Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Dec 10, 2012.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well anyway, while I wait for Prof.Layman's return, and since I have quantum action on my mind, the hypothesis of quantum action says that matter is actually an accumulation of high density spikes in pressure where each individual spike is caused by the convergence of two (or more) wave fronts, each with their own pressure level. When the wave fronts converge, during that instant of time I call "the time delay due to the compressibility of the medium", the pressure of the contributing parent waves is compounded at the point of convergence and a pressure spike occurs at that point in space and time.
Thanks to quantum action, that pressure spike acts like a (Huygens type) pinhole out of which morphs a new out flowing spherical wave whose pressure is a compromise between the pressure of the spike and the net pressure of the parent waves ("net" means the average of the pressures, not compounding of the pressures). This is blah blah blah to you isn't it, lol.
The pressure in the new spherical wave declines with an inverse square relationship as its radius increases, but going forward, its pressure is always higher than the pressure of the two parent waves which themselves have declining pressure in accord with the inverse square law.
Of course within a standing wave particle composed of many high density intersections (many quanta), the expansion of the radius of the new spherical wave is very short lived because in the close quarters of the standing wave pattern, its expansion is almost immediately interrupted at many points along its wave front by new intersections with the adjacent spherical pinhole waves expanding out of their own spikes (high density spots) within the pattern (blah blah).
The speed of the particles themselves do not change. They interact with a medium so then the particles have to take a longer journey through the medium. They get absorbed by the electrons in the atoms of the medium and then get emitted afterwards. This is why objects have color. Depending on the orbital of the electrons that the photons are emitted, the photons come out to be at different frequencies and then look to be a different color, since they are at different energy levels.
White light is a mixture of different frequency, or the combination of a lot of different colors. In a prism, the atoms are aligned uniformly and they create an effect that seperates these frequencies. So then the white light then makes a rainbow, the different frequencies are seperated so then you see a band of the different colors.
So light is particles when it travels through glass, and the particles travel at the invariant speed of light in a vacuum except that each "particle" uniformly encounters electrons which absorb and re-emit them to slow them all down to the speed of light through glass? Wow, nature is wonderful. But I thought that light has wave-particle duality. When does the wave part come in as light travels through glass?
So this longer path, is it because the "particles" have to divert from a straight path in order to jump from electron to electron?
Again, very efficient. The nature of glass to be able to absorb all of the different wave lengths, oops, all of the different particles without fail so that no "particle" goes straight through the empty space in the atoms, truly amazing.
OMG, that explains why glass is ... wait, glass in the prism I am using is clear, not colored.
The frequencies of the light changes as it passes through the glass?
I though it was the angle of the prism that diffused the light according to its frequency; frequency in equals frequency out.
That is why I love prisms.
Glass can absorb and pass all wavelengths of light. Different elements have different colors because the electrons around their atoms are at different orbitals or valence shells. So then the color of the object is determined by what frequency the electrons around those atoms would then emit light or photons. The electrons at different orbitals would then have different amounts of energy inorder to keep them at those orbitals. Since they have different amount of energy they would then emit light at different frequencies. Glass is an amorphous material, that is not exactly crystaline. But it can emit all wavelengths of light, it has long strands of atoms that are chained together that doesn't have specific atoms with different orbitals that can then pass most wavelengths. Your reflection in a mirror is actually caused by a thin sheet of metal behind the glass. Metal is a good conductor because of the arrangement of the atoms that make it up, so then electrons can pass through it more easily. There is not much of a difference of potential of the electromagnetic field between the atoms. So then you also can get a perfect image from metal that has similar properties of its atoms. It can allow the electons to emit light at the same frequency it is absorbed.
It may not even be the same particles of light that went into the glass that you see come out of the other side. The electrons absorb the photons. Their energy is then a part of that electron. Then those electrons can emit light at the same frequency. It doesn't mean that it is the same photon. There just isn't that much interference with light in a prism because of its structure.
Frequency in isn't always the same as frequency out. It is energy in equals energy out. The angle can affect the speed light can travel through the prism that is at different frequencies. That is why the bands of Roy G. Biv always comes out to be in the same order.
Thanks for the links. Light does slow down as it passes through glass which was the point I was making to falsify Prof.Layman's claim that the photon travels at a constant speed that doesn't change.
Left uninterrupted, you and I could take the topic of optics to new places, not necessarily good places, lol. Let's not let that circus take the thread out of town with it. My reason for asking you about the speed of light through glass was to falsify your claim that the photon travels at a constant speed that doesn't change. That was wrong and so your confusion about photons tells me that your claim about my hypothesis doesn't come close to demonstrating that you have any idea why I said:
You don't seem to realize that I was talking about foundational waves that traverse the medium. These waves are the components of particles, and they communicate information about the presence of matter across the medium. I wasn't addressing EM waves except to the extent that in my model the particle-wave duality represents photons that have different characteristics than the photon that you have been trying to explain. I haven't given you my hypothesis of the nature of light in this thread or said how it describes the advance of light through the medium. Maybe we will get to that though.
Never-the-less, from the perspective of my model you don't demonstrate an understanding of the medium, waves traversing the medium, the fact that waves change the pressure in a medium as they traverse it, that particles are composed of wave energy, particles emit photons into the medium, the medium can have a vast range of pressures depending on the wave energy density, the density equalizes itself across energy environments, and the pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves that traverse it. Did you understand all of those points about the model? Regardless of that, your point that a photon doesn't change velocities as it passes through various energy density mediums is wrong.
I would admit I am not an expert in optics, and I have been trying to remember things from grade school that I just kind of slapped together that I haven't really gave much thought too. But, I am positive that the speed of light through a medium doesn't actually mean there is a change in the speed of the photons themselves. If you cannot accept this as a scientific fact then I would have to say that all of your models would then have to be wrong because of this. And you are right, I have no idea what you mean by, "Waves carry pressure in the medium and the pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves traversing it." But, I think the fact that the speed of light does not change would overturn this whole idea, since it claims that the velocity of waves is affected in a way where in the case of light they would be unaffected, and you have not distinguished the difference between why they would affect other particles and not photons.
To me this statement in itself is word salad.
Again, more word salad. I don't think anyone could demonstrate any understanding of any of this. I think that is why you haven't got much of a response from people on this. It is just so far out there and so different from conventional science, it is a wonder if it has any scientific meaning or basis at all whatsoever.
I'll accept that if you are positive, because it is all in how you explain what is going on as the light wave-particle traverses the glass. But it is a fact that the speed of light slows down through glass, or water, or any medium through which light can pass, and then speeds back up on the other side. Here is a link that might take you back to those grade school days that confirms what I am saying, and covers both the light as a wave concept and light as a particle concept. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/10/one-minute-physics-why-light-slows-down-in-glass.html
Also, why don't you look at the link to CosmoQuest provided by Brucep where you can read Grant Hutchinson's several posts on the subject. He states right up front that light slows down through glass and gives some reasons in his first post, and then confirms that light slows down through glass and speeds up when it exits the glass in his second post. (I couldn't view the Feynman link on my iPad but if you have a PC, let me know what you think of the second link). It seems clear that I am right, and if you are positive you are right then I suggest you keep checking to confirm your view, and feel free to provide links to what you find that proves your point.
But the speed of light does change.
You've got me there, lol.
And there too.
It is far out there and your are right that no one has demonstrated an understand of it, but I would qualify that to say the no one has or is likely to pay enough attention to it to really test that premise. I bet someone of average intelligence could follow my thinking if it wasn't for the fact that it would take a big investment of their time, only to reach an understanding of something that they might think is wrong in the first place; and time is at a premium when you are pushing word salad. Thanks for giving it a try.
Post #2 and the related discussion states the definition of space is about volume in three dimensions. It goes on to point out that space could be empty and it would just be space, allowing us to describe a volume of space without regard to its contents, and then to discuss the contents of that physical space. That is an important distinction because in my model, the contents of space is the foundational medium and nothing else. The medium has characteristics as mentioned in post #44 that demonstrate why I define space as volume, and the contents of space as the medium. The wave energy density of the medium in any given space fluctuates relative to the pressure of waves that occupy that space at any point in time. A simple concept, right?
Because Prof.Layman has been confused by my talk of pressure waves in the medium, by wave energy density associated with the pressure of the medium, and by the concept that as the pressure of the medium in a given space increases, waves traverse that space more slowly. I would like to hear from someone, anyone who considers them self a science enthusiast, as to how difficult that is to understand. I don't mean how difficult it is to believe, I know that the velocity of pressure waves being governed by the pressure of the medium is not a simple concept, but isn't it something that the average layman, if they were to wonder what I mean by a foundational medium and waves traversing that medium, could begin to understand?
A couple of days ago I posted a description on how QED would describe the photons path through the prism and 4 lectures on QED by Richard Feynman. Twice. Both posts were 'snatched' and apparently never to be seen again. They were both links. One was a link to a informative post in another forum and the other was...... well R. Feynman.
I thought that they had gone into moderator approval when I saw them because they appeared, but a day after their post time. I even referred to them in a subsequent post to Prof.L, suggesting he read the CosmoQuest link that supported the fact that light slows down going through various mediums. I was unable to view the Feynman links on my iPad. I know a little about his work and if you think they relate my post (that you quoted) I would go to my PC to view them ...
I looked at the link you gave and yes this is basically the reason I was taught to that the speed of light does not really change in a medium. I didn't see the secound link you mentioned. I don't really know of the experiment that proves this concept, and everytime I have heard it I just accepeted it blindly as fact. I would like to know more about the reason as to why they could be sure of this. I fear it may not have been really proven, and it could be from our lack of understand of how to set up a experiment that could actually prove this.
I mention this becaues one problem I normally run into when stating my own theories on internal reflection, people often mention that the speed of an electron through a medium is then too slow in order to do what I have mentioned. They then post equations of the speed of an electron in a medium, and then I consider and think, wow, that is way too slow. Then I tend to think that these equations are wrong even if the speed of the electrons don't actually change and that is how long it takes them to bounce around through a medium. So I tend to beleive that the speed of particles through a medium is much faster than the mainstream idea of that speed. I went to an electronics school and I don't think computational speed is really that limited from the speed of electrons themselves. And the speeds through air would be so slow that the speed of lightning would not be anything close to as the speed you could see it flash in the sky. So I think there is a huge gap in the understanding of these scientific principles. I kind of developed my own philosophy on electronic troubleshooting and I considered the speed of electrons in my electron flow theory. If you ever considered the speed of an electron as, "oh it would go through this circuit first and then take longer to reach this circuit", then your troubleshooting method would then be wrong. Most circuits react as though the electrons flow through them almost instantly. I ended up being one of the best and fastest troubleshooters in my class, and I think that is what really got me through the school.
One thing is that in Special Relativity time slows down and length contracts when an object is seen to travel at another speed, then the amount spacetime is dialated is related to the speed of light. But then spacetime does not dialate when light passes through a medium, it would be strange to think that this happens so that we always measure the same speed of light, but then it wouldn't when light passes through a medium and then does not care that it is measured to travel at a different speed. So then I think it would be impossible for light to actually slow down in a medium. I think even electron in a circuit that are supposed to be traveling slower because they are in a medium actually don't slow down either, and this is why some quatum mechanical effects can remain present even though it has been slowed down by interacting with the medium. But, I assume that most of these fundemental properties are caused by SR and because they travel close to the speed of light, as alphanumaric has pointed out this is not a mainstream theory either really and is a result of my own models.
So then our models would be directly in conflict with each other. I would never consider a model where the speed of light is changed, and if it ever cropped up I would throw it out. I don't think you should allow the lack of the communities scientific understanding of the speed of particles in a medium lead you astray. I think that is what has happened.
Thanks. I didn't look back far enough. The 2nd lecture is on reflection and transmission quantum behavior. The 3rd lecture is on photon and electron interactions. I haven't listened to all of them so I can't say for sure. He's always fun to listen to.
The speed of light changes as it passes through glass or water or even the atmosphere, relative to its velocity in open space. You can't change that by not accepting it. The explanation that the photon path is longer doesn't change the fact that light slows down while in the glass medium. On the other hand, light speeds back up when it leaves the medium which supports the idea that the light did slow down for what ever reason; maybe it just didn't take a direct or uninterrupted path. But please, like it or not, light slows down through glass and this whole tangent is based on your refusal to acknowledge that.
You are off on a tangent and I'm not going to respond to that part.
I have to laugh at the irony. You think I have been lead astray by generally accepted science and by the lack of understanding of light by the scientific community; actually that has a sort of double irony to it. It is ironic that my model is a complete departure from generally accepted science, and it is ironic that you would claim I am misled by the scientific community for an entirely different reason than I have as my stimulus.
My conclusion is that you aren't planning on talking about what else is wrong with the concept that the pressure of the aether medium governs the speed of pressure waves traversing it until after you admit that light slows down, and you don't seem to be on the verge of admitting that.
It is gererally accepted science that the speed of light doesn't actually change in a medium. It simply has to take a longer path to get to point A from point B. You claim that waves change in velocity because of some kind of aether medium, that would be like saying the speed of light changes in a perfect vacuum, since there is no way that we know of to remove spacetime from an area. The speed of light doesn't change in a vacuum so then the speed of light would not change because of some pressure in some kind of aether medium. The real irony here is that you can't change the fact that the speed of light doesn't actually change in a medium because you do not accept it, and then you go on to say that is even ironic.
OK, forget the irony of it all, and forget that you haven't given me the science based link that supports your claim on what causes the increase in the length of time it takes for light to traverse various mediums, or to explain what causes light to speed up again when it emerges from that medium.
To be conversant on my hypothesis, you would still have to come to grips with the concept that matter and light are composed of wave energy. In my model the foundational medium is all there is and waves are going in all directions through it. Matter is standing waves, gravity waves are foundational and are required to produce standing waves, and light waves are produced by the electric and magnetic nature of interactions between standing wave particles of matter.
Waves are compressions in the aether that spread out spherically from their point of origin, and as they expand their pressure decreases in accord with the inverse square law.
When waves converge there is a spike in density. The concept of standing waves is that when the wave density in a patch of space increases sufficiently, a synchronization phenomenon occurs called a standing wave which is supported by inflowing and out flowing wave compressions. The standing wave causes recurring spikes in density in the particle space and we perceive these standing wave patterns as matter.
Gravity is caused by an change in the directional relationship of the net inflowing wave component in the standing wave pattern, keeping in mind that the inflowing wave component comes from the spherical out flowing wave component of other particles and objects.
Last night I was working on one of my side projects, to read some of the old science books by famous scientists. I really picked a good one too. It was “Space, time and gravitation” by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1921). It’s free on Google Books and other places (www.gutenberg.org) since its copyright has expired. The reason I am mentioning this here is that in the first chapter “ he uses the term ‘aether’ many times, so I thought that anyone thinking about aether might find the book of interest (maybe not quantum_wave but others). I may have to read this again to be certain, but the use of the term ‘aether’ seems to be superfluous in the book. He probably only uses it because it was a common notion at the time. Nothing he says about the aether contradicts the non-aether viewpoint. But it does seem to be a good starting point for aether believers or interested parties to jump into the viewpoint of modern physics. Eddington is a very good writer, easy to read and makes some very interesting connections. I am going to continue here with some connections of my own. This book deserves a few more rereads.
The first connection I made was with something I heard in one of Leonard Susskind’s lectures. I can’t remember which one, sorry. But he was talking about the speed of light. He pointed out that it was Maxwell who defined the speed of light. His theory defined the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant. Susskind points out that most people at that time (probably even Maxwell) and up until the Michaelson-Morely experiment and for some even past that, believed in aether and so it was assumed that this constant speed of light was with respect to the aether. Relativity just updated that concept to remove the assumption of a material aether. As Eddington points out in his first chapter, “The Fitzgerald Contraction”, even if there were to be an aether, it is embedded in Einstein’s geometry and that is why the speed of light is invariant.
It was something later on in the Eddington book that made me make another connection which I believe is correct. Perhaps someone can comment. In a math class I am taking, I had to go back and review the properties of affine geometry. In affine geometry there is no notion of length or perpendicularity, only straight lines and parallelism. To make constructions in affine geometry there is only a straight edge, and no compass. It is the compass that gives euclidean geometry the notion of length. And so there are no circles in affine geometry. It occurred to me that the geometry of spacetime is affine. And even though we do really have a notion of a circle and compasses, that is because we are inside and part of the space. It is a kind of relativity. When viewed from outside the space we can easily see that there is no circle or perpendicularity or length. When we draw an affine geometry space on paper, meaning we are looking into the system from outside, we can see that there is no circle or perpendicularity or length. I realized this idea of views from inside and outside a system from a book I read called “Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas Hoffstadter.
One last connection that I will mention, though there were others I made in last nights reading, is from starting Newton’s “Of The System Of The World”. Newton talks about aether too. That books start by talking about the roots of the notion of a sun centered universe started in ancient times by Greek and Roman philosophers. Plato was one mentioned which made me think about his work “The Republic” and specifically the part about the allegory of the cave. I won’t describe the allegory here so if you are unfamiliar with it, check wikipedia. But the fact that Plato chose shadows on the wall to describe reality as we perceive it made me think about spacetime and relativity. Those shadows are projections. Which might just be coincidence on Plato’s part, or maybe he made some connections of his own that he never mentioned, but I find it fascinating that projective geometry seems to have found a foothold in modern physics. The flattening or expanding of dimensions. I am going to have to think about that a lot more. A lot of these concepts and connections are still percolating in my head. I am sure there are many more connections to be had from these old books.
I think I am going to shift my focus of studying physics to reading some of these old books by famous scientists. They are chock-full of illuminating comments and connections.
edit: found a good video of the allegory of the cave
I watched the Plato's Cave video, and of course was familiar with it. If I'm not mistaken, you will always be coming across new reasons to go back to the classical works that describe and explain discovery. One of my favorite books for that kind of work, and it still available as a used book on the Internet, is Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, copyright 1964 and 1972 revised (I just Googled it and see that there is a 1984 edition available new, and some used for much less). It is over 800 pages and what I like about it is the cross referencing. It lists and numbers 1195 famous scientists from ancient times to present (1974 fame and before) in chronological order. In each biography it then lists the numbers of important scientists who influenced or were influenced by them or whose discoveries are pertinent to their work. Plato is #23 on the list, and in his bio the following names are listed and you can then go to their bios as referenced: Socrates (#20), Euclid (#35), Philolaus (#18), Kepler (#149), Eudoxus (#24), Callippus (#28), and of course Aristotle (#26). You can really track back and forward to a lot of science history and connections using this book. As a layman, you should buy it.
I am familiar with the Gutenberg Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gutenberg
and have referenced it in previous posts here and there. I too find it fun and interesting to read some of the original texts written by the famous scientists, and there is an almost endless wealth of material to fuel my hobby. I don't think there is any chance of anyone being mislead with bad science by my threads, though there used to be concerns that I was warping the minds of young forum guests. That is why I am clear about it not being science. But as you are finding in your research and classes, there is a lot of science that my hypotheses have to take into account in order for them to be internally consistent and not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data.
I'm thinking you are not looking to discuss my hypotheses though, but instead would like some of the other members to respond and maybe elaborate on the connections you are seeing in your research, and I have no objections to you conducting discussions with anyone who might respond to your request. I'm sure I will find it interesting too.
Just one comment on the connections you have made about the aether and spacetime. I am always looking for someone to set me straight about the physical action that causes the curvature of spacetime that replaces gravity in GR, and I have not been able to see how math and geometry can accomplish anything physical. That is what the recent discussion here was about, where the two groups were defined as those who believe in a physical effect from geometry, and those who don't. "Aether think" was the term I coined for those in my category. It is my position that the reconciliation between GR and QM will feature an eventual consensus on a theory of quantum gravity, but they have to come up with a good one first, lol.
Well, I am not going to be able to set you straight on much of anything relating to physics. I have a long way to go before I understand it myself. But in one conversation I had with Mazulu about Penrose's theory on conformal cyclic cosmology, I proposed a possibility. I can't remember exactly where I got the idea and while I probably have it wrong I will give the explanation again here.
Visualize a 2D space with a sun at the center. This is the rubber sheet analogy which I am sure you are familiar with. Consider an object some distance from the sun and assume it is stationary to start. Consider the area of the space inside a circle centered on the sun with a radius of the distance the object is from the sun. The area of that circle is larger than one would expect from a circle in flat space. This space is non-euclidean. The area outside the circle is flatter than the space inside. So there are more degrees of freedom inside the circle than outside. So consider the object to be small and randomly jittering around. As the magnitude of the jitters is increased they can take the object further inside or outside the circle and so the probability that the jitter goes toward the center of the circle is greater than away from it, simply because there are more possible locations there. Sideways jitters have equal probability so there is no "force" produced in that direction. It is all just probability. Note that I am not saying I believe this, just that it is a concept I read somewhere. You can replace the jitter with a probability wave function or probably other known features of matter. But for this to work the feature of matter that is used where I said jitter, has to be the same for all types of matter, because of the gravitational constant.
So that is one possible example of how geometry could account for gravity. I am sure there are others. I am unsure whether they represent how gravity works in reality. In other words I don't really know enough about the subject to know if even my description of the concept is correct. But that usually does not stop me.
Separate names with a comma.