![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 28th, 2019, 3:34 pm wrote:@Reg - I still don't see the connection with the subject of this thread. Can you you provide that please.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Pivot » 28 Oct 2019, 05:28 wrote:Assuming that you consider, as for all EMR, the gamma radiation to be a continuous wave, how do you visualise or explain the transformation at the point of impact?
For the photonic particle supporters, when photons are plane polarised by reflection and/or refraction are the photons squeezed to become thinner or do they just become more wave-like with their electric and magnetic components in orthogonal planes; and how do you visualise or explain the transformation?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Reg_Prescott » 28 Oct 2019, 08:41 wrote:BurtJordaan » October 28th, 2019, 3:34 pm wrote:@Reg - I still don't see the connection with the subject of this thread. Can you you provide that please.
Ok, your claim was...
"The null result of the MM-X demonstrated that either the aether doesn’t exist or photons don’t exist since the aether can’t effect the path of a nonexistent particle."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dandelion liked this post
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » October 31st, 2019, 10:59 pm wrote: If it is our stated goal to resolve the double slit by proposing that photons do not exist , shouldn't we also propose that electrons do not exist? Why stop there? Should not also the nucleus of the atom be deemed to non-existence by the same rationale? Where does this reasoning end?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos wrote:Should we postulate that some object/entity departed from the first electron, moved through space, and then collided with the second electron?
hyksos wrote:Decades ago, nuclear physicists gave up on switching back and forth between joules and kilograms, and just started referring to the mass of particles in giga-electron-volts ( GeV ).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 1st, 2019, 6:53 am wrote:At the quantum level, photons, electrons, and atomic nuclei are more wavelike than solid which does not mean they don’t exist but it also doesn’t imply that they are “first class particles”. The double slit is resolved by proposing that photons are wave-like quanta of energy rather than solid particles as the “ton” in the name pho-ton implies.
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just Schaumkommen.” (appearances) Erwin Schroedinger 1937
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
dandelion » November 3rd, 2019, 12:34 pm wrote:
"But what about a small particle? Maybe what quantum theory is telling us is precisely that we cannot use the same intuitions for small particles. There is no classical path between their appearance here and their appearance there. Particles are objects that manifest themselves only when there is an interaction, and we are not allowed to fill up the gap in between. The ontology that Heisenberg proposes does not increase on the ontology of classical mechanics: it reduces it. It is less, not more. Heisenberg removes excess baggage from classical ontology and is left with a minimum necessary to describe the world”. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05543.pdf
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2019, 11:36 pm wrote:bangstrom » 08 Nov 2019, 04:29 wrote:In the diagrams by Minkowski, Epstein, or Faradave, the so-called “speed of light” is represented as a spacetime dimensional constant rather than as a speed which is valid because this is consistent with observations. There is no suggestion in the diagrams that light has a speed.
It may be so in Epstein and Faradave diagrams, but traditional Minkowski spacetime diagrams show the speed of light as 1 light-second per sec, or whatever units, provided that are the same on the space and time axes have compatible units, so that the light-cone has a 45 degree slope.
BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2019, 11:36 pm wrote:The correct statement is that the speed of light is equal to the constant c.
BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2019, 11:36 pm wrote:bangstrom » 08 Nov 2019, 04:29 wrote:BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2019, 5:04 am wrote: Then you must have some other theories than QM and Einstein's GR in mind as the foundation -
Dark matter and dark energy are not a part of either QM or GR so any model that includes either one or both of these can not be said to be “founded” on either QM or GR.
Not true. GR includes all forms of energy, whether we can 'see' it or not, as long as it produces spacetime curvature. Einstein's full GR equations (10 potentials) of 1916 included the cosmological constant as one of its solutions. As is still practiced today, Einstein selected the simplest possible solution that would conform to what he thought was a static universe at that time.
BurtJordaan » November 7th, 2019, 11:36 pm wrote:QM predicts the cosmological constant as the energy of the vacuum, but they have the its density wrong by a factor of some 1060.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » 08 Nov 2019, 12:11 wrote:Assuming that c is a speed carries with it the assumption that light travels through space with an identifiable and constant speed- the same for all observers- independent of their own velocities. This is not logical and it adds a totally unnecessary complication to SR where c serves perfectly well as a dimensional constant.
bangstrom » 08 Nov 2019, 12:11 wrote:Adding something ad hoc to GR or any other calculation that is proven to work perfectly well without it, just to make the the calculations fit some ideal model, is a blunder no matter when it is done or by whom.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 12:15 am wrote:
It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The one-way speed of light is very simply determined by how we synchronize clocks. We use light to synchronize clocks, so the one-way speed of light is guaranteed to come out as c - and all other speeds as fractions of it.
The two-way (or round trip) speed does not depend on clock synchronization and this is where the central relativity mystery lies. It does not matter in which direction we measure the two-way speed, even if the measuring apparatus moves relative to the CMB background, it comes out the same. By Galilean/Newtonian relativity, it should not be the case. But it remains a speed - we time light over a distance and divide the travel distance by the measured time to get a speed.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » 09 Nov 2019, 10:13 wrote:The two way speed of light does not not depend on clock synchronization because same clock is used to measure the departure and return times. This is no mystery for any named brand of relativity.
Any distance divided by time is a ratio of distance to time and not necessarily a speed.
The paradoxes of SR such as the “Pole and Barn” or the several of the un-explainables of QM such as entanglement or Wheeler’s delayed choice experiments can be explained when we recognize that c is a dimensional constant rather than a speed and non-local interaction is possible.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:Distance traveled by a particle divided by elapsed travel time is what even particle physicists define as a speed. I have no problem that c is a dimensional constant of nature.
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:But light travels under ideal conditions precisely at a speed equal to c.
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:
When it [light]has to propagate through any medium but free space, even through a gravitational field, its round trip average speed is less than c - and it has been measured.
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:
“Pole and Barn” and other so-called relativity "paradoxes" are explained by the relativity of simultaneity (clock synchronization).
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote: Quantum entanglement's "action at a distance" has nothing to do with the speed of light, because it transfers no information or energy.
BurtJordaan » November 9th, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:I think this possibly detracts from answering the big question asked by the OP, so I'll leave it here.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 11th, 2019, 11:31 am wrote:We observe a one second time delay for every 300,000,000 meters of distance.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » November 11th, 2019, 7:10 am wrote:If anyone is interested in better hand-waving arguments than what we can dish up here, read
Vesselin Petkov's excellent: Relativity, Dimensionality and Existence.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The conclusion that relativity of simultaneity is possible only in a four-dimensional world seems unavoidable provided that existence is regarded as absolute (frame- or observer-
independent) – the observers in relative motion can have different sets of
simultaneous events only in a four- (or higher-) dimensional world; these sets
constitute different three-dimensional ‘cross-sections’ of such a world. In this sense relativity of simultaneity is a manifestation of the four-dimensionality
of the world...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » November 11th, 2019, 7:50 am wrote:bangstrom » November 11th, 2019, 11:31 am wrote:We observe a one second time delay for every 300,000,000 meters of distance.
But why does this not apply to quantum entanglement, which has no delay?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
davidm » November 11th, 2019, 2:57 pm wrote:
I haven’t had time to read this thread in detail — only to skim it — so I wonder if you could elucidate why you brought up Petkov, whose work I am quite familiar with, in this particular context? Apologies if this is not obvious, but again, I’ve only had time to skim the thread.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 12th, 2019, 8:05 am wrote:Measuring the speed of entanglement requires two synchronized clocks which is difficult in SR because the clocks need to be observed together by some means for synchronization and moving the clocks gets them out of sync but it can be done and synchronized clocks indicate that the speed of entanglement is either instant or far too fast to measure. If we were to measure the speed of light by the same means with synchronized clocks, we should find that light speed is no different from the instant timing of entanglement.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » 12 Nov 2019, 10:05 wrote:Measuring the speed of entanglement requires two synchronized clocks which is difficult in SR because the clocks need to be observed together by some means for synchronization and moving the clocks gets them out of sync but it can be done and synchronized clocks indicate that the speed of entanglement is either instant or far too fast to measure. If we were to measure the speed of light by the same means with synchronized clocks, we should find that light speed is no different from the instant timing of entanglement.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » November 12th, 2019, 2:19 am wrote:davidm » November 11th, 2019, 2:57 pm wrote:
I haven’t had time to read this thread in detail — only to skim it — so I wonder if you could elucidate why you brought up Petkov, whose work I am quite familiar with, in this particular context? Apologies if this is not obvious, but again, I’ve only had time to skim the thread.
I am not familiar with Petkov but he frequently uses the word "world tube". Is that what we commonly call a "worm hole" or a "E-R bridge" or is it something different?
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests