The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[PhysBang]

It mentions it as a second axiom: The electron is really a point charge moving at the speed of light. This can so far only be modeled with sincere understanding of the subject, as a topological charge manifestation of trapped light.

The word "axiom does not appear in the paper.

Perhaps you mean this: "The electron is a point charge moving at the speed of light in circular motion with angular
momentum of magnitude \hbar / 2 observed as electron spin."

That says that an electron is not a photon, since a photon does not have charge.

 

[rpenner]

It's not really a physical model, because they haven't shown that that makes sense in Relativity (is it modeled as a massless point charge?) or that it gives rise to the electron's magnetic moment or that the model is compatible with properties of the muon and tau meson.

 

[Manifold1]

The word "axiom does not appear in the paper.

Perhaps you mean this: "The electron is a point charge moving at the speed of light in circular motion with angular
momentum of magnitude \hbar / 2 observed as electron spin."

That says that an electron is not a photon, since a photon does not have charge.

That's because you didn't understand when I said it has a ''topological charge.''


Trust me, you don't really understand the interpretation, the electron is a particle traveling at light speed, pointlike or not, it's still a photon with a frequency and therefore a clock. It comes straight out of quantum mechanics!

 

[Manifold1]

It's not really a physical model, because they haven't shown that that makes sense in Relativity (is it modeled as a massless point charge?)

I prefer to think of it as a heavy Goldstone boson caught in a topology.

 

[PhysBang]

That's because you didn't understand when I said it has a ''topological charge.''

Trust me, you don't really understand the interpretation, the electron is a particle traveling at light speed, pointlike or not, it's still a photon with a frequency and therefore a clock. It comes straight out of quantum mechanics!

I think I didn't understand when you said that matter was made of light, I asked you for a reference, and then you presented me with a reference that gave an example of an electron made out of something like light but strictly not light. As it says in the abstract, "lightlike charged particle".

Perhaps you can find a citation that does support your claim?

 

[Manifold1]

I think I didn't understand when you said that matter was made of light, I asked you for a reference, and then you presented me with a reference that gave an example of an electron made out of something like light but strictly not light. As it says in the abstract, "lightlike charged particle".

Perhaps you can find a citation that does support your claim?

Well you only asked for one reference, that was credible. Here is another and the authors have since made a new paper describing the electromagnetic features of their toy model


http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf



Here is it completely plausible that the electron is a trapped photon just as Dirac believed.

 

[PhysBang]

Well you only asked for one reference, that was credible. Here is another and the authors have since made a new paper describing the electromagnetic features of their toy model

http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

Here is it completely plausible that the electron is a trapped photon just as Dirac believed.

So you have one reference that is credible but that doesn't support your position and one that does that isn't credible. That second paper is not plausible.

 

[przyk]

No it isn't. Show me where Einstein says light curves because spacetime is curved.

Huh? Study GR in university and you'll learn the same thing about the trajectories of light rays as Einstein explained in "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". Namely, they follow geodesic trajectories described by the geodesic equation.

As to the claim that "light curves because spacetime is curved", that is not accurate. The bending of light is coordinate-dependent and has little or no direct relation to the Riemann curvature or any of its contractions. The closest thing I know of to this in GR is the relative convergence or divergence of neighbouring (technically, infinitesimally separated) geodesics. Its exact relation to the Riemann curvature is given by the Jacobi equation.

 

[Manifold1]

So you have one reference that is credible but that doesn't support your position and one that does that isn't credible. That second paper is not plausible.

*shakes head*


The paper proves the complete opposite, as a toy model toroid system, the model can predict the measurements of the electron. It may not be a ''perfect model'' ... but there is room to move and definitely room enough not to ignore. The fact it was predicted from the Dirac Equation, the most accurate description we have of the electron, zitter motion explains all the anomalous factors Hestene's presented, what the other paper shows is that a semi-classical model is possible.

 

[Manifold1]

Huh? Study GR in university and you'll learn the same thing about the trajectories of light rays as Einstein explained in "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". Namely, they follow geodesic trajectories described by the geodesic equation.

As to the claim that "light curves because spacetime is curved", that is not accurate. The bending of light is coordinate-dependent and has little or no direct relation to the Riemann curvature or any of its contractions. The closest thing I know of to this in GR is the relative convergence or divergence of neighbouring (technically, infinitesimally separated) geodesics. Its exact relation to the Riemann curvature is given by the Jacobi equation.

If you take the electromagnetic langrangian, you can find two solutions, one which is free and one which is bound. The bound solution is the one which focuses on the curvature even though as you mention, electromagnetism is not the cause of the bending of space. The bound langrangian requires Christoffel symbols to attempt to unify an understanding how trajectories of light play on the geometry of ... what I believe to be a two-dimensional configuration space with a boundary.

 

[PhysBang]

The paper proves the complete opposite, as a toy model toroid system, the model can predict the measurements of the electron. It may not be a ''perfect model'' ... but there is room to move and definitely room enough not to ignore. The fact it was predicted from the Dirac Equation, the most accurate description we have of the electron, zitter motion explains all the anomalous factors Hestene's presented, what the other paper shows is that a semi-classical model is possible.

Your first paper uses a particle that is explicitly not light. The second paper uses a particle that is light but that can't recover the properties of an electron. Additionally, the second paper cannot be considered serious physics and is only cited by cranks.

So far you have failed to produce a single credible paper that claims that all matter is made of light.

 

[rpenner]

As to the claim that "light curves because spacetime is curved", that is not accurate.

So you would say a pencil of initially parallel light rays diverge because spacetime is curved but since they are each following a geodesic they are in a sense following the straightest possible light-like lines. I follow you but that's a pedantic point which requires definitions of curvature of a light-like path and a different definition of curvature of spacetime, which requires the reader to have familiarity with content of the theory of General Relativity, such as Einstein's 1915 paper.

Since that paper is intrinsically mathematical, Farsight accuses the author of doing a math and German dump and has never sought to understand that point of view.

 

[lpetrich]

Williamson and van der Mark with their circling-photon paper. They don't even try to derive the Dirac equation from their circling-photon model, let alone the electron-photon interaction term in the QED Lagrangian.

 

[przyk]

So you would say a pencil of initially parallel light rays diverge because spacetime is curved but since they are each following a geodesic they are in a sense following the straightest possible light-like lines. I follow you but that's a pedantic point which requires definitions of curvature of a light-like path and a different definition of curvature of spacetime, which requires the reader to have familiarity with content of the theory of General Relativity, such as Einstein's 1915 paper.

I might not have made the motivation for what I said very clear. When I wrote my last post, the sort of thing I had in mind was the 'bending' of light as perceived in an accelerating rocket (see for instance this diagram from this page). This thought experiment is one of the first introductions to the bending of light that you might see in a layman-level explanation of general relativity. But it doesn't involve any spacetime curvature. The perceived bending is just a result of describing a light ray in an accelerating reference frame, and this happens even in flat spacetime.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, most of what you post is not worth responding to or has been addressed by someone else in a far better manner than I would... However your own words demonstrate the issue of your personal interpretation... Einstein says velocity and you read speed.

You still haven't read the OP have you? The book was written in 1916 in German. Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only take place when die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. That translates to the propagation speed of the light with the place varies. In the 1920 English version geschwindigkeit was translated into velocity. Don Koks said he meant speed, and it's obvious he meant speed because he was talking about the SR postulate.

Personally it is my belief...

Like you said, most of what you post is not worth responding to.

 

[Farsight]

Huh? Study GR in university and you'll learn the same thing about the trajectories of light rays as Einstein explained in "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity". Namely, they follow geodesic trajectories described by the geodesic equation.

No problem.

As to the claim that "light curves because spacetime is curved", that is not accurate.

It's what PhysBang says. He doesn't appreciate that the "force" of gravity depends upon the first derivative of potential. This determines how much light will curve. However spacetime curvature is associated with the second derivative of potential, and tidal force.

The bending of light is coordinate-dependent and has little or no direct relation to the Riemann curvature or any of its contractions. The closest thing I know of to this in GR is the relative convergence or divergence of neighbouring (technically, infinitesimally separated) geodesics. Its exact relation to the Riemann curvature is given by the Jacobi equation.

I wouldn't put it like this myself, but no matter.

So you would say a pencil of initially parallel light rays diverge because spacetime is curved but since they are each following a geodesic they are in a sense following the straightest possible light-like lines.

I think it's correct to say the parallel light rays diverge because spacetime is curved. Because of the second derivative of potential. They curve because of the first derivative of potential. The slope, as it were. But I think it's wrong to talk of the straightest possible light-like lines. Light curves because space is inhomogeneous. Only when you point it straight up, it doesn't.

I follow you but that's a pedantic point which requires definitions of curvature of a light-like path and a different definition of curvature of spacetime, which requires the reader to have familiarity with content of the theory of General Relativity, such as Einstein's 1915 paper.

This is what PhysBang doesn't understand. But it's very simple.

Since that paper is intrinsically mathematical, Farsight accuses the author of doing a math and German dump and has never sought to understand that point of view.

I understand it. Stop carping. You slipped up on the local/non-local thing, get over it.

I might not have made the motivation for what I said very clear. When I wrote my last post, the sort of thing I had in mind was the 'bending' of light as perceived in an accelerating rocket (see for instance this diagram from this page). This thought experiment is one of the first introductions to the bending of light that you might see in a layman-level explanation of general relativity. But it doesn't involve any spacetime curvature. The perceived bending is just a result of describing a light ray in an accelerating reference frame, and this happens even in flat spacetime.

Like I was saying above, spacetime curvature is the second derivative of gravitational potential. It's essentially the curvature you can see in the plot of gravitational potential which resembles the depiction on the Riemann curvature tensor wiki page. You might say that light bends when spacetime is "tilted", but is still flat. It just isn't horizontal.

I explained all this in the gravity thread. It's all very simple.

 

[PhysBang]

Farsight, please explain to us how we can use inhomogeneous space to launch a rocket. You say I don't understand, please help me understand. Show me the proper mathematical physics to launch a rocket, to predict the fall of a pencil, or to calculate a galaxy rotation curve. This is your area of expertise. If you are an honest man, help me and all of us out.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, please explain to us how we can use inhomogeneous space to launch a rocket.

LOL, PhysBang, you can't!

You say I don't understand, please help me understand.

That's what I have done. See the OP and the gravity thread. But you have rejected my help. You have clung to ignorance. Even in the face of patent absurdity such as your admission that the speed of light is only constant in an infinitesimal region along with your refusal to accede that the speed of light is not constant in the room you're in.

Show me the proper mathematical physics to launch a rocket, to predict the fall of a pencil, or to calculate a galaxy rotation curve. This is your area of expertise. If you are an honest man, help me and all of us out.

All the mathematical physics you already know about works just fine. I've told you umpteen times already the issue is one of interpretation and understanding. When you see a t in an expression it doesn't refer to "the flow of time", it refers to some local motion inside a clock. When the clock goes slower, it's because that motion goes slower, not because time flows slower. When it's an optical clock, the motion is the motion of light. And I cannot explain that to you using mathematics. I have to refer you to what Einstein said, and to what Don Koks and Ned Wright said, and to Magueijo and Moffat, and to the hard scientific evidence. Or more pointedly, to the simple fact that when you open up a clock, you can see with your own eyes that there ain't no time flowing through it. Do you understand that yet PhysBang? Or am I still faced with the same old same old problem? You can lead a theoretical physicist to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

 

[OnlyMe]

You still haven't read the OP have you? The book was written in 1916 in German. Einstein said a curvature of rays of light can only take place when die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. That translates to the propagation speed of the light with the place varies. In the 1920 English version geschwindigkeit was translated into velocity. Don Koks said he meant speed, and it's obvious he meant speed because he was talking about the SR postulate.

geschwindigkeit translates to English in a variety of ways depending on context. General consensus of physicists translates the context you reference as velocity, which leads back to your own translation, speed.., as being a bias based translation, which agrees with your own beliefs.

Farsight, there is nothing wrong with you believing.., anything, or arguing in favor of your own beliefs. The problem lies in attempting to retranslate the words of history to support your beliefs. You seem to be attempting to support your personal belief, with misrepresentations and interpretation, of historical quotes. If your argument cannot stand on its own merit, what makes you believe that invoking the authority of those long dead, with your own interpretations and at times misrepresentation, of their intent, will? Your arguments seem to stand or fall on your interpretation of Einstein and now Newton. Even where your interpretations often are at odds with conventional wisdom and consensus.

 

[Farsight]

General consensus of physicists translates the context you reference as velocity, which leads back to your own translation, speed.., as being a bias based translation, which agrees with your own beliefs.

No, your refusal to accept what I said and what Don Koks said and Ned Wright said and what Einstein said whilst referring to the SR postulate, demonstrates your bias.

Farsight, there is nothing wrong with you believing.., anything, or arguing in favor of your own beliefs. The problem lies in attempting to retranslate the words of history to support your beliefs. You seem to be attempting to support your personal belief, with misrepresentations and interpretation, of historical quotes. If your argument cannot stand on its own merit, what makes you believe that invoking the authority of those long dead, with your own interpretations and at times misrepresentation, of their intent, will? Your arguments seem to stand or fall on your interpretation of Einstein and now Newton. Even where your interpretations often are at odds with conventional wisdom and consensus.

See above. What you think of as conventional "wisdom" is wrong. The notion that the speed of light is absolutely constant is a popscience myth. Even PhysBang said the speed of light is only constant in an infinitesimal region. And in case you hadn't noticed, the room you're in isn't infinitesimal. And this isn't some personal belief of mine. Here's the proof:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

But you will reject that, won't you? Jesus H Christ, this really is like the time I was talking to the Creationists. I show the the fossils, the strata, the carbon dating, but they reject it all. And it doesn't matter what I show you, you will reject it, because you think you know something, only you don't.