You most likely misunderstood either my post or QQ's idea. If you follow his model then photons don't exist and light speed is infinite so I was asking what happens to c=3 x 10^8 and subsequently what happens to E=mc^2.
"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack
- Thread starter geistkiesel
- Start date
You most likely misunderstood either my post or QQ's idea. If you follow his model then photons don't exist and light speed is infinite so I was asking what happens to c=3 x 10^8 and subsequently what happens to E=mc^2.
So you're asking what happens to relativistic results if you remove one of its postulates? I'll give you two guesses....
The speed of light going to infinity is a Newtonian limit of special relativity. QQ is wrong because we can test whether photons exist, that the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s and the other relativistic effects like time dilation experimentally. There has never been an experiment done in 100 years that has disproven any of these things. Discussion over.
It is not over. Not in the least. I have always found the existence of photons too hard to swallow. I keep wondering how can these point particles traverse through vacuum. As QQ has repeated so many times before that light can be caused through vibration effect of object of mass instead of these hypothetical photons. His explanation of the light effect is extremely intriguing. Even you'll have to admit that you can't detect or create isolated photons as they are always attached to the source of light.
He doesn't have an explaination of 'the light effect'. If I said "Light doesn't exist, its obviously invisible fairies pushing their magic dust around" would you say "Clearly AlphaNumeric has an explaination for light, the photon is nonsense!". No, because I provide no actual model to test and the qualitative explaiination I provide is obviously just made up rubbish. QQ saying "It's vibrations in matter!" is the same, he provides no actual model of vibrations in matter which models nature accurately. We have quantum field theory descriptions of vibrations through matter, such things as phonons. The phonon model is very accurate and doesn't allow for the photon to be interpreted in terms of phonons.
He can call it 'vibrations through matter', 'invisible fairy activity' or 'the will of God' but unless he can do more than provide vacuous one sentence comments he's not got anything worthwhile to say. His claims have no evidence, no model, no results, no ability to describe nature at all. Photons and relativity do. Now even though that doesn't prove them right it means that any which way you shake a stick at it there's no reason to think QQ's random guess is valid.
It's just like the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. Some Christians want the Bible taught as an alternative to actual science, but their viewpoint has no evidence, no reason, no justification. So if you allow their view point you must allow all baseless viewpoints no matter how stupid or ridiculous, hence the FSM. Science always works by "Given all possible explainations, what's the best?". Relativity and photons are so by Occams razor they are the scientific model and until they can be falsified (which QQ has abjectly failed to do) or superceeded by a superior theory (which QQ also fails to do) they remain valid science.
He can call it 'vibrations through matter', 'invisible fairy activity' or 'the will of God' but unless he can do more than provide vacuous one sentence comments he's not got anything worthwhile to say. His claims have no evidence, no model, no results, no ability to describe nature at all. Photons and relativity do. Now even though that doesn't prove them right it means that any which way you shake a stick at it there's no reason to think QQ's random guess is valid.
It's just like the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. Some Christians want the Bible taught as an alternative to actual science, but their viewpoint has no evidence, no reason, no justification. So if you allow their view point you must allow all baseless viewpoints no matter how stupid or ridiculous, hence the FSM. Science always works by "Given all possible explainations, what's the best?". Relativity and photons are so by Occams razor they are the scientific model and until they can be falsified (which QQ has abjectly failed to do) or superceeded by a superior theory (which QQ also fails to do) they remain valid science.
To alphanumeric:
First of all he is just stating his opinion on light and nothing else. He is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Its your science which has claimed photons exist but has been unable to show us one. Try to think out of the box for once instead of being so rigid and conservative in your views. So what if he didn't gave the explanation how the vibrations travel across space. The idea alone IMO was good enough. If you are so appalled by the idea why don't you first try to explain how a dimensionless entity such as a photon travels through space.
Trying to use quantum mechanics to reason with me won't do you any good since I personally don't believe in it as you might have already guessed this from our previous discussions. I have problem with the fundamental of quantum mechanics the quantum itself.
We differ on fundamentals here and hence reconciliation is impossible and further argument on this is futile.
I am also interested in his idea of light because it throws the quantum of light, the photon out of the window which I naturally oppose.
First of all he is just stating his opinion on light and nothing else. He is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. Its your science which has claimed photons exist but has been unable to show us one. Try to think out of the box for once instead of being so rigid and conservative in your views. So what if he didn't gave the explanation how the vibrations travel across space. The idea alone IMO was good enough. If you are so appalled by the idea why don't you first try to explain how a dimensionless entity such as a photon travels through space.
Trying to use quantum mechanics to reason with me won't do you any good since I personally don't believe in it as you might have already guessed this from our previous discussions. I have problem with the fundamental of quantum mechanics the quantum itself.
We differ on fundamentals here and hence reconciliation is impossible and further argument on this is futile.
I am also interested in his idea of light because it throws the quantum of light, the photon out of the window which I naturally oppose.
It has. What you mean to say is that if someone ignores all evidence for the photon and constructs a convoluted scenario which is, by construction, unable to provide evidence then they might say science can't show us a photon.
I assume you aren't blind. The things which are currently exciting the rods and cones at the back of your eye as you read this are photons.
Nothing to do with that, its the fact your logic is flawed and your claims incorrect.
But then your opinion is just that, your opinion.
Like an object of any dimension would, it varies its position with time.
You mean you don't believe in it and you don't understand it and you don't know it and hence even if I did bother to use quantum mechanics it would be utterly beyond your comprehension. The "Refutation by ignorance" method isn't a very logical one.
In other words you don't know, you don't wish to know and you don't think others should know because you don't think its right, because you don't know.
First of all I did not want any answers and argument from you. I asked a question to QQ not you. You jumped in and dragged me into an argument.
And of course its just an opinion where did I claim that its more. Are you so dense that you can't even understand this simple fact that I'm not claiming anything?
And of course I can read this but this still this doesn't prove its photons doing. Your logic is no better than QQ's ie assuming things to explain things.
You can believe in whatever you want it doesn't make it any truer. The same of course goes for me too of course.
Quantum says there are indivisible point particles. That is all I need to know before concluding that it is flawed IMO.
As I already said I rather not get in argument here. We''ll just be wasting each others time.
Perhaps Alphanumeric and others would like to show how universal constants are even possible using the current view of reality especially that which Special relativity theory suggests.
Special relativity because it requires a traveling photon, results in the only constant available, that of zero, being made relative.
Invariance of light speed across a vacuum demands that a univeral constant is impossible thus the "gravitational" constant is now redundant not to mention the other spin off constants.
Provide a mechanism to explain the universal constant of gravity when time universally is relatively simultaneous and not absolute. [ when the zero in t=0 is a relative zero]
There is only one universal constant and I would love to know of any others besides zero. [ philosophically, metaphysically, epistiologically and physically]
It is not up to me to prove your theory correct...
sorry anuraganimax, I can't entertain worth while discussion at this forum due to the obvious inability of some to allow thoughts to be openly aired.
Special relativity because it requires a traveling photon, results in the only constant available, that of zero, being made relative.
Invariance of light speed across a vacuum demands that a univeral constant is impossible thus the "gravitational" constant is now redundant not to mention the other spin off constants.
Provide a mechanism to explain the universal constant of gravity when time universally is relatively simultaneous and not absolute. [ when the zero in t=0 is a relative zero]
There is only one universal constant and I would love to know of any others besides zero. [ philosophically, metaphysically, epistiologically and physically]
It is not up to me to prove your theory correct...
sorry anuraganimax, I can't entertain worth while discussion at this forum due to the obvious inability of some to allow thoughts to be openly aired.
bottom line:
Start with zero space [ all dimensions]
then throw in some mass and you have expanded that zero space into 4 dimensions, but the zero space is still zero space and only has dimension because of mass.
Distance is only existant as a "massive" distance...e.g. use spacious vacuum as a "ruler" for distance and see what I mean.
Qu: "how much distance exists between the earth and the moon if you use vacuum [vacant space] as your measuring stick...?"
Qu: "how can you use vacant space as a measure stick? [without ascribing it values as an aether?]
Start with zero space [ all dimensions]
then throw in some mass and you have expanded that zero space into 4 dimensions, but the zero space is still zero space and only has dimension because of mass.
Distance is only existant as a "massive" distance...e.g. use spacious vacuum as a "ruler" for distance and see what I mean.
Qu: "how much distance exists between the earth and the moon if you use vacuum [vacant space] as your measuring stick...?"
Qu: "how can you use vacant space as a measure stick? [without ascribing it values as an aether?]
sorry but you are going to have to prove this assumption...and so far in this thread you have failed to do so and I can guarantee you will never be able to prove this assumption. in fact the $100 usd is still up for grabs if any one can....refer photon pig challenge for a few posts back.
So I was right about your "Don't know, don't want to know" attitude. Nice open mindedness.
You claimed there's no evidence for the photon. That's not true. So you did claim something.
Other than mainstream physics has a working, accurate model of light behaviour, both on cosmological and quantum levels and QQ has nothing.
And you base this on your extensive knowledge and experience of quantum mechanics and quantum phenomena....?
Oh goody, you're back to ask the same incoherent questions you've asked before.
Explain how the existence of the photon means that the fine structure constant, for a given energy scale, isn't constant.
why should I do that if you can not provide a coherant solution to the how the gravitational constant considering the immense voids of space between massive objects in this uinverse? and do so so using SRT as your foundation.
and do the same for objects of mass inertia that may have a few light years of massive distance separating them across a void?
give the board your expert opinion on how two objects with 1 ly of vacuum betwen them can possibly have the same gravitational constant EXACTLY regardless of time dilation effects due to relative velocity.
please note that there is nothing between those objects besides vacuumous space...and extend that to how the laws of thermodynamics can possibly hold true if there is no mechanism that allows these objects to share the exact same constant even though they are light years separated by vacuumous space?
how can the laws of energy conservation be upheld if zero is relative?
srt use of the photon model demands t= relative zero...so please explain...
please note that there is nothing between those objects besides vacuumous space...and extend that to how the laws of thermodynamics can possibly hold true if there is no mechanism that allows these objects to share the exact same constant even though they are light years separated by vacuumous space?
how can the laws of energy conservation be upheld if zero is relative?
srt use of the photon model demands t= relative zero...so please explain...
Last edited:
ha...exactly...I have zero....hee hee and whats more mine is absolute provable by the gravitational constant and yours is merely relative...provable by what? theory only......so there.....!
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... Bleh
You're the last person on earth who can talk about "open mindedness". What a joke.
Seems like you become a sad person every time anyone disses your precious quantum physics. Can you not understand this simple fact you moron that I don't wanna argue with you? But since you've got no life probably except for this forum you won't stop dragging ppl into argument who don't want to do nothing with you.
Go on reply to this as well and prove that what a sad little life you've got.
Last edited:
So you can't back up your claims. You're claiming things which can be found in no book or paper so you need to justify them yourself. The complete and utter consistency of the notion of universal constants with relativity is something anyone whose done relativity can grasp.
The Einstein Field Equations are $$G_{ab} = frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}T_{ab}$$. G and c are constants. If the universe started very small and that region of space had a particular value of G and c and then inflation occured so that we've got a bigger space with the same values of G and c how is that inconsistent? Where's the violation of relativity there?
The explaination is you're incoherent and given your lack of knowledge of any SR (which you admit you don't read as you 'know' it's wrong) you're unable to form coherent relevant questions about it. I can't ask relevant questions about the history of the French Royal Court between 1723 and 1730 because I know nothing about it. So why do you think you're asking relevant and coherent questions when you admit you avoid reading relativity?
I see you couldn't think of a good retort so have descended to ad homs.
I see you and QWC go to the same school of "How to avoid addressing relevant comments by making up imaginary scenarios to insult the person with.". If you don't want people to correct you when I suggest you don't come on a forum and say "Science can't provide evidence for the photon!". This is a lie, plain and simple. If you want to monologue then get a blog.
It amazes me people come to a discussion forum and then get upset when someone corrects them on something they know they haven't checked the validity of. Are you really so tightly wound you throw such a hissy fit because I corrected you on something you said which you could have easily find out to be wrong if you'd bothered to check? You know you didn't check or if you did you know you're wrong. In either case you're getting upset at me because of your short comings. Boo freakin' woo.
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ..... Bleh
This is the only proper way to respond to miserable and intolerant person like yourself. No one asked for your correction you are merely butting in as you've got no life and nothing better to do except feeling jealous of others and trying to belittle them. So go get a life pal.
Last edited:
AN of course meant $$G_{ab} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^{4}}T_{ab}$$.
anuraganimax: How old are you? My 5 year old daughter displays more maturity than you just did. As AN said, if you like being a moron and don't want to be corrected write a blog that no one will read and you can feel good about.
anuraganimax: How old are you? My 5 year old daughter displays more maturity than you just did. As AN said, if you like being a moron and don't want to be corrected write a blog that no one will read and you can feel good about.