"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

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.

I actually agree...wow...

the issue is though regarding the BEC.
is it merely the slowing of the energy within the condensate that gives the "impression" that the travelling photon has slowed or is it actually the travelling photon or both the energy in the condensate and the travelling photon that have slowed?

As we can not evidence the traveling photon then it must be the energy in the mass [ condensate that has slowed] as we can evidence the condensate quite readilly.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As we can not evidence the traveling photon then it must be the energy in the mass [ condensate that has slowed] as we can evidence the condensate quite readilly.

The B/E condensate isn't moving, it's atoms are held in magnetic traps. The only thing able to move through the condensate is the photon, phononic phenomena are different and we know how to tell the difference.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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?

well it was YOUR answer that did it...AlphaNumeric. YOU chose to answer the way you did, may be more care should be taken regarding your attitude...

You implied absolute rest when you attempted to ridicule me and that still stands, I must admit JamesR did also but thats another thingo...

A rock is nothing more than a light clock and it's energy must travell in a form of vibration at the speed of light and the distance must be 186000miles per second.

So therefore the speed of our flying pig photon is not relative to mass as it is supposedly travelling at exactly the same velocity as the light clock rock is.

and this exposes quite clearly a major issue for SRT.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The B/E condensate isn't moving, it's atoms are held in magnetic traps. The only thing able to move through the condensate is the photon, phononic phenomena are different and we know how to tell the difference.

now thats an intersting comment...hmmmmm I did read that to get the condensate to such incredibly low temperatures certain magetic systems had to be used. However it still doesn't rule out the issue of traveliing across space and not substance. As you have said the photon travels across the condensate which is now a medium capable of slowing photons down. [ not unlike water or any other medium excluding pure vacuum as vaccum is a non-medium]....which may bring up another issue I have yet to present....hmmm

 

[AlphaNumeric]

well it was YOUR answer that did it...AlphaNumeric. YOU chose to answer the way you did, may be more care should be taken regarding your attitude...

I should be more clear? Are you saying you aren't sure if I am saying "I support special relativity" or not? Is it ambiguous as to my views through this thread? Have I been a fence sitter in any way at all? Nope. You misunderstood because you don't know anything and like every crank I know you're trying to blame someone else.

ou implied absolute rest when you attempted to ridicule me and that still stands, I must admit JamesR did also but thats another thingo...

No, you think I implied. And further more you then didn't say "AlphaNumeric, it appeared to me, implied absolute rest", you said "Ahh that reminds me of an old discussion some years ago about how a photon can accelerate from a so called object at absolute rest according to Alphanumeric and achieve 'c'." (link). You lied.

A rock is nothing more than a light clock and it's energy must travell in a form of vibration at the speed of light and the distance must be 186000miles per second.

'Must'? According to whom? You. Not people doing QED or relativity, not people who actually read science and do science, you. If I'm wrong, link to a paper in a reputable journal which says that.

This is an example of you making claims about theories you admit you don't read.

and this exposes quite clearly a major issue for SRT.

No, it exposes the fact you'll invent "Special relativity says...." or "Theory says...." claims, knowing full well you've got no evidence, and then attack those invented claims.

You're dishonest.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I should be more clear? Are you saying you aren't sure if I am saying "I support special relativity" or not? Is it ambiguous as to my views through this thread? Have I been a fence sitter in any way at all? Nope. You misunderstood because you don't know anything and like every crank I know you're trying to blame someone else.

No, you think I implied. And further more you then didn't say "AlphaNumeric, it appeared to me, implied absolute rest", you said "Ahh that reminds me of an old discussion some years ago about how a photon can accelerate from a so called object at absolute rest according to Alphanumeric and achieve 'c'." (link). You lied.

'Must'? According to whom? You. Not people doing QED or relativity, not people who actually read science and do science, you. If I'm wrong, link to a paper in a reputable journal which says that.

This is an example of you making claims about theories you admit you don't read.

No, it exposes the fact you'll invent "Special relativity says...." or "Theory says...." claims, knowing full well you've got no evidence, and then attack those invented claims.

You're dishonest.

well what do you think happens when you deliberately side step issues and resort to ridicule and slander instead...flamers get what flamers get....
besides I have always claimed only an opinion and never a professional posture as you have.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Either way the flying pig called Photon is still flying with out evidence and that is the issue not personalities. $100 usd if any one can provide evidence of a travelling photon across space.
and no Alpha Numeric the issue wont go away...until it is resolved no matter how much you may want it to...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

well what do you think happens when you deliberately side step issues and resort to ridicule and slander instead...flamers get what flamers get....

You lied. Irrespective of whether I called you a muppet or not, you flat out, clearly lied. Noone reading my posts could think I support something which is the antithesis of relativity, yet you claim that's what I implied. Either you lied or you have zero comprehension skills.

besides I have always claimed only an opinion and never a professional posture as you have.

Wait, so when you say the energy in the rock moves at light speed you aren't saying "Relativity says...." or "Mr Scientist who does relativity or QED says.,..." you mean you think the energy in the rock moves at the speed of light, it is only your opinion?

But if it's only your opinion and not you saying it's a professional posture of a particular scientist or group of scientists, how can it be a major flaw in relativity? Relativity doesn't say that! Thus we reach another example of your flawed logic. You put forth your views or your interpretations, comment there's an inconsistency and then proclaim it's a problem with the model, not your lack of understanding (despite admitting you never read the models). How can you possibly view this as tenable?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

$100 usd if any one can provide evidence of a travelling photon across space.

Photons don't emit other particles. So if you are defining 'space' as a vacuum then it's not possible until someone can measure gravitational disturbances due to single photons. You ignore ALL evidence of photons moving through mediums and interacting with them and doing everything precisely as QED and relativity say.

You're like a creationist ignoring all the evidence for evolution and saying "Unless you can show me a transitional fossil I refuse to believe it". You aren't winning the discussion by saying "Oh look, noone has won the $100", because you have deliberately fixed the 'contest' to criteria you know noone does experiments on directly. You won't look at the B/E condensate evidence, because you don't understand it, you just proclaim "Oh it's probably just a mass inertia effect". Really? Care to precisely define that and provide physical models of such effects so we can compare? No? Then why should we believe you, when you offer zero evidence and no model, while QED and relativity offer decades of models and evidence, but beyond your comprehension (but not beyond plenty of other people). You fail you own criteria.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You lied. Irrespective of whether I called you a muppet or not, you flat out, clearly lied. Noone reading my posts could think I support something which is the antithesis of relativity, yet you claim that's what I implied. Either you lied or you have zero comprehension skills.

Wait, so when you say the energy in the rock moves at light speed you aren't saying "Relativity says...." or "Mr Scientist who does relativity or QED says.,..." you mean you think the energy in the rock moves at the speed of light, it is only your opinion?

But if it's only your opinion and not you saying it's a professional posture of a particular scientist or group of scientists, how can it be a major flaw in relativity? Relativity doesn't say that! Thus we reach another example of your flawed logic. You put forth your views or your interpretations, comment there's an inconsistency and then proclaim it's a problem with the model, not your lack of understanding (despite admitting you never read the models). How can you possibly view this as tenable?

Alpha, seriously, SR is actually not that hard to comprehend in it's basic ideology. Simply start with the light cones and place a photon at the centre and then have a think about what that actually means. Then after that take a rock or something of substance [observer] and do the same and think about what that means.
IMO The light cones are not just about light but also about observers as well. Observers are "massive". It seems obvious to me, and it is clear that E=mc^2 can be derived just by looking at the cones.
However if the photon travels across space we have to result in relative simultaneity, not non-simultaneity but relative simultaneity. If the photons don't travel and the efffect is caused by a mechanism not unlike entanglements as such we end up with absolute time right across all HSP's and not relative time on a zero duration HSP [ relative zero]

The issue is simply the lack of any credible evidence that supports a travelling photon and that is all there is to it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Photons don't emit other particles. So if you are defining 'space' as a vacuum then it's not possible until someone can measure gravitational disturbances due to single photons.

of course they don't emit other particles and yes the only way to prove them would be to observe gravitational disturbances [ opposiing effect to gavitational lensing ] and of course we have no current way of doing so as science has no real idea what gravity is in the first place. [ and never will under the SR paradigm I might add IMO]

You're like a creationist ignoring all the evidence for evolution and saying "Unless you can show me a transitional fossil I refuse to believe it". You aren't winning the discussion by saying "Oh look, noone has won the $100", because you have deliberately fixed the 'contest' to criteria you know noone does experiments on directly. You won't look at the B/E condensate evidence, because you don't understand it, you just proclaim "Oh it's probably just a mass inertia effect". Really? Care to precisely define that and provide physical models of such effects so we can compare? No? Then why should we believe you, when you offer zero evidence and no model, while QED and relativity offer decades of models and evidence, but beyond your comprehension (but not beyond plenty of other people). You fail you own criteria.

hang on it was you guys that invented the photon not me. It isn't up to me to prove it's existence and it's not up to me to provide an alternative either...

You make it ...you prove it....

you predict that a photon will travel across space yet you have not a shred of evidence to support the notion of travel.
That's not my fault is it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

A 13 year old student comes up to you and asks:
"Excuse me sir, how do we know that a photon actually travels across vacuumous space?"
What would be your answer?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Alpha, seriously, SR is actually not that hard to comprehend in it's basic ideology.

Wait, are you now saying you have read some special relativity? I thought you said it wasn't worth reading because you know it's a flawed theory?

Alpha, seriously, SR is actually not that hard to comprehend in it's basic ideology. Simply start with the light cones and place a photon at the centre and then have a think about what that actually means. Then after that take a rock or something of substance [observer] and do the same and think about what that means.

You end up with a space-time diagram which looks like

|\  |
| \ |
|  \|
|  /| 
| / |
|/  |

The two vertical lines are the mirrors, thus making it clear we are working in their rest frame and the diagonal lines represent 45 degree diagonal lines which are the photon's worldline. It goes from one mirror to another and back. The time to do this is related to the distance between the mirrors and constitutes a light clock. If you put in a rock which is at rest with respect to the clock you get

|\  |     |
| \ |     |
|  \|     |
|  /|     | 
| / |     |
|/  |     |

The rock is at rest so it's worldline is a vertical line. This doesn't say anything about it's consistent atoms but there's more detail than really relavent.

IMO The light cones are not just about light but also about observers as well. Observers are "massive". It seems obvious to me, and it is clear that E=mc^2 can be derived just by looking at the cones.

Observers have worldlines, but unless they are massless they aren't on light cones, but they don't have to be massive. And you are wrong about it being 'obvious' since it both isn't and the actual formula is $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$ which on the light cone is $$E^{2} = (pc)^{2}$$ as m=0. Light cones are formed by null geodesics which require m=0.

So your 'obvious' intuition about relativity is wrong. What ... a ... shocker!

The issue is simply the lack of any credible evidence that supports a travelling photon and that is all there is to it.

The issue is you don't know any relativity, you try to teach me it when I'm infinitely more knowledgable than you in it and that you ignore any and all evidence beyond your "I'd fail high school physics' understanding.

of course they don't emit other particles

Why 'of course'. Do you even know what defines such properties? Do Z's emit other particles? Ws? Neutrinos? Gluons? Please answer each in turn.

and of course we have no current way of doing so as science has no real idea what gravity is in the first place. [ and never will under the SR paradigm I might add IMO]

Yet another example of your lack of understanding. Special relativity has nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational relativity is known as general relativity. You try to teach me it when you don't even understand that fundamental concept!

hang on it was you guys that invented the photon not me. It isn't up to me to prove it's existence and it's not up to me to provide an alternative either...]

You're the one talking about 'mass resonance' and so you need to provide a model by which we can test your claim. QED provides a model by which we can test to see if the notion of a photon is consistent with experiments and it's passed every single one of them. Denying the work doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

you predict that a photon will travel across space yet you have not a shred of evidence to support the notion of travel.

This is just going around in circles now. I mention something you ignore it. Not refute it, ignore it. And then you make incorrect claims about physics, about what I've said, you have to resort to constant incorrect paraphrasing as you can't grasp the details. In 20 years of claimed work you didn't know SR is not an attempt to describe gravity?!

 

[Quantum Quack]

A 13 year old student comes up to you and asks:
"Excuse me sir, how do we know that a photon actually travels across vacuumous space?"
What would be your answer?

 

[Quantum Quack]

and you wonder why I don't apologise for your absolute rest implications...what a joke...

So you think that SR claims an observer is at absolute rest or relative rest? And if it is not relative rest then what is it?

and you claim to have studied SR....
as there can be no absolute rest then it must be relative rest yes?

What the hell do you think absolute rest means?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The issue is you don't know any relativity, you try to teach me it when I'm infinitely more knowledgable than you in it and that you ignore any and all evidence beyond your "I'd fail high school physics' understanding.

so you still need to win ego points to support your failing self esteem is that it....

my goodness you got it hard man.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Go on have another go at it,,, maybe 100 times a $ lucky....ha

 

[Quantum Quack]

What would be acheived if they ever managed to get the condensate down to absolute zero do you think?
going to get some shut eye and leave you to your ego game....back later if you're up to it...

 

[BobG]

Violation of the third law of thermodynamics for a start.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A 13 year old student comes up to you and asks:
"Excuse me sir, how do we know that a photon actually travels across vacuumous space?"
What would be your answer?

If they were 13 I'd say because we can see the Sun, which is separated from the Earth by 96 million miles of vacuum. And likewise for other, more distant, objects.

So you think that SR claims an observer is at absolute rest or relative rest? And if it is not relative rest then what is it?

An observer can be doing whatever the heck he, she or it likes, all you need do is define it's worldline. On grounds of physicality you would most likely make restrictions on the worldline such as being monotonic in tau and having a tangent which is nowhere positive (assuming a signature of (-+++)), meaning the observer travels, in all inertial frames, at or below the speed of light.

So SR actually says nothing like what you claim it does. Yet another shocker.

and you claim to have studied SR....
as there can be no absolute rest then it must be relative rest yes?

I don't need to 'claim', like you claim, I can prove it. This is me. And if you are referring to the rock in the previous post of mine then I explicitly stated relative rest. But this is by no means required.

What the hell do you think absolute rest means?

It means there's some 'absolute' reference frame in the universe, a globally defined constant inertial frame which is somehow more special than any other inertial frame. Which is incompatible with relativity.

so you still need to win ego points to support your failing self esteem is that it....

It's a simple fact I am more educated and more experienced than you in every area of physics relevant to this discussion. Or do you claim otherwise?

What would be acheived if they ever managed to get the condensate down to absolute zero do you think?

I'll add thermodynamics to the list of things you don't know. And for your information they can altogether stop a photon in a B/E condensate without needing it to go to 0K.

and leave you to your ego game..

I haven't have to lie once about myself. You have had to lie about me, your knowledge, your experience, mainstream physics and avoid every attempt to engage you in actual quantitative discussion. You're claiming you're way ahead of all of mainstream physics. I'm just claiming you're well behind mainstream physics, of which I am a part.