"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

If you're so right, why aren't you publishing your 'work' in reputable journals?

The glaring and blatant lack of evidence that is critical in the support of your pet theory may yet make it into main stream media including your Scientific Journals...after all the credibility of Science is on the line yes?

Head lines:
"Science - Religion and a flying pig called Photon"

Should be fun when it happens...

 

[kurros]

"So I'll ask whether of not it is relevant to place a photon in the middle between the future and past light cones after all that is what they are yes? [ light cones]"

It is relevant in the sense that you may identify a space-time event "There is a photon at location x, here where I am, at the time t which I identify as the present". This event has spacetime coordinates (x,t), in my reference frame. Since it shares spacetime coordinates with me, it can be said to be "in the middle of my past and future light cones". If this event was moved to any other spatial location, but still at time t (my present), then it would no longer lie between my light cones. It would instead lie in a region of spacetime causally disconnected from myself, i.e. I cannot have observed it as being there. Any event on ones own HSP is causally disconnected from ones own "this is the present" event.
So to answer the question, you cannot identify a position "The point between THE past and future light cones", since light cones are specific to a chosen spacetime event. You COULD legitimately say "it is relevant to place a photon in the middle between IT's future and past light cones", i.e. you could draw light cones emanating from the photon event you have identified, which tell you the causal past and future of that photon. However, the photon event in question can not be uniquely identified as being in "the present", because although it may lie on one observers HSP, there are certainly other observers for whom it does not lie on their HSP.


"And can we state that it is only in this position in time between future and past that a photon could possibly exist. If it exists at all it must exist only between future and past."

This is tricky, because again the concept of what is between the past and the future has become relative. You thus cannot say "that it is only in this position in time between future and past that a photon could possibly exist", because another observer may disagree with you on what that position in time is. I do not deny that this is extremely conceptually unintuitive, and it is something that one doesn't really have to worry about when applying SR in practice, but it is nonetheless a consequence of SR. SR forces one to reconsider their conceptions about 'when in time things exist'. Intuitively we would like to say they exist in the present, but this becomes a much more complex issue in SR.

"And if so what does it tell you about the nature of time and our "flying" pig called photon?"

Well the nature of time I just discussed, I don't know what you're on about with this flying pig business.

"testing:
If the speed of light is invariant then so to must the speed of time or the rate of time [ change ] also be invariant."

I must say that this statement is deeply wrong, the invariance of the speed of light in fact *destroys* the invariance of the "speed of time". In Newtonian theory the "speed of time" is the same for all observers, so their clocks never get out of sync and one can speak of "universal time". In SR the "speed of time" is different for different observers, so although they each feel like time is passing at the same speed as it always does, their clocks can nonetheless get out of sync (if they bring them together at one location and compare them they can end up different in SR).

"In fact time dilation relies entirely on the invariant nature of change rate, time, light speed. [re: universal constant: inertia]"

How could you have time dilation if time was invariant?

"If I am not mistaken IMO the most incredible thing that Albert Einsteins' inspiration acheived was putting the light effect [events], smack bang between the future and past and declaring it's speed invariant."

In fact his inspiration was the precise opposite. Newton (and others) proposed what you are saying. Einstein's genius was to realise that it is impossible to talk about an absolute present in which events occur.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Einstein's genius was to realise that it is impossible to talk about an absolute present in which events occur.

due entirely to an massless object [photon ] that has yet to be proven to exist as a "traveling across space" entity. [ aka flying pig ]
hence this threads OP....

I wasn't aware that Newton and others had stated or postulated that light speed was invariant, apologies for the mistake. [edit: apologies withdrawn ]

How could you have time dilation if time was invariant?

quite easilly depending on how conditioned you are by SRT.
IMO there are two levels if you like in looking at time one is the deeper fundamental [ change rate of 'c' [inertia]] and the other is the effect that inertia imparts on time to accommodate the energy being applied to alter that change rate.
Time dilation only occurs because the constantcy of inertia must be maintained. The change rate of 'c' underpinning all mass/matter must be maintained.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I must say that this statement is deeply wrong, the invariance of the speed of light in fact *destroys* the invariance of the "speed of time". In Newtonian theory the "speed of time" is the same for all observers, so their clocks never get out of sync and one can speak of "universal time". In SR the "speed of time" is different for different observers, so although they each feel like time is passing at the same speed as it always does, their clocks can nonetheless get out of sync (if they bring them together at one location and compare them they can end up different in SR).

The thing that seems to be so hard to understand is that IMO you can put a dilated clock and non dilated clock or any clock regardless of dilation side by side and yet they still share the same present moment. [ as time passes through them side by side at differing rates.] the present moment [HSP] being in effect, stationary on the time line as time flows through it.
I suppose that was Newtonian as well?

Say for the sake of the discussion we asssume for a moment that time is absolute in a Newtonian sense and that the photon is always in existance only at the present moment between future and past.
However we also understand that the speed of light is invariant and that time flows through the present moment at that speed [ 'c' ]
We agree that a future photon can not exist nor can a past photon exist as they can only exist in one moment of time that being the present moment.
This means then that the present moment is also our inertia constant as time flows through this moment at an invariant rate of 'c'
So through out the entire universe every single light event must occur in the present moment thus the present moment is absolutly the same universally as determined by the light event and not by the observers relative velocity or clock tick rate [ remembering that clocks are usually mass premised]

There is absolutely no reason for time dialtion effects to accumulate*** and force a relative simultaneity [relative zero ] situation upon the universe and whilst the clocks tick rate may vary due to dilation the underpinning change rate that generates the platform for the clock is constant because dilation is physically necessary to maintain that constancy.
Therefore it could be proposed that dilation is the universes way of ensuring change rate [ invariance of 'c'] constancy and the constancy of the universal present moment HSP] is maintained.
Therefore it could be further proposed that time dillation is an effect caused by inertia.

** the only possible reason could be our "flying pig" called photon that has never been served for breakfast.
The presumption of a travelling photon must necessarilly lead to SRT. As there is no evidence to support the existence of a travelling photon then one has to wonder why we rely on such a theory as SRT when better theories would suffice that do have evidence and don't make such presumptions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Had he not relied on the occult idea of action at a distance, across a vacuum, he might not have developed his theory of gravity.

~wiki on Issac Newton.
So I fail to see how he could possibly have been a proponent as suggested.

In fact his inspiration was the precise opposite. Newton (and others) proposed what you are saying. Einstein's genius was to realise that it is impossible to talk about an absolute present in which events occur.

Issac had not got past the occult nor had he done anything regarding light except basic theorising in colors using prism. according to the wiki.
So I am not sure where you got your info from...please provide a link that shows that Issac Newton and others did indeed consider light speed to be invariant and central to the issue of time. Have you made an honest mistake or are you deliberately being misleading, one wonders.

The highlighted area "occult idea of action at a distance" sounds familiar doesn't it when refering to entanglements of half particles ...."spooky" was an adjective someone famous used once yes?

In essence IMO the light effect observed is indeed "spooky action at a distance". Due to inertia & acheived via zero space.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

with out evidence of the traveling photon your pet pig, Special Relativity, is dead in the water and you know it....

You continue to refuse to discuss anything I bring up. Why is that? Why aren't you able to engage in any discussion of research? Why can't you discuss the workings of relativity? Why are you having to resort to lying?

Googling for 'photon, experiment, Compton scattering' gives such papers as this. Let's see your learned analysis of that paper.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So it demonstrates the existence of a what?
A flying pig in transit or a photon in transit....the compton scattering which I must admit appears to be a fantastic demonstration of inertia resonance effects over zero space IMO - only demonstrates an effect and not causality. The travelling photon is deemed to be the causality and that is the problem because there is no evidence to support it as being so other than some mass and matter effects that are attributed to it when a flying pig could be just as appropriate.
Unless you would care to show how the Compton scattering demonstrates the casuality of the scattering? Because reading through the paper you linked to "seems" to show only effect based data. Certainly not evidence that the photons involved are actually travelling....so I get to hang on to the $100...for a bit longer yes?

You continue to refuse to discuss anything I bring up. Why is that?

Well , man, you have continually stated that you feel that I am a liar and a fraud so I guess why would I bother as you would only repeat your accusations. Your not interested in any real debate on the issue any ways are you...? So I may be a liar and a fraud in your opinion but I am not an idiot nor a fool I can assure you.

 

[BobG]

Do you not understand the concept that if a physical model makes predictions which are then observed in experiments then that is in fact evidence to support the model? So models which require the existence of a photon have made many many correct predictions whilst whatever your theory is has not. Or at least you have not demonstrated that it does.

You can't even make up your mind whether or not the problem is that the photon has not been demonstrated experimentally or by special relativity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you not understand the concept that if a physical model makes predictions which are then observed in experiments then that is in fact evidence to support the model? So models which require the existence of a photon have made many many correct predictions whilst whatever your theory is has not. Or at least you have not demonstrated that it does.

You can't even make up your mind whether or not the problem is that the photon has not been demonstrated experimentally or by special relativity.

well the model predicts that a photon will travel across vacant space at the speed of 'c' and as yet there are no effects to verify that it in fact does indeed travel except to say that they can't think of any other way for it to get across the void but to travel. Therefore it can be clearly stated that the prediction of a photon traveling from A to B is unsupported. Do you agree? or not agree?

This is not evidence of a traveling photon model, it is merely evidence of an inability to work out what is actually happening.
So the model predicts a traveling photon....well where's the evidence to support the prediction [of traveling]?
Unfortunately you cannot understand just how significant this issue is.

It is irrelevant whether it is demonstrated by SR or other it is simply a matter of demonstrable evidence of a traveling photon. Doesn't matter what theory you want to play with.
This thread is not specifically about SRT it is about a mythical traveling photon and how it is believed in with out any evidence to support the notion that it actually travels from A to B crossing the space between.
It could be said that the same evidential requirements that were necessary to evidence quantum entanglement may be appropriate here.

as a slight tangent:

How did they quantifiable prove instantaneous entanglement of half particles?
How did they manage to show the world and evidence it sufficiently to eliminate the light speed restriction?

uhmmm...might be worth researching....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

the compton scattering which I must admit appears to be a fantastic demonstration of inertia resonance effects over zero space IMO -

This is your version of "God did it" used by religious people to try to come up with something other than the mainstream scientific explaination. If I asked you to precisely define ' inertia resonance effects over zero space' you'd be unable to, it is simply your placeholder to "I refuse to accept or even discuss the mainstream work I don't understand and therefore invent a meaningless phenomena/explaination for it, which is precisely the thing I attempt to complain mainstream science is doing."

The travelling photon is deemed to be the causality and that is the problem because there is no evidence to support it as being so other than some mass and matter effects that are attributed to it when a flying pig could be just as appropriate.

So an object emits a quantity of energy and momentum, which is then absorbed a precisely predictable time later by a detector, in such a way that it appears as if the energy and momentum has interacted with the medium between the emitter and detector and you're trying to claim it's silly to view it as an object has traversed the distance between the emitter and detector?

Unless you would care to show how the Compton scattering demonstrates the casuality of the scattering? Because reading through the paper you linked to "seems" to show only effect based data.

Compton scattering does not have a wave based explaination, it implies the electrons are interacting with packets of energy, packets which are affected by the medium through which they are passed through. Packets which have energy and momentum and behaviour precisely that of the U(1) gauge field quantisation seen in QED. If it behaves like a photon, interacts like a photon and is described as a photon, it is by definition 'a photon'.

Certainly not evidence that the photons involved are actually travelling....so I get to hang on to the $100...for a bit longer yes?.

So you refuse to engage in a rational discussion and then proclaim you have somehow won said refused discussion? And you're trying to champion some kind of honesty within science?

How about Bose-Einstein condensates. The photon can be slowed down to a literal stop using those. If the photon didn't journey through the medium between an emitter and a detector that wouldn't be possible. If a photon just 'jumped' to the detector it'd be impossible to alter its behaviour with any medium. How do you explain something as simple as water alters the behaviour of light?

Well , man, you have continually stated that you feel that I am a liar and a fraud so I guess why would I bother as you would only repeat your accusations..

It's not that I 'feel' you're a liar, you are a liar. I have repeatedly asked you to link to the post where I said absolute rest existed, as you claimed I did. You haven't because you can't because you lied. If I am wrong in my accusation PROVE IT (I use red because you've ignored all previous requests you back up your lie).

Your not interested in any real debate on the issue any ways are you...? .

How can we have a 'real debate' on relativity when you admit you refuse to read anything about it? How can you say "Relativity says...." when you admit you don't read anything about it?

So I may be a liar and a fraud in your opinion but I am not an idiot nor a fool I can assure you.

You lied about me, you lied about your understanding and you lied about relativity. That isn't opinion, it's fact.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually you have raised an interesting possibility.
With regards to the B/E condensate experiments the question is whether it is the temperature of the condensate or the ambient space that has slowed the photon, either within the condensate [mass] or with in the space itself.

The question then is worth asking:
The temperatures prevalent in deep space between galaxies where the temperature is at it's lowest would be what approximately? I have no real idea what that temperature would be except bloody cold?

The condensate apparently is cooled to near absolute zero and I wonder if the space temperatures between galaxies ever reached close to that temperature. Because if it did then the light from those galaxies would slow down and the photons would crawl their way through the chilled space.

What this means is that if the space between galaxies is cool enough then the light passing through those cool spots should slow down to a crawl which of course would be absurd as this is not observed in reality [or is it]

and btw Tnerb, your hate mail is automatically deleted when it hits my inbox so don't bother....[ I get a message from my server that tells me "who from" and that it has been deleted.]

 

[Quantum Quack]

So an object emits a quantity of energy and momentum, which is then absorbed a precisely predictable time later by a detector, in such a way that it appears as if the energy and momentum has interacted with the medium between the emitter and detector and you're trying to claim it's silly to view it as an object has traversed the distance between the emitter and detector?

and what medium is between emitter and detector pray tell?
and how is it determined that the photons have been effected by that medium given that if it is pure vacuum it has no ability to interact with a medium [ Morely proved this years ago did he not....something about a non existent aether etc ]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Actually you have raised an interesting possibility.

... as well as demanding you prove you're not a liar but you'll ignore such requests because you can't.

And you really need to learn the differences between interstellar space, a pure vacuum, a quantum vacuum and 'normal matter' is.

and what medium is between emitter and detector pray tell?
and how is it determined that the photons have been effected by that medium given that if it is pure vacuum it has no ability to interact with a medium [ Morely proved this years ago did he not....something about a non existent aether etc

Another epic failure of you to understand. If there's nothing but vacuum between emitter and detector nothing happens to the photon (ignoring gravitational things). If there's a medium like water, glass, air, B/E condensate, lead, rock etc something happens. What depends on the medium. And oddy enough we can predict such behaviour if we view the light as photons moving through the medium. Do you need a bloody picture drawn for you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How can we have a 'real debate' on relativity when you admit you refuse to read anything about it? How can you say "Relativity says...." when you admit you don't read anything about it?

you still fail to realise that the issue is not exclusively about SR. It is merely about proving what science is taking for granted and that is that a photon travels across space from A to B. 'tis all. you can debate SR all you like...but as far as I can tell that would be an exercise in futility as the flying pig called photon has yet to be evidenced.
as far as alternative theories are concerned I am not all that interested attempting to explain anything about them as this is obviously not the place to discuss them. But one thing I will state is that it not only accommodates your universal constants rather well it accommodates all available light effect data and on top of that it joins perception & consciousnes into one rather neat package.... and I am sure when the time is right you math guys and phsycis guys are going to have a field day working with it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

... as well as demanding you prove you're not a liar but you'll ignore such requests because you can't.

And you really need to learn the differences between interstellar space, a pure vacuum, a quantum vacuum and 'normal matter' is.

Another epic failure of you to understand. If there's nothing but vacuum between emitter and detector nothing happens to the photon (ignoring gravitational things). If there's a medium like water, glass, air, B/E condensate, lead, rock etc something happens. What depends on the medium. And oddy enough we can predict such behaviour if we view the light as photons moving through the medium. Do you need a bloody picture drawn for you?

ha you are so silly AN...
If the medium has substance [ mass] then all you have proved is nothing more than using a torch and a detector 1 km away at sea level.
The medium has substance [ mass ] then the question still remains whether it is a photon traveling or simply mass resonating thus giving the effect that IMPLIES a travelling photon.

 

[Quantum Quack]

well..if interstella space is cold enough we should see a slowing of photons as they transit that volume of space, yes?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

you still fail to realise that the issue is not exclusively about SR. It is merely about proving what science is taking for granted and that is that a photon travels across space from A to B. 'tis all. you can debate SR all you like...but as far as I can tell that would be an exercise in futility as the flying pig called photon has yet to be evidenced.
as far as alternative theories are concerned I am not all that interested attempting to explain anything about them as this is obviously not the place to discuss them. But one thing I will state is that it not only accommodates your universal constants rather well it accommodates all available light effect data and on top of that it joins perception & consciousnes into one rather neat package.... and I am sure when the time is right you math guys and phsycis guys are going to have a field day working with it.

This does nothing to address what I asked. You refuse to read mainstream work because you know it to be wrong. So the mainstream work on the photon, ie quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, electroweak theory, special relativity and general relativity are almost completely unknown to you, you have only layman explainations from places like Wikipedia to use are information sources. Yet this does not stop you saying "There's no evidence", when infact there's tons of evidence but it's in journals and non-layman books and all written in precise mathematical and statistical ways, as scientists like being precise and rigorous. As such you have no way of understanding the evidence, even if you were willing to go look for it.

You make claims "Mainstream physics says...." when you admit you don't read mainstream physics and you make claims "There's no evidence for...." when you admit you don't read mainstream physics, which is where the evidence lies.

Does this not strike you as a little silly on your part? If I said "I've never read any Shakespeare but I'll tell all you English literature buffs that he was a crap author!" would you think I was worth listening to?

ha you are so silly AN...
If the medium has substance [ mass] then all you have proved is nothing more than using a torch and a detector 1 km away at sea level.
The medium has substance [ mass ] then the question still remains whether it is a photon traveling or simply mass resonating thus giving the effect that IMPLIES a travelling photon.

I'll give you an iota of benefit and assume 'mass resonating' means something to do with the particles which make up the medium oscillating in some way. That's a phonon and is well documented in such things as superfluidic helium. Photon effects are quite different. But you don't know this as you've never studied photons or phonons, so you simply think "Maybe we could mistake one for another?". If you knew about their effects you'd know the answer is 'no' but you admit you haven't read stuff on them so you admit your ignorance, yet somehow think that isn't an issue?

Still waiting for you to link to my post which has me saying absolute rest exists. Having trouble finding it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Still waiting for you to link to my post which has me saying absolute rest exists. Having trouble finding it?

naah it's is there as an implication of your answer to this question:
we have a lump of rock with a clock ticking on it.
The clock ticks for 1 second.
What change has occured to that lump of rock in one second?
Your last answer was nothing has changed according to SR.
which of course implies absolute rest. If you wish to recant and state that of course the rock has changed in that 1 second, according to SR what change as occured?
again I reckon you will say no change has occurred.

take ten objects all at zero relative velocity all with "light" clocks on them and ask the same question how much change has occured in one second.

And again you may say that nothing has changed however the light clock will tell you other wise. After all the light in the light clock has travelled 186,000 kms yes? and of course so too has the energy with in the rock.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

well..if interstella space is cold enough we should see a slowing of photons as they transit that volume of space, yes?

No, that assumes it's nothing but temperature which defines the speed of the photon. A zero temperature region of space is just one which is devoid of all particles, in other words a vacuum. A single photon moving through such a region is moving through a vacuum and moves at c. In a B/E condensate it is not just the temperature but also the substance itself, this is obvious otherwise anything cooled to near 0K would have the same effect on the photon which doesn't occur, hence why it's an interesting property of B/E condensates. All this is pretty obvious, you don't even need to know the specifics of quantum field theory to understand what a vacuum is and what zero temperature is.

In a B/E condensate the substance which it's made of interacts with the photon in a special and novel way when its cold enough. Too hot and the substance's atoms move too quickly to do whatever it is it does. Remove the substance and you don't get that interact and the photon moves along as it would in a vacuum because it is a vacuum.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

naah it's is there as an implication of your answer to this question:

In other words you put words in my mouth I never said. That's still being dishonest and given it's obvious I'm supporting relativity to say I said something which relativity firmly kills is clearly a lie on your part.

The clock ticks for 1 second.
What change has occured to that lump of rock in one second?
Your last answer was nothing has changed according to SR.
which of course implies absolute rest. If you wish to recant and state that of course the rock has changed in that 1 second, according to SR what change as occured?
again I reckon you will say no change has occurred.

Nothing having changed in the rock (other than its atoms moving due to it having non-zero temperature) doesn't mean it's at absolute rest, it just means its not interacting with anything and its component atoms are not moving from their positions with the lattice of the minerals its made up of.

You fail to understand science, you failed to understand what I said so you made up your own interpretation and claims it was mine. You lied. I have categorically stated I don't believe in absolute rest. How much bloody clearer do I have to be?