Photon?

[Farsight]

In the GR picture, gravity is not a force.

I know. There is no force on a falling body. I said "the force of gravity" because people are familiar with that and the tidal force.

It is correct to say that light follows geodesics in spacetime. Nothing you have written above shows that this is an incorrect statement. You can quibble with the word "follows" if you like, based on the notion that spacetime is a static entity. But the fact remains that if you plot the path of a photon through spacetime, you get a geodesic. Not that geodesics are limited to photons, of course.

You're misunderstanding this. The path of the photon is through space, and you can plot it in spacetime. But the photon doesn't move through spacetime. Imagine you throw a red ball and I film it on an old-style cine-camera. Then I develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, then form them into a block. There's a red streak in the block, but the ball isn't moving through the block. There's a geodesic in the block, but the ball isn't following it.

Show me how you reached that conclusion, including appropriate equations.

It comes from Maxwell's displacement current wherein "light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena".. And from Percy Hammonds electromagnetic geometry wherein "we conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". It's like I said on the previous page, in mechanics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = √(G/ρ) where G here is the shear modulus of elasticity, and ρ is the density. In electrodynamics the equation is essentially the same: c = √(1/ε0μ0) where ε0 is permittivity and μ0 is permeability. Note that permittivity is a "how easy" measure rather than a "how hard" measure, so there's a reciprocal. Note that when a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When an ocean wave move through the sea, the sea waves. And when a gravitational or electromagnetic wave moves through space, space waves. You can read that "space is not a medium, the electric wave creates the magnetic wave and vice versa". But that's poppycock.

Please explain in more detail - especially the point about Planck's constant.

I can't do this quickly. I'll think about starting a thread talking about 4-potential and the spatial and time derivatives. Most people don't know about this sort of stuff, but se for example this on wiki: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time".

We've already been through this. The speed of light is c at the event horizon, not zero.

It's zero because c is zero. I am absolutely confident about this. I'm confident that what you've been taught is wrong.

It's only different from c if you try to measure it non-locally. And that goes for any measurement of the speed of light anywhere (not just near a black hole). You claim that the speed of light varies between the floor and ceiling of your room. Recently, you even provided a link to a John Baez article that explains this. But it looks like you didn't read it, or else you didn't understand it.

I read it, and I understood it.

If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling, it will be c. If you measure it on the floor, it will be c.

Because of the tautology. Surely you know about this by now? See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. You use the local motion of light to define your second and your metre. Then you use them to measure the local speed of light. Yes, that's how it works.

It's only when you try to calculate the speed of light at the ceiling from your position on the floor that you will get something other than c. I think your main point of confusion on the whole varying speed of light thing is that you don't carefully distinguish local measurements from non-local calculations.

I'm not confused about anything. But you clearly missed the discussion about why doesn't the light get out?.

 

[Farsight]

Here's a nice video explaining finite spaces without edges.

This video is popscience tosh. It makes assertions that have no foundation whatsoever. There's no evidence of any higher dimension or of space bending into itself or of any "Asteroids" toroidal universe. It's all just one big fantasy.

(Fun fact: The maker of the video recommends a website for further reading and the forums for that website banned Farsight because he wouldn't answer questions about the details of his physics proposals. Years ago.)

That will be Cosmoquest, where I answered over a hundred questions and was banned because I won the argument. It's rather like the way the video didn't give "Derek" a fair hearing.

 

[James R]

Farsight,

You're misunderstanding this. The path of the photon is through space, and you can plot it in spacetime. But the photon doesn't move through spacetime. Imagine you throw a red ball and I film it on an old-style cine-camera. Then I develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, then form them into a block. There's a red streak in the block, but the ball isn't moving through the block. There's a geodesic in the block, but the ball isn't following it.

I think we actually agree on this. We're disagreeing about what words are appropriate to describe the situation, that's all.

It comes from Maxwell's displacement current wherein "light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena".. And from Percy Hammonds electromagnetic geometry wherein "we conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction". It's like I said on the previous page, in mechanics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = √(G/ρ) where G here is the shear modulus of elasticity, and ρ is the density. In electrodynamics the equation is essentially the same: c = √(1/ε0μ0) where ε0 is permittivity and μ0 is permeability. Note that permittivity is a "how easy" measure rather than a "how hard" measure, so there's a reciprocal. Note that when a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When an ocean wave move through the sea, the sea waves. And when a gravitational or electromagnetic wave moves through space, space waves. You can read that "space is not a medium, the electric wave creates the magnetic wave and vice versa". But that's poppycock

You wrote 'Permittivity is like "how easy is it to bend space". Permeability is like "how strong it bounces back".' I don't think you've explained how permittivity relates to any bending of space. Nor have you explained why permeability is like a measure of the "springingness" of space. All I get from the above is an extrapolation of an equation drawn from a completely unrelated area of physics.

You quote Maxwell above, but wasn't that written before it was realised that light needs no medium to propagate? That was back in the days of the aether.

As I understand it, when an electromagnetic wave moves though space, electric and magnetic fields wave, not space. It's ok to say that space waves when a gravitational wave goes through.

And your assertion about "poppycock" is just an unsupported claim, as far as I can see.

I can't do this quickly. I'll think about starting a thread talking about 4-potential and the spatial and time derivatives. Most people don't know about this sort of stuff, but se for example this on wiki: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time".

That's just a description of Maxwell's equations, isn't it?

It's zero because c is zero. I am absolutely confident about this. I'm confident that what you've been taught is wrong.

I don't place much weight on your confidence, Farsight. I'm afraid I'll need something other than assertion from you before I accept what you have to say.

I read it, and I understood it.

Then do you agree with what Baez wrote, or was he wrong?

Because of the tautology. Surely you know about this by now? See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. You use the local motion of light to define your second and your metre. Then you use them to measure the local speed of light. Yes, that's how it works.

Yes. How else do you suggest we define the second and the metre?

I'm not confused about anything. But you clearly missed the discussion about why doesn't the light get out?.

The light doesn't get out because there are no outgoing geodesics available for it.

 

[paddoboy]

That will be Cosmoquest, where I answered over a hundred questions and was banned because I won the argument. It's rather like the way the video didn't give "Derek" a fair hearing.

You were banned because you won the argument???
So you are saying the mods there conspired against you?
Why would they do that? I mean what logical reason is there for them banning you because you won the argument?
Why could it not be simply that you were wrong?
You realise that this is the common plaintiff cry from most conspiracy nutters and delusional anti mainstream trolls.
Just asking.

 

[Farsight]

I think we actually agree on this. We're disagreeing about what words are appropriate to describe the situation, that's all.

OK noted. Good stuff.

You wrote 'Permittivity is like "how easy is it to bend space". Permeability is like "how strong it bounces back".' I don't think you've explained how permittivity relates to any bending of space. Nor have you explained why permeability is like a measure of the "springingness" of space. All I get from the above is an extrapolation of an equation drawn from a completely unrelated area of physics.

It's because space waves. Do your own research to appreciate that I'm not making this stuff up, see for example this.

You quote Maxwell above, but wasn't that written before it was realised that light needs no medium to propagate? That was back in the days of the aether.

The idea that light needs no medium to propagate is a fallacy. The usual story is that the electric wave creates the magnetic wave which creates the electric wave. That's wrong. It's an electromagnetic wave. The sinusoidal E-field variation is the spatial derivative of four-potential, the sinusoidal M-field variation is the time derivative. They're in phase. They aren't two different waves, it's an electromagnetic wave. Note that Einstein described space as the "aether" of general relativity.

As I understand it, when an electromagnetic wave moves though space, electric and magnetic fields wave, not space.

That's what's often taught, but the field concerned is the electromagnetic field. And what isn't taught, is what it really is.

It's ok to say that space waves when a gravitational wave goes through.

So if I sent two out-of-phase photons past you, space waves. Think it through.

And your assertion about "poppycock" is just an unsupported claim, as far as I can see.

It isn't unsupported. Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism. Saying the electric wave creates the magnetic wave etc totally ignores the whole thrust of what Maxwell did.

That's just a description of Maxwell's equations, isn't it?

Yes. And it ought to tell you that the electric wave and the magnetic wave are but two aspects of the electromagnetic wave.

I don't place much weight on your confidence, Farsight. I'm afraid I'll need something other than assertion from you before I accept what you have to say.

Then see this from Professor Tom Moore: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/qm-gr-black-holes-cannot-exist.142658/page-36

Then do you agree with what Baez wrote, or was he wrong?

Don Koks wrote it after I contacted him about an issue in the previous version. What he's written is right. He pulled his punches a little with "pseudo speed", that's all.

Yes. How else do you suggest we define the second and the metre?

As now but with the proviso that's it's our local definition done at say sea level.

The light doesn't get out because there are no outgoing geodesics available for it.

You definitely haven't read Why doesn't the light get out? The light doesn't move along a geodesic, remember? Just as that ball doesn't move inside that block of film frames. The light doesn't get out because it's stopped.

 

[Write4U]

The idea that light needs no medium to propagate is a fallacy. The usual story is that the electric wave creates the magnetic wave which creates the electric wave. That's wrong. It's an electromagnetic wave. The sinusoidal E-field variation is the spatial derivative of four-potential, the sinusoidal M-field variation is the time derivative. They're in phase. They aren't two different waves, it's an electromagnetic wave. Note that Einstein described space as the "aether" of general relativity.

In my laymans opinion, the medium of spacetime is a "Potential" wave function or field, from which the implications of various wave forms assemble and become expressed as electro, magnetic, or any other field that functions as a probability wave before something becomes expressed in physical reality.

Because "potential" is a non physical latent ability it would nicely tie all waveforms together, IMO.

 

[Farsight]

Have a look at the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

"It is generally argued that Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates the physicality of electromagnetic potentials, Φ and A, in quantum mechanics. Classically it was possible to argue that only the electromagnetic fields are physical, while the electromagnetic potentials are purely mathematical constructs, that due to gauge freedom aren't even unique for a given electromagnetic field..."

"Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead. In fact Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead, as this would be more fundamental."

See what I said above about derivatives? Think of field as the slope of potential. Then imagine a hill. It's real.

 

[PhysBang]

This video is popscience tosh. It makes assertions that have no foundation whatsoever. There's no evidence of any higher dimension or of space bending into itself or of any "Asteroids" toroidal universe. It's all just one big fantasy.

Why do you have to lie about everything? The video does not claim that there is a higher dimension. The video was there to demonstrate how a volume can be finite and not have and edge. Regardless, just because it contradicts your dogma does not mean that there is no evidence, as there are many reasons to believe that we do live in such a finite universe and scientists have looked for specific signals from the "wrap around" that would indicate the exact size.

That will be Cosmoquest, where I answered over a hundred questions and was banned because I won the argument. It's rather like the way the video didn't give "Derek" a fair hearing.

That, too, is a lie. While you did produce text as a response to questions, since it was essentially the same text over and over again, it does not count as answers. As the Moderator wrote, 'Farsight, you cannot be serious bringing about a science fiction idea as evidence for your idea. You will stop this kind of nonsense and try to work at prove some of your ideas. If indeed you have tried to publish this, you have done some work, and I cannot imagine you did it non mathematically. So, you better start presenting some beef here otherwise it is "end of exersize."'

So we'll let that sit as evidence of your long commitment to duplicity.

 

[quantum_wave]

It's the waterfall analogy. You can find plenty of references to it on what look like reliable websites. Here's an example.

Oh that. I don't invoke that aspect of theory in my model. Space simply is where things are and happen; I start with the premise that it is infinite, and that there is no empty space. Space, and what is in it comprises the "medium of space". It is not a gin-clear elastic exactly, and it is not energy in and of itself; it carries waves and the waves carry the energy that fills space.

I explain my view of the medium of space in several hundred words out in the fringe, but it is not your grandaddy's M&M aether, far from it. Oops, sorry, that is why I get flamed so often, lol.

Try not to be a "my theory" guy. You might think I am, but note that I'm forever referring to Einstein or Minkowski or Maxwell et cetera.

I know you don't like to be characterized as having an alternative theory; sorry. However, what you say is not the current consensus, and the consensus evolves. I love Einstein's work and words, and over the years he has said something about everything. Interesting, but science theory was not complete 100 years ago, and is not complete today, IMO. You can call me a theory guy, but I reject the accusation that I have a theory; I have a personal hobby model that addresses the as yet unknown, the incompatibilities, and incompleteness that I have found in generally accepted theory, to my satisfaction. The hypotheses evolve and change as I entertain myself reading and contemplating.

But there's no evidence to support this speculation.

I know it is speculation; of course it is. I even have developed a methodology for speculation about things we can't explain yet. And I make sure I have hypotheses about the mechanics of how things work. My standing claim is that my speculations are internally consistent, and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Evolving my personal model is intended to feed my interest in the nature of things at a mechanistic level. People flame me all the time, and yet I am civil with almost everyone because I want them to try to falsify any little part of my set of hypotheses. If the discussion devolves into hate and false accusations, I can't learn from them.

The trouble with physics is that people get attached to an idea which rumbles on for decades even though there's no supporting evidence.

That doesn't bother me. I would love for generally accepted science to ring true and complete to me, but I don't care if it doesn't. When it doesn't, that gives me something to look at and resovle with my own speculations.

For myself I'd rather talk about the things that are out there and try to understand them before getting into "alternative cosmology".

I hear you, and that makes us different. If I can't imagine the mechanics of someone's theory based on my own life long experiences and self learning, I seem to want to go in the direction of asking people about ways to complete and/or reconcile things; how might they work and work together.

And people can't. Which says to me that the universe just can't be infinite. Only when you talk to a cosmologist about that, he seems to have some kind of mental block.

I don't bother going there because I have started with the premise that space is infinite. Any other view, unless there is some new evidence, doesn't fit with all the rest of my hypotheses, and my hypotheses work together, according to me. I admit that proof of finite space would send me back to the beginning, but I would be glad to start over if that were proven.

 

[PhysBang]

See what I said above about derivatives? Think of field as the slope of potential. Then imagine a hill. It's real.

Yet this incorrectly represents the mathematical relationship between electrical fields and magnetic fields and electromagnetic potentials. One has to first make a choice of coordinates and a choice of gauge, then one can take the components of the potential and derive the fields. It does not appear that slope is involved.

 

[quantum_wave]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

That actually sounds like a good read.

 

[Farsight]

LOL, Idiocracy. Now there's a good movie. All points noted re your explanatory post, quantum_wave. I'd prefer it if you referred to Einstein etc, but at least you're thinking for yourself instead of slavishly following some popscience nonsense that doesn't hold water. But I would urge you to think for yourself about that infinite universe assumption though.

Yet this incorrectly represents the mathematical relationship between electrical fields and magnetic fields and electromagnetic potentials. One has to first make a choice of coordinates and a choice of gauge, then one can take the components of the potential and derive the fields. It does not appear that slope is involved.

The derivative is the slope. The gradient. Google it. The force of gravity at some location, the "strength of the gravitational field", relates to the gradient in potential. The electromagnetic field is more complicated. Note the electromagnetic field.

 

[PhysBang]

The derivative is the slope. The gradient. Google it. The force of gravity at some location, the "strength of the gravitational field", relates to the gradient in potential. The electromagnetic field is more complicated. Note the electromagnetic field.

OK, since it's so straightforward, can you walk us through what the electromagnetic potential is and how it produces the two fields? What you say seems to directly contradict available sources on the subjects.

 

[Farsight]

OK, since it's so straightforward, can you walk us through what the electromagnetic potential is and how it produces the two fields? What you say seems to directly contradict available sources on the subjects.

It doesn't produce two fields. There's only one field. The electromagnetic field. See Minkowski's Space and Time dating from 1908:

"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".

Note how he says the field. The electron has one field only. That's the electromagnetic field Fμv. And like John Jackson said, one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμv rather than E or B separately". Because they denote the electric and magnetic forces that result from electromagnetic field interactions. When an electron and a positron have no initial relative motion, they move straight towards one another. There's only a linear electric force. When you throw one past the other there's also a rotational magnetic force. Because of the screw nature of electromagnetism. Maxwell referred to this too, see on Physical Lines of Force: ""a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". So again, try depicting the electromagnetic field. Here's my depiction:



You might want to take a look at Maxwell's page title.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
Because of the tautology. Surely you know about this by now? See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. You use the local motion of light to define your second and your metre. Then you use them to measure the local speed of light. Yes, that's how it works.

...

I appreciate your response about the variable speed of light, and the link, which clears up a potential misunderstanding between members. The "conclusion" section of the paper is good stuff. It think that if the members would read the paper, they would better understand the concept of VSL, and the opposing views. This is a major issue currently being addressed, and debated, but future experiments may actually be able to resolve the debate.

 

[Farsight]

I appreciate your response about the variable speed of light, and the link, which clears up a potential misunderstanding between members. The "conclusion" section of the paper is good stuff. It think that if the members would read the paper, they would understanding the concept of VSL, and the opposing views. This is a major issue currently being addressed, and debated, but future experiments may actually be able to resolve the debate.

There's not much debate, quantum_wave. There's a lot of conviction, such that people who've been taught that the speed of light is absolutely constant won't look at Einstein and the evidence. But in the end they'll be forced to concede that Einstein said what he said, and that there isn't any time flowing through an optical clock. Things are going my way on this.

 

[quantum_wave]

... All points noted re your explanatory post, quantum_wave. I'd prefer it if you referred to Einstein etc, but at least you're thinking for yourself instead of slavishly following some popscience nonsense that doesn't hold water.

The reason I don't is because GR does not fit with infinite space and eternity, and to me they are almost axiomatic. Not axioms in the sense that everyone accepts them, but axioms to the extent that they cannot be falsified, and it is necessary that a complete view of cosmology takes a stand on the issue of "finite vs. infinite".

But I would urge you to think for yourself about that infinite universe assumption though.

My stand is with the view that space and time are infinite. In my model I start there, and that eliminates a lot of noise to the contrary about something that can't be proven or falsified. It sets my path, and guarantees that my views will be alternative, and I am comfortable with that. My model is an example of where infinite space and time has taken me.

 

[PhysBang]

It doesn't produce two fields...

You have given us another non-answer.

Your pictures do not give me any way to predict the motion of a charged particle. Please show us the link between your stick figures and the specific measurement that we might make on a charged particle.

 

[PhysBang]

I appreciate your response about the variable speed of light, and the link, which clears up a potential misunderstanding between members. The "conclusion" section of the paper is good stuff. It think that if the members would read the paper, they would better understand the concept of VSL, and the opposing views. This is a major issue currently being addressed, and debated, but future experiments may actually be able to resolve the debate.

Actually, if people read that paper, they would be even more confused about Farsight's claims. That paper sets out that VSL theories are different from GR. Farsight claims that GR is a VSL theory, so he ignores the bulk of that paper.

 

[quantum_wave]

Actually, if people read that paper, they would be even more confused about Farsight's claims. That paper sets out that VSL theories are different from GR. Farsight claims that GR is a VSL theory, so he ignores the bulk of that paper.

I think you are correct on how the paper differentiates between VSL in regard to FTL expansion vs Inflationary Theory in the first moment of BBT, but I don't think that the conclusion is that GR is falsified by either. It seems that the VSL debate is about whether the speed of light varies in spacetime or not, and I don't think it is settled.