Alphanumeric said:
Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
"With out evidence of a travelling photon SR isn't worthy of any serious consideration...IMO which I might add I am fully entitled to. ”
Utter nonsense.. Even if th photon doesn't exist as a particle, electromagnetic effects are governed by Maxwell's equations and they have special relativity symmetry. Special relativity has, for more than 100 years, allowed us to accurately describe nature. It's pretty much the best theory of nature we have as it works for all forces, quantum and gravity.
No, a theory of everything provides you with a description of all fundamental interactions. Getting emergent properties is another thing.
QED explains all chemistry and therefore all biology and therefore conciousness. But it doesn't all for modelling of the brain, the equations are too hard.
And it's funny you try to take a pot shot at my level of learning when I have beaten you to a pulp time and again over the actual details of physics. That's why you refuse to answer my questions.
The only thing wrong with ylour education AN is the void in your, the student's, ability and determination to sift through incoming information critically. See below for a short
discussion on tyhe first of so called [thousands] of "experiments" that "accurately describe nature"
Some preliminary question AN:
If light is traveling as a wave through space what is the medium for the wave? I mean this in the sense that the medium for a tsunami is ocean water.
That QED “explains” all, please provide references that consciousness is explained by QED.
Are you aware of JS Bell and his provocative statement that a qm model void in express nonlocally force centers are incomplete?
Do any of your maths include nonlocality?
Regarding relativity and from Einstein’s “Relativity” published in 1916 I offer the following comments. Can you respond using the words of AE in “Relativity”? The following refers to chapters 1 - 7 in the book.
In Ch. 6 AE states regarding the determination of the velocity of a man walking on a moving train with respect to the embankment as,
W = w + v
Where W is the man’s velocity wrt an observer on the embankment, w is the velocity of the man relative to the train and v the velocity of the train wrt the embankment.
In ch. 7 AE states:
“…De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light”.
In ch 5 AE states:
“If, relative to the K , K’ is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K’ according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K’ This statement is called the
principle of relativity.”
In Ch 7 AE discusses the man walking with a twist:
It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section (ch 6), since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relative to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment [c]. w is the required velocity of light wrt the carriage and we have [c = w + v] w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage comes out smaller than c.
But this comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5 (Ch 5) …, the law of the propagation of light in vaccuo must according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as a reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference.”
This last statement is true enough. The Gallilean-Newtonian laws are identical on all inertial frames of reference. A flying pig, for instance will have one measured relative velocity wrt one inertial frame of reference, but a different relative velocity wrt another inertial frame moving with a different velocity.
But here, AE is exposed as the charlatan and liar by arbitrarily claiming that measuring the speed of light in vacuuo as c from the inertial frame of reference of the embankment means that all inertial frames of referenced must also measure c as the relative velocity of frame and light velocity.
But the fun stuff is in the man walking scenario.
Starting with W = w + v where W is the man’s speed relative to the embankment then substituting c for W and arriving at c = w + v we have an insoluble AE predicament. We all know that W is the sum of w + v, or in other words, the man’s speed as seen from the embankment is the sum of w, the man’s speed relative to the carriage plus the velocity of the carriage. But De Sitter, quoted by AE stated that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the source of the light, hence w the velocity for the man relative to the carriage cannot be substituted for \by the speed of light relative to the carriage because of De Sitter. Therefore in the statement c = w + v we must subtract the velocity of the carriage from w to arrive at c = w - v + v or c = w.
Or as AE stated w = c - v which is the true and accurate expression for the relative velocity of light and the carriage as seen from the embankment. The embankment observer measures c and then measures v he makes the subtraction and determines the relative velocity of light and carriage.
When AE said “The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage comes out smaller than c.”, he was correct yet he fails to remind the reader than the expression for which the substitutions were made were all relative to the embankment and his next crime of asserting that the result “comes in conflict with the principle of relativity” . By stating that the law of propagation of light must be the same for sure, but the measured velocity in vacuuo does not imply or hint at the claim that light must be treated differently than flying pigs.
The observer on the carriage, having read De Sitter, knows that light and the man cannot be treated the same and that the relative velocity of the man relative to the carriage, w = W - v cannot be treated the same as light where c = v + w where w must be corrected by subtracting v from w when w is the light speed wrt the carriage.
Finally, c is measured from the embankment and the measured relative velocity of light and carriage is correctly w = c - v. The light can originate anywhere and the results are the same.
On page 145 of relativity AE discusses the eclipse experiments of 1919 and he lists the data from 7 of what is actually dozens of data points - some experiment huh? This data presumably shows the observed deflection wrt the undeflected rays. Check the Internet for discussions of the resolution of the telescopes used in measuring the stars positions during the eclipse and after where 1 cm was the maximum resolution and where “the comparison photographs amounted to a few hundredths of a millimeter only.” Non-public available data has the stars located all over the place which leaves the selected “agreeing” data suspect itself.
AN, it is clear to the world that you are unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking and that you adopted the balm as presented by your professors and mentors - this is a condition not unique to yourself, the ill is endemic.
Respond to the “relativity” material using only the book if you are so able. Take your time there is a lot to cover here. Parenthetically, all your examples of "photon" motion are mere observations of detectged signals- nothing is inferred or expressed regarding photon motion. You, like the bulk of those laboring to support the standard models have merely assumed along with the earliest Greeks Zeno et al that light moves.
