the expanding universe model, speed of light doesn't seem to be a constant, especially over a long distance.
Under the expanding universe model, speed of light doesn't seem to be a constant, especially over a long distance.
Which doesn't imply a variation in c.If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretchingNobody insists any such thing. Per relativity theory, light moves at c only relative to a flat (Minkowskian) inertial frame, and an expanding metric is not an inertial one, and probably isn't Minkowskian either.
As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.A more pointed example illustrating the non-constant speed of non-local light in an expanding metric:
It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.I'm not sure if you meant to do it but this is actually a perfect way of suggesting that light will change its speed.
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.No, we don't. Mostly because the speed of light isn't as restrictive as you might imagine. It's a description of the movement of the light through space that is absolutely local to it (which is a different bit of space at every instant of time). It certainly isn't enough on its own to tell us about the physical distance between the light and any place that is remote from that light. If space is expanding rapidly with time, this distance (from the light to the place of emission) can grow much faster than 3 x 108 m/s, that isn't a problem and that does happen. We do not need to scale time in any way because we are under no obligation to keep that rate of change at 3 x 108 m/s, the speed of light never meant that, it only meant that light has a local speed of 3 x 108 m/s.
That doesn't follow. It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.
and a meter is defined as the distance that light travels in one somethingth of a secondI think I can compress ES's post to a short line.
because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed? which will then be c.Technically, even then the speed cannot be measured, and is only presumed. A meter is best measured by light reflected from one end to the other and back, in two somethingths of a second. Since an inertial frame is required for this, obviously you can't have both ends of the meter stick be comoving at once.
I think I can compress ES's post to a short line.I do like it and it is a bit shorter than my post. I did have to read the line twice, make inertial frame a bit more obvious and I wouldn't have had to.
We don't insist, we define c to be a constant. Then we can measure everything else.What is the difference?
Light emitted from the creation of the hydrogen in your body was emitted near 'here' at the recombination event 13.8 billion years ago and is currently ~45 GLR away, meaning it has averaged a velocity of over 3c. Meanwhile, the CMB light that we detect here today was emitted 13.8 billion years ago from material that was at a proper distance that was much closer then than where Andromeda is now. which is an average velocity of around 0.0001cWhat causes the asymmetrical difference? It speeds up in one case, while slows down in the other case?
You need to ask the UK House of Lords.We don't insist, we define c to be a constant. Then we can measure everything else.What is the difference?
What causes the asymmetrical difference? It speeds up in one case, while slows down in the other case?The light was trying to travel towards the place you measure distance from, or away from that place. For an expanding space, this matters.
However when it comes to physics, we have to start somewhere, and if we define c as constant we can derive the equations that seem to predict pretty much everything that happens in the universe, to an acceptable degree of precision.If the word "define" is replaced by "insist", would the statement become false?
The light was trying to travel towards the place you measure distance from, or away from that place. For an expanding space, this matters.In an expanding space, everything that's stationary in the space-time continuum always moves away from one another over time.
If the word "define" is replaced by "insist", would the statement become false?
Depends on its purpose. If you want to replace yesterday's screw with one made today, yes, it is important that the thread standard hasn't changed, but if you want to privatise the water supply, you have to alter the standard so that every investor can make a profit and pass on the cost of achieving adequate sterility to the customer.Even making good standards is just an instrumental goal, serving to help achieving the common terminal goals among the users of the standards.
The required characteristics of a standard is consistency from time to time. Its value in the past should be the same as its value in the future.
Perhaps it's because the speed of light is defined to be a constant, and spacetime is defined so that its expansion doesn't change the speed of light.The required characteristics of a standard is consistency from time to time. Its value in the past should be the same as its value in the future.
As far as I am aware, there has been no good evidence to date that the speed of light in a vacuum has changed over the lifespan of the Universe. All that has changed is the precision with which we have measured it.
Even making good standards is just an instrumental goal, serving to help achieving the common terminal goals among the users of the standards.In the case of public water supply, there are two quite different terminal goals: profit and sterility. EU rules, as implemented by the UK government, dismissed the second.
Perhaps it's because the speed of light is defined to be a constant, and spacetime is defined so that its expansion doesn't change the speed of light.
Not so. If the speed of light had changed over the course of the Universe's history, we would be able to see differences in the behavior of distant galaxies and stars compared to closer galaxies and stars.Aren't they red shifted?
Irrelevant. Redshift has nothing to do with variation of c.c=λ.f
If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?
The radius of the observable universe is estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.
Age 13.787+/-0.020 billion years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
c=λ.fAs observed.
Redshift reduces frequency. For c to be constant, wavelength must increase accordingly. Wavenumber must decrease accordingly.
c=λ.fAs observed.
Redshift reduces frequency. For c to be constant, wavelength must increase accordingly. Wavenumber must decrease accordingly.
If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?
If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?