What happens to a photon emitted just above the event horizon?

Hi all.

Since this is a mainstream physics question, and since Grumpy has stated the current mainstream understandings regarding the determining factor of what and how the photonic state will be affected by between emission from 'there' near an event horizon and its detection 'here' after traveling long distances through space to our detectors, I would like if I can to pin down whether the mainstream understanding has been formed with regard to all the factors involved, and not just the ones mentioned in the mainstream-approved statement from Grumpy to Q-reeus (in a thread not in this P&M section); as follows:

PS: I will make my initial response in a separate post (below) just to keep our exchange neat and clear for easier reading by any interested onlookers. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends what direction the photon is emitted. To figure out what happens, you need to learn how to calculate photon orbits in GR before you can make any contribution to this subject. This requires math, English composition doesn't cut it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mainstream understanding is that vacuum is filled with energy-space dynamics (particle interactions) involving innumerable absorption and re-emission processes.

So immediately, we have a factor which may attenuate the photon state from its emission to final detection after long travel distances through energy-space vacuum environments, involving the photon in repeated absorption and re-emission by many particles in many states of motion/energy.

The question then becomes:

If the originally emitted photon leaving the event horizon (as per Grumpy's scenario) is absorbed and re-emitted so many times and involving so many energy-space states associated with the atoms, electrons and intermediate/transient particles etc, can we really assume that the photon we detect 'here' is the 'same' photon emitted so far away 'there' near that event horizon in the scenario?

Consider: If the wavelength/energy of the original photon can be so attenuated by innumerable interaction with innumerable intervening particles, then the only thing we can say about a photon we detect 'here' is that it is what it is 'here'. Period.

To stress the point for the purposes of eamining the current assumptions about that photon's lightspeed:

- when leaving the gravity well of the bh horizon 'there', we can only say that it had a speed 'there' (whatever that speed was)...

- but we cannot know from its speed at reception 'here' what that original speed was. Period.

That is because the photon received here is not really the same 'pristine' photon that left the vicinity of the event horizon 'there' so far away across energy-space process/distances involving so much vacuum interactions which will attenuate photon states of motion (including possibly its 'speed' state being varied from its original speed state at emission?----but that is the point of this discussion, to discover the reasons why such a speed state change between 'there' and 'here' is dismissed by the mainstream understanding of this scenario, as in the above statement by Grumpy).


So, Grumpy, I have pointed to the mainstream vaccum processes that attenuate phiotonic states as described in the literature, and so I make the point that the photon we detect 'here' has a state of motion (lightspeed) which has been repeatedly re-set to varying levels by a series of interactions (absorptions/re-emissions).

And since the 'last interction' before detection 'here' is experienced in the local environment 'here' and not 'there' near the event horizon, it is not unreasonable to think that what we 'measure' for lightspeed of the received photon is in no way indicative of its speed originally when leaving the gravity well of the bh (from near its event horizon).

Have I made my point clear? Namely:

We can assume nothing about the lightspeed of that photon as it leaves 'there', because it then travels the vast vacuum energy-space distances and processes mentioned, and is received here at a lightspeed commensurate with the 'last scattering' event in our local environment 'here'.

In short, we cannot assume that the detection state determines the emission state as far as speed is concerned (just as you and I agree that we cannot assume that the detection state determines the emission state as far as wavelength is concerned?).

This initial comment should be enough to start the discussion on this 'lightspeed' aspect in particular (and only this aspect at this juncture if that is alright with you?).

I will await your reply (and will ignore any trolls and the well known pest) before proceeding with our discussion. Thanks, and see you anon, Grumpy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, your post and its usual venomous air is eminently ignorable, because again you fail to note the full context/background circumstances leading to this thread/OP discussion point with Grumpy only.

The point I am discussing with Grumpy only at this stage is restricted to the lightspeed aspect only, insofar as it relates to the photon detected 'here' once leaving 'there' and what we can tell about its original speed 'there' by its detection at whatever the local speed is 'measured' for it 'here', as explained already.

So please, Tach, for once just be silent and don't spoil another perfectly mainstream discussion with your usual flare for creating chaos out of order.

Try and be constructive (ie, be silent) for a change and see where the reasonable folk end up with their mutual understandings arrived at via reasonable discourse without your malice and silly games needed or wanted.

Me and Grumpy don't need or want you or your kind in this thread. Take the hint for once. Ok, Tach? Thanks.

 

No, I simply pointed out that this is a subject that is covered in introductory GR classes and that you need to know the underlying math formalism in order to be able to discuss it. From what I've seen in your previous post, you do not have this knowledge and you are replacing it with your standard (overly verbose) pseudoscience.

The photon speed is \(c\), invariant. Confirmed by experiment. This subject is not open for discussion.

You cannot restrict who participates in the threads, especially when your misconceptions are being corrected by the people posting.

 

Because mainstream physicists know that there is no "speed change". Light speed is an invariant, the whole SR/GR is build upon this postulate and (numerous) experiments confirm that light speed does NOT change. Cranks like Farsight have disagreed with the mainstream for a long time, now you have picked up the same misconception. You can open a thread on this subject in Pseudoscience or Alternative Theories, it does not belong here. Here we discuss mainstream science, not cranky stuff.

 

If you will be silent long enough for Grumpy and me to discuss all the factors involved so that we can arrive at a mutual understanding of the matter as is (as distinct from as kneejerked by you from your training), then we can all see what's what, and what has been correctly assumed and what has been incorrectly assumed all this time.

The discussion outcome will tell. Let it speak for itself instead of trying your usual pre-determination of what subtleties will or will not be discussed because you don't like it or don't understand their import. Go massage your malicious 'damaged' ego somewhere else.

Be silent, Tach.

Grumpy and I (the adults) want to talk together in peace without you whining in the background. Ok? Take the hint. Thanks.

 

There is no discussion, you are pushing anti-mainstream crank stuff. There is no basis for your claims.

 

What claims have I made in this thread? The OP topic was prompted by what Grumpy said, and which I wish to discuss with Grumpy about what we can tell about a photon speed leaving the bh horizon based on what we measure its speed at here?

That is the question we will be discussing. Not any claims about varying speed, but what we can say about its speed 'there' based upon what we detect its speed to be 'here'.

Get the subtle difference which makes you appear disconnected from reality in this thread so far?

You are kneejerking and attacking something from 'baggage', not from this thread. Ok?

As has been pointed out to you often enough by admins, mods and others alike, you are acting like a maniac who cannot read properly because of personal baggage feeding personal malice. Will you be silent or will I have to report you for attacking some imaginary construction of your own making about claims which have not been made in THIS thread/OP?

Please quit it!

 

?? You can indeed "measure its speed at here." Its speed will be c. If it came from the event horizon of a black hole its speed will be c. If it came from a flashlight ten feet away its speed will be c.

So while you can indeed tell a lot about its path from its energy (i.e. frequency) polarization, concentration of photons etc you cannot tell anything from its speed, since that does not change.

 

I redlined your crank claim for you. To help your memory. You were sneaky to edit your post after I flagged down the anti-mainstream part of it but the thread kept a record.

 

One more time, light speed is an invariant, it doesn't change in the proximity of a black hole.

The wavelength changes, the speed does not. This is the mainstream position, if you want to make fringe claims, please do so in the Pseudoscience section.

 

I wonder how long this sockpuppet will last?

 

How often does it need to be stated? That is not the discussion point in this thread.

The discussion point is: What can we tell empirically directly about a photon's speed leaving the bh horizon 'there', based only on what we empirically directly "measure" its speed to be 'here' at detection after intervening space traversal and interactions I mentioned.

Merely saying/assuming that its speed is an invariant 'c' does not answer the question of what we can tell from here about what its speed was there.

The current notion that we can do so, was the thrust of the argument in rebuttal made by Grumpy to Q-reeus in another thread, and that is all I want to discuss here in this thread, with Grumpy only! Please, everyone? ok?

That notion assumes exactly what you just stated. It is to test and discuss this very notion that I want to further discuss this particular notion as expressed by Grumpy as representing current understandings.

Ok? I want to see what that assumption has to do with what we can tell about original speed there from reception speed here? Just assuming it does not actually explain why we should take that notion for granted.

PS: Please note that I already (in the other thread which led to this one) cautioned about missing the subtle but crucially important difference between the logical/empirical concepts/values of 'invariant c' and 'constant c'. I specifically pointed out the fact that an 'invariant c' is based on measurements involving 'relative t'. Meaning that an 'invariant c' can EITHER imply 'length contraction' as the compensatory factor for the relative "t" used so that in every frame the "calculated measurement" always gives the same proportionate 'invariant c' result---OR---it can imply 'varying lightspeed' as the compensatory factor for the relative "t"used so that in every frame the "calculated measurement" gives the same 'invariant c' result. The problem and confusion arises when people treat 'invariant c' and 'constant c' as 'equivalent concepts'. Hence the validity and meaning of the 'invariance of c' being clouded by the possibly mistaken assumptions about 'constancy of c'; which confusion then leads to choosing 'length contraction' over 'non-constant c' as the 'explanation for the observed phenomena. But this PS information is provided only for your benefit to explain where the overall question of constant c and invariant c issue arose and is being discussed in that other thread (but not here in this thread, as in this thread only the question of what we can tell about a photonic motion state 'there' from a detected photonic motion state received/measured 'here'. Ok?). Please don't confuse the two threads, as they are distinct in their OP question/matter for discussing with Grumpy only at this stage because it was his quoted statement that prompted this offshoot discussion thread. Thanks for your interest anyway, billvon!

 

Sure it does, mainstream physics explains that the speed of light is constant , both "here" and "there" and "everywhere. Your continued trolling on the subject is nothing but a rehash of the fringe claims you have made in the past on this subject.

You are simply making fringe claims, please take them to Pseudoscience, where they belong.

 

When will it sink in, Tach? I have made no claims in THIS thread. Get it?

There is no claim in THIS thread other than the one implicit in the mainstream assumption that we can tell about a photon's speed 'there' based only on what its "measured" speed at detection 'here' is calculated to be.

Just you repeating that assumption 'based on measurements here' is in no way any different from that statement made by Grumpy containing that very same assumption that is the focus of my proposed discussion with Grumpy only, based on the question/factors I raised in my second post in THIS thread for his further consideration before he replies (to what the actual thread discussion point is, and not to some troll-manufactured confused claims you want to imagine in this thread for who knows what reasons of 'baggage' and 'ego').

So give it a rest for a change, Tach, and let Grumpy ponder the OP and what I posted for him only to respond to in this discussion between him and me only. Thanks.

 

But your claim is that they are different. Surely, you went back and you erased the offending sentence but the thread kept a record.
You also make the crank claim that somehow , invariant light speed and constant light speed are subtly different. You have repeated this claim many times.

 

When you empirically directly "measure" its speed at the event horizon it is c. From that you can tell, empirically directly, that its speed when leaving the bh horizon was c. After measuring it "here" its speed is c. In between its speed was c. At all space traversal and interaction points its speed is c.

OK. Its photonic motion state 'there' is c. Its detected photonic motion state received/measured 'here' is c.

 

That was saying exactly that it is the claim of mainstream to assume that it does not vary. Can't you read and understand properly?

This thread/discussion is to specifically examining further that mainstream (not mine) assumption/claim implicit in acceptance of 'constant c' as indicated by the quoted statement of Grumpy to Q-reeus in the opening post of this thread

Get it now? It is that mainstream statement/claim that prompted this thread/discussion with Grumpy only.

Is that why you like to excerpt out of context all the time, because you can't read complex context? Or is it that you just don't bother to apply the requisite time and attention to read and understand properly?

Either way, give it a rest and leave Grumpy and me to discuss this one according to the context and not your usual kind of fevered imaginary strawmen. Ok?

 

But you claim exactly the opposite of mainstream and this makes your claim fringe. See here.
You also claim that "invariant light speed" is different from "constant light speed" and this also makes your claim fringe. Take it to Pseudoscience.