[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
6597
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Higgs boson observed decaying into pairs of b quarks
|
story at link |
Responses:
[6598] [6599] [6602] [6603] [6600] [6618] [6619] [6601] [6604] [6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6598
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Hi Eve, nice to see that you are walking the quark gardens. Rarely do I venture to post in Bopp's science department these days. Now, I don't want to disturb your inner our outer peace but I would like to point out that you can develop a theory on anything without necessarily understanding the fundamental principles behind it. Let me give you an example: Take a hammer. Use it to hit a fresh ripe tomato from your garden with full force. If possible use a sledge hammer. After the tomato particles have dissipated throughout your previously orderly kitchen you analyse where individual tomato constituents have hit which part of which wall or floor or ceiling at which time. If you like you can set up an array of tomato particle detectors. From the distribution of tomato dots you derive a more or less complicated theory which you use to predict where the tomato particles will hit next time you repeat the experiment. What have you learnt about the inner setup of the tomato in its living state? Nothing. Not one thing. Instead you have destroyed the essence of what you intend and pretend to understand by conducting an otherwordly experiment with nourishable healthy food stuff which could also be turned into a nice tomato salad but of course not if you use the tomato to carry out the experiment. If you prefer to use a raw egg to test the latest boson theory that is fine too. You will get similar results but not the same. Then you work on an elaborate press release telling the world that the final answer to the intricacies of the universe have been found in our boson splattered kitchen. You feel good and the very next day you will be awarded a Nobel price for your adventurous scientific philosophy. Plus you get a significant portion of Dollares, a particle stream well known in scientific circles. You can use those to built an even bigger kitchen to allow for better tomato expansion and higher spatiotemporal precision. You are happy and go dancing. sequoia |
Responses:
[6599] [6602] [6603] [6600] [6618] [6619] [6601] [6604] [6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6599
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
🌺 - hi sequoia, I wanted to respond sooner but I was having a time with the 🌑 Moon plus other planetary influencing energies and more..it's been a challenging week. I enjoy pondering such a creative word presentation very much, thank you. In addition I could experiment with tomato juggling while yodeling in the garden area at Walmart, finish it off with a happy dance. 🌴🌞🌴 ~ Eve |
Responses:
[6602] [6603] [6600] [6618] [6619] [6601] [6604] [6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6602
From: David Fenton, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Put the challenges of the week aside Eve,grab some lettuce and bread while at Walmart and make yourself a nice boson, lettuce and tomato sandwich !! |
Responses:
[6603]
6603
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Thank you kindly David, that's a pleasant thought. I do enjoy my tomato sandwiches with lettuce (and a slice of sweet onion too:0) truly, 🌴 🌞🌴 ~Eve |
Responses:
None
6600
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Hi Eve, I kind of speculated that you may be having moon and other issues, or as Captain Picard would say, izzyoose. I am glad you like my word conglomerate. Analogies packaged in reasonably everyday language actually help clarify for myself the intrinsic value of the referenced scientific theory. They let me see through the foggy nebulae created to impress people like you and me and, most importantly: the mighty Dollares controlleurs. It is really fun to express supposedly complicated experimental danglings with simple words and makes me a pico-kilogram wiser. Of course, it takes time. But preparing a good tea takes time, too. In the Boson case at issue here I would suspect that any rattlesnake has more practical wits than the theoreticians pretending to understand the universe. The engineering part of the monster experiment is awesome. But is real knowledge about the universe being gained? No, except pseudo wisdom. Your proposed "tomato juggling while yodeling" event in the garden area at Walmart sounds spectacular. And finishing it off with a happy dance, as you suggest, will generate wild crowds unheard of at Walmart, only to be followed with a Tsunami of beneficial social media comments from coast to coast. sequoia |
Responses:
[6618] [6619] [6601] [6604] [6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6618
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
hi sequoia, See I was thinking maybe CERN is in Switzerland on account of yodeling combined with other stuff ...that's my hypothesis but I am not about to set out to prove it...lol...I was hoping someone else would take on the impossible task. For myself I know in the spirit there was no big banging during creation and I am content to enjoy nature...what's left of it that is which isn't much. I say this because I am Eve, I was and I will be...no one can prove otherwise.... ;0)~ |
Responses:
[6619]
6619
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Hi Eve, your theory that CERN is in Switzerland on account of yodeling and other stuff sounds quite plausible. As a matter of fact at 1:33 minutes into the movie you supplied there is an early stage accelerator experiment in full swing: a forceful person throws a big heavy rock. You can think of it as a model for a linear free throw accelerator. The rock consists of many protons, neutons,electrons, quite possibly even raw bosons and clearly demonstrates the feasibility of proton acceleration. How did your planned yodeling show go? Next time you may want to add a bit of proton throwing with a big rock. That is extra fun. sequoia |
Responses:
None
6601
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Sequoia, I am curious what you actually know about particle physics. I can understand that it is a seemingly mystical science and not intuitively understandable to the novice. As someone who has had a keen interest in physics all my life, perhaps I could help you to understand the subject a little better. For example, our everyday experience of the world at the scale we live in leaves us with expectations of how things work. But one of the difficulties people have when dealing with the incredibly small world of particle physics is that these tiny things just don't behave in the same way. Physicists themselves have struggled with this at times. Even great minds like Einstein dismissed some of the implications discovered in experiments because they didn't make sense. But the experimental data doesn't lie, and eventually one has to come to terms with reality. I have to say your tomato analogy made me giggle because it was a truly funny image, but it's just not an accurate portrayal of what happens in a particle accelerator. Brian |
Responses:
[6604] [6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6604
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Hi Brian, in my earlier days I bounced into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation many times. Anyone who has ever, for any length of time, seriously dealt with such an elusive galactic object is entitled to express fundamental criticism of the proposed underlying physical mechanisms of quantum mechanics and accompanying experiments. Way back in the past, during the time window when I was given the extended "Schrödinger treatment", I also succesfully built a gamma ray detector, for an experiment involving a linear charged particle accelator, quicker than your Ferrari, a target foil of whatever, gold possibly, and my detector which was being splattered with gamma rays expelled from the stationary foil. The incremental knowledge gain from the experiment, in hindsight, was somewhere between nil and zero, infinitesimally small. Yet it kept a few people, established and aspiring scientists, quite busy. Similarly, the Boson experiment mentioned in Eve's post does NOT reveal the inner constituents of the Boson world. All it tells us is the splattering mechanism. From the distribution you can geometrically backtrack and, using whatever assumptions, estimate how the Boson world looked like before it got smashed like pre-cooked potatoes. What the particle physicists of now and then want you to believe is that you gain insight of the living structure of a proposed entity by smashing it with great force so that it completely disintegrates. If I set out to study the inner workings of your big toe would you really want me to take a sledge hammer hitting "your boson" in a way so that the left upper portion of your toe nail escapes to Hawaii while the right lower part is seen glowing while traversing the Galapagos islands? The particle scientists pretend to understand the world. Yet all they can offer is big machines, bigger machines, monster machines to impress the general public and, directly or indirectly, the Dollares holders and givers. Knowledge gain: ZERO. Plus they consume zillions of kilo,Mega,Giga-Watts to make the world green again? There was a time when scientists used their logical reasoning and deduction capabilities given them from mother nature and some good teachers. Today the particle circus scientists use brute force. My boson tomato analogy very closely mimics what, on a much smaller scale, may have happened around the above mentioned gamma ray experiment where the target is stationary. However, the tomato hammer analogy should actually be upgraded to a tomato versus tomato analogy to describe more accurately the boson experiment where you have not a stationary target but two countercircling particle packets. The ring accelerators at CERN for example, push two bunches of tomatoes which follow the ring in opposite directions. When the maitres de highgong decide that the tomato packets are going fast enough, having accumulated kinetic energy much beyond the latest Tesla models, then you slightly realign the path of the tomato bunches with a magnet or two and guide your red salad fruit representatives onto a collision path. When the tomato bunches meet at the planned interaction space you get the finest of tomato spray all over you. kind of like instant soup, really hot and diverging in all directions. Your detector is set up so it catches only the boson tomato. However your nice Armani suit, newly acquired for the next media circus event, may be ruined entirely, by bosons and non-bosons alike So any experimenters are usually advised in advance to carry at least two Armani suits or Gucci dresses, respectively, since ruthless splatterings rule the world with their illogical spray. sequoia |
Responses:
[6605] [6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6605
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
If I set out to study the inner workings of your big toe would you really want me to take a sledge hammer hitting "your boson" in away so that the left upper portion of your toe nail escapes to Hawaii while the right lower part is seen glowing while traversing the Galapagos islands? So, if smashing things together isn't the answer to figuring out what is inside, what do you propose? What method do you propose to determine the interior structure and contents of, say, a proton? A tiny little scalpel? Yet all they can offer is big machines, bigger machines, monster machines to impress the general public and, directly or indirectly, the Dollares holders and givers. Knowledge gain: ZERO. Plus they consume zillions of kilo,Mega,Giga-Watts to make the world green again? Are you really "[expressing] fundamental criticism of the proposed underlying physical mechanisms of quantum mechanics and accompanying experiments" or is this really about something else? Brian |
Responses:
[6606] [6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6606
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: on the spurious splatterings of the tomato boson company
|
Hi Brian, I propose to listen and to observe with detectors which can measure the minutest of changes in pressure, light, electric and magnetic fields etc but without destroying the space containing the object in question. There are analogies which can be used for reference, a stethoscope can be used to listen to the rumblings created as air travels through the lungs and neighboring spaces or to the changes of conditions resulting from a beating heart. You can also detect minute variations of heart beat and blood pressure with your finger merely touching the skin. There is an extremely fascinating world out there to be discovered without the requirement of destroying beforehand what you set out to discover. A lot of important technical advancements are to be made which benefit science and humankind, in a constructive manner, without disturbing our living environment in ways which could be extremely dangerous for life. The experiments at CERN and similar facilities result in energy flows in the physical world which are not understood at all. It is a big bang approach disregarding everything and everyone around the apparatus. Another experiment I propose is to develop an apparatus sensitive enough to measure the vibrations caused by one electrical charge passing by planet earth one lunar distance away. It can't be done you say because it sounds crazy. Do you think it is wise to smash your neighbor's head to find out destructively from expelled material why he is mowing the lawn at 3 o'clock at night. Or could you just walk over to your neighbor's house, knock on the door, and politely, non-destructively ask why he is making noise in the middle of the night, in a conversational manner whereby you and your exerimental counterpart are merely exchanging non-damaging sound vibrations to communicate? Particle physics has completely departed from logic and avoids simple experiments at all costs. Another simple experiment which could be carried out with today's technology is to continously monitor the speed of light. It is a central component of all experiments involving accelerators. What if the speed of light changes in ways not known? There is reason to assume it is not constant. In particular the experiments by Dayton Miller suggest strongly that it is variable. Yet "c" was assigned a fixed value by a scientific committee when the "15th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1975 recommended using the value 299792458 m/s for the speed of light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light According to the wikipedia article "This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905, after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments." It has NOT been consistently confirmed by experiments that c is invariable. Quite to the contrary there exist no two experiments which have resulted in the exact same value. The absence of routine measurements of minute and minuter changes in the speed of light, over time and space, shows that it is more important to believe in Einstein's postulate than to actually carry out experiments. Is this supposed to be a reasonable scientific approach in earth year 2018? And yes: I question the invariance of the speed of light as postulated by Einstein in 1905, There is no reason for it. There is no need for it except to confirm Einsteinian assumptions. And there is, to this date, no proof for it. The invariance of c is a cornerstone of accelerator experiments. If c is found to vary, ever so slightly, the results from accelerator experiments such as the "tomato boson hammer" or "tomato versus tomato collision" are fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, the accelerator approach is nothing but brute force logic. How do you explain the continued absence of experiments testing the (in)variance of "c", one of the most critical physical entities? sequoia |
Responses:
[6607] [6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6607
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Not even wrong
|
If you knew anything about physics, you would know why your questions make no sense. For me to answer them would require me to teach you physics from the fundamentals. Correction...not "know"... "understand". You do not understand physics. You may know things about physics and can recite them. And though it is not invalid to question these things (as any good scientists does), your questions demonstrate that you lack understanding of what you know. I sense it would be futile for me to try to teach you. We would annoy each other. But there's a lot of stuff online and many books you could read. But remember, understanding only comes from within... even for science. However, I must note that the speed of light has been tested innumerable times, and continues to be tested, even if indirectly, for if it's speed were to change the experiments which depend on its invariance would give nonsensical results. That they do not inductively verifies c's invariance. This smacks so much of "Einstein denialism", yet Einstein is proven correct every time you ask Siri for driving directions to the nearest Starbucks. If Einstein were wrong, you'd go mad from irrational exuberant consumerism withdrawal. Brian |
Responses:
[6608] [6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6608
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Not even wrong
|
Hi Brian, my comments and questions address the very fundamentals of physics and are anything but mere "recitals" as you suggest. Obviously you have not read original material from Dayton Miller who from all I know must have been a diligent record keeper. http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm To this day his experiments and their results have not been proven incorrect. Yet mainstream science repeats the Einstein mantra like a Tibetan prayer mill. So do you. Please submit evidence for your claim that Einstein's assertion of a non-existent ether is proven every time you ask Siri for directions to your coffee hot spot. There is, to my knowledge, not one on-going experiment which continuously monitors the speed of light. Ain't that strange? It would likely require Dollares but would not be difficult to carry out with todays technology. Yet, this simple experiment is simply avoided. And, as you say, everyone knows that Einstein is correct and that the speed of light never varies. And those who disagree with this unproven assertion are "denialists". Einstein has been turned into a ..d like entity from those who have an interest in averting all questions regarding the validity of his assertions and preserve the religion around them. You say that the "speed of light has been tested innumerable times". No question about that. Unfortunately, there are not two results which coincide. And the testing has come to a virtual standstill after c was determined to be a constant. sequoia |
Responses:
[6609] [6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6609
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Even more wrong
|
The issue with where you are going is the House of Cards problem. If what you claim is true, the ramifications would be life changing. Since the top floors depend on the stability of the bottom floors, knock out one card from the bottom and the entire structure falls down. Our current understanding of physics depends on the fundamentals. Knock out one fundamental and the entire house of physics falls down. But the consequences aren't limited to just numbers on paper. There are real world consequences if this were to happen. Planes couldn't fly or navigate. Missiles wouldn't hit their targets. Siri couldn't tell you where you are via GPS to tell you how far away your Starbucks is. Heck, you wouldn't even have the fancy electronics that make your iPhone that Siri runs on. Buildings and bridges might collapse. This isn't hyperbole. Physics has a foundation going back thousands of years. Each new concept is built upon those before it. If so much as one foundational element fails, all built upon it fails. By simple logical induction, since the house of cards that is physics has not fallen down, that the world we have that is absolutely dependent upon the physics as we understand it, that we have the electronics to make iPhone's that allows Siri to use GPS to know where you are to tell you how far away Starbucks is.... What you do not understand is that the constancy of the speed of light has real world application and if c were variable, all built upon the requirement of a constant c would fail. Our high tech world would not exist. You really need to think through to the logical end of what you are claiming. Brian |
Responses:
[6611] [6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6611
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Not wrong at all
|
Hi Brian, now, you are beginning to kick boson, as they say in some circles. Absolutely, yes, if my claim is true that the speed of light is actually a variant then the ramifications would be far reaching and knock out the bottom central card of the modern physics house. This is the one where Einstein resided and many other scientists added onto, card by card, without questioning their architecture. The real world consequences are not distributed evenly. Your Siri application will likely still be able to get you to your nearest coffee place because GPS, Glonass, etc navigation systems have tolerances built into them. If they hadn't those apps would have never functioned to begin with. The same goes for computers and circuits. Those which have extremely limited tolerance will be affected the most. Your flashlight will likely continue to work too. Most of our technology is built on the assumption that the speed of light is approximately constant within certain limits. The concept that some piece of technology requires certain boundary conditions to function properly is not new. It applies to practically every machine built on planet earth. Out of curiosity I searched with the keywords "speed of light 2018". This article, from 2015, appears quite interesting: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant- after-all Actually it was posted in Nov 2014: D. Giovannini et al. Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light. arXiv: 1411.3987. Posted November 14, 2014. Here is a link to the abstract: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857 The full text I cannot view because I am not a member of the club. and the abstract text: """ Abstract That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wave vectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam’s transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs, we show a reduction in the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of ~1 meter. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. """ and """ Slowing down light with added structure We are taught that the speed of light in free space is one of the universal physical constants: c. Giovannini et al. now show that there are certain conditions under which such certainty can be broken (see the Perspective by Sambles). Adding spatial structure to an optical beam of single photons reduced the speed of light. The magnitude of the decrease depended on the complexity of the structure imprinted onto the photons. """ Have you heard the mainstream media report about this? I have not. It directly supports my claim. that the speed of light is a variant. Plus, according to the experiment mentioned above, it depends on the structure of the travelling light pulse. According to the above experiment the change in the propagation of a shaped light beam "the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of ~1 meter" This effect, if it indeed exists, is on the order of at least 1:1000000, according to the above measured delay. By extrapolation this would be equivalent to at least 300 m for one light second which is equivalent to about 300 million m (rounded here for simplicity). Accordingly, a shaped light pulse travelling from the surface of the moon to the beach in California would lag 300 m behind the non- shaped sibling sent at the same time. While dwelling in your beach chair observing ocean waves first the unshaped plane wave light pulse tickles your nose. Then, at least one microsecond later, the shaped light pulse arrives, and tickles your nose again, ever so slightly with a bit of a shape. Offset considerably by the discrepancy in arriving light pulses from the moon you may want to ask Siri for directions to the nearest coffee spot or ice cream parlor to sooth your nerves. On the other hand you could also ask Siri for a copy of Dayton Miller's work on measuring the propagation velocity of light. sequoia |
Responses:
[6612] [6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6612
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Whoops!
|
Old news. That the group velocity (also phase velocity) of light can vary from (even exceed) c is NOT the same as the speed of light itself varying from c. Brian. |
Responses:
[6613] [6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6613
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: not old news
|
Hi Brian, you obviously have no interest in a real discussion. In particular it seems that you have neither fully read my little essay nor the contents of the referenced material. The fact that two photon packets differing in shape have a (1 part in 1 million parts) spread of propagation velocity, equivalent to a difference in arrival of 300 m over the distance from moon to earth contradicts Einstein's central assertion. Einstein's theory is falling apart. It's a fact you don't seem to cherish. sequoia |
Responses:
[6614] [6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6614
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not old news
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity "The idea of a group velocity distinct from a wave's phase velocity was first proposed by W.R. Hamilton in 1839, and the first full treatment was by Rayleigh in his "Theory of Sound" in 1877." The above references Brillouin, Léon (1960), Wave Propagation and Group Velocity. http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~qelectron/pubs/Science326_1074_2009.pdf "Sommerfeld and Brillouin were intrigued by the fact that theory predicts that Vg can exceed c, which leads to apparent inconsistencies with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Experimental investigations of extreme propagation velocities were performed soon after the invention of the laser." Brillouin died in 1969, and Sommerfeld died in 1951. http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_023_01_0016.pdf Nonlinear Amplification of Light Pulses - 1966 "It is shown that during nonlinear amplification the pulse peak moves with a velocity which considerably exceeds the velocity of light..." Again. Old news. Shall I keep doing your homework for you? ;) Brian |
Responses:
[6615] [6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6615
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not old news
|
Hi Brian, you are reciting textbook excerpts which do not address the issues. Playing physics teacher, with some integrated yelling does not enlighten the pictue either. The fact remains that two packets of light with different wave shapes arrive at their destination with a 1 part in 1 million parts spatial spread equivalent to a spead of 300 m over moon-earth distance. No matter how many times you recite group, phase and what not velocity this fact, obviously unpleasant to you, will remain. you have also forgotten to mention frontal velocity. Einstein's rules are inconsistent, deeply flawed. The house of cards built on his assertions is shaking so badly that the bottom floor has already vanished in a cloud of dust. sequoia |
Responses:
[6616] [6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6616
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not old news
|
The papers you cited talked about group velocities. Yes, I know about frontal velocity. I'm going to quote something I wrote in the usenet group sci.optics several years ago when someone was questioning the quantum nature of light, > I've never seen an experiment that convincingly demonstrates > that light is indeed quantized. Perhaps it isn't. That's the crux of the confusion. We don't really know. All we do know is that we have a description that uses quanta as a means of describing behavior that fits observation to the Xth decimal place. That doesn't mean it IS quantized. All theory is a constructed label to attach to a phenomena that describes observations of reality. It does not mean it *IS* reality. Reality is only a perception in our minds. What we see with our eyes is a perception of reality, not reality itself. Likewise, quantum theory is only a perception of reality, not reality itself. (Does that mean I am only perceiving a theory that perceives reality?) But it works. We get the expected measurements within error. Our discussion reminded me several posts ago of my statement. The point is, I think a lot of people, including yourself, make the mistake of thinking that physics theories are describing how the universe actually works. They don't. We don't really know what reality is. No one does. We cannot look behind the curtain and view The Wizard. Although the group/phase/frontal velocities may differ, and that they may exceed c because one of them arrives quicker, you do realize that the actual power in the light pulse still arrives at c as expected? These observations do not violate the constancy of c. And you do realize that c, the constant, the "speed of light in a vacuum" does not really mean the speed of light, right? Light just so happens to travel at nearly this velocity. So do other things. This maximal velocity was discovered through studying the speed of light, yes, but it so much more fundamental to the inner workings of the universe than just the speed of light. c shows up in parts of physics that are only loosely related to electromagnetic radiation. Many many formulae in physics have the value c in their equations. If c were inconstant, it would thrown off all these other quantities. The constancy of c can be tested without even involving measurements of light. Measurements of other properties of the universe can be worked backwards to arrive at c. No measurements of light speeds, group/phase/frontal velocities required. For example, the fine-structure constant depends on the value of c, and its value is known to an accuracy of 230 parts per TRILLION. That's several orders of magnitude more accurate than your worrisome group velocities. The constancy of c is fundamental to very fabric of the Universe itself. Change c and you change everything else about the Universe. The Universe as we know it would not exist. We might not exist. Now THAT *is* an interesting question... The Anthropic Principle. But that is philosophy, not physics. And not related to group/phase/frontal velocities exceeding c. To put this all another way, you are so hung up and this little thing about group velocities exceeding c that you are failing to see the much bigger context of what it all means. Oh, and if Einstein is wrong, explain the accuracy of GPS without relativity, then. Brian btw, the answer is 42. :) |
Responses:
[6617] [6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6617
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian, you say: "To put this all another way, you are so hung up and this little thing about group velocities exceeding c that you are failing to see the much bigger context of what it all means." I did NOT talk about "group velocities exceeding c" at all, nowhere in my little essay. I did talk about two different wave packets emanating from the same source. One of the wave packets, the one with the envelope Gaussian shaped, on arrival lagged behind its sibbling by 1 part in a million. It was slower on account of its shape. The propagation of light appears to depend on its shape. Now, if the shape of a light packet determines how fast it moves or how slow then you can dump Einstein's assertions into the Pacific ocean. His central assertion was that c is invariant. The above experiment demonstrates that conditions can exist where c is not invariant. Before you yell at me again, you should better come up with an unmistakeable definition of c. What is the wavepacket supposed to look like that you intend to measure, what color (frequence) of light, what intensity (amplitude)? When you set out to measure light arriving fom some star far away how do you make sure that the light you measure is indeed the quality of light you expect or assume to have originated at that star? Your comment that many facets of the theoretical world of physics will be affected if c is variant sounds like you are afraid of an invariant c. First of all the ..d equations ascribed to Einstein loose their general validity but our universe will NOT crumble because Einstein's theory collapses onto itself. All distance metrics regarding the universe based on Einsteinianism will collapse if c is found to be variant. Astronomers won't like that but the universe will not collapse. How do you make sure that the light you measure has not undergone significant changes as it travels through space? If changes in the quality of travelling light alter its propagation characteristics then, please tell me, what are you measuring to begin with, what kind of light? The wold of physics, and to a great part astronomy too, has for nearly a century totally ignored all criticisms, thoughts, ideas, measurements which contradict Einstein's theories. The people who have dared to call out the deficiencies of his theories have been and still are treated like a combination of s.it and the d...l. You say "The constancy of c is fundamental to very fabric of the Universe itself". That assertion is utterly false. C to be invariant is a requirement postulated by Einstein so his equations don't go by the way of the shark. The universe does not care one pie of diddly squat about the constancy of "what kind of light please?". The universe will keep going no matter what. The accuracy of GPS would not necessarily be affected if differently shaped light packets propagate differently. If the GPS emitters and receivers all deal with the same type of light then the propagation characteristics will likely be the same, too, for all instruments which use that kind of technically pre-determined light. However, if ou had one GPS with a linear packet, the other one with a Gaussian packet, then a person relying on GPS not using their brain may fall of a cliff. While spelling out the sentence immediately above it occurred to me that Brian is a one character commutation of brain at positions 3 and 4, ignoring upper and lowercase. What consequences this fact may have is open to discussion. But very likely a variant speed of please-define-your-type-of-light will not touch the linguistic relation between Brian and brain. sequoia |
Responses:
[6620] [6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6620
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
"I did NOT talk about "group velocities exceeding c" at all, nowhere in my little essay. I did talk about two different wave packets emanating from the same source. One of the wave packets, the one with the envelope Gaussian shaped, on arrival lagged behind its sibbling by 1 part in a million. It was slower on account of its shape. The propagation of light appears to depend on its shape. " Ok. A correction on my part. I went back to look again at the articles you referenced. Both articles talk about light 'slowing'. The Science News article itself does not mention group velocities, but the paper they are talking about does. The Science paper you reference also talks about group velocities. It's right in the abstract you yourself quoted. Again, group velocities varying does not equal the speed of light varying. It does not change the invariance of c. The group velocity can speed up or slow down all it wants. Heck, scientists have actually 'stopped' light dead in its tracks. But none of this changed the value of c. Might I suggest you give the following a review? Phase, Group, and Signal Velocity https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm Brian |
Responses:
[6621] [6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6621
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian, somehow I get the impession that you have izzyoose, as Capain Picard would say, with reading. Here again: the same deal as last time, from google scholars: BEGIN QUOTE: Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light Authors Daniel Giovannini, Jacquiline Romero, Václav Potoček, Gergely Ferenczi, Fiona Speirits, Stephen M Barnett, Daniele Faccio, Miles J Padgett Publication date 2015/1/22 Journal Science Pages aaa3035 Publisher American Association for the Advancement of Science Description That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam's transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. Total citations Cited by 80 20142015201620172018 Scholar articles Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light D Giovannini, J Romero, V Potoček, G Ferenczi… - Science, 2015 Cited by 80 Related articles All 23 versions END QUOTE The abstract clearly states: """ """" """"" Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. """"" """" """ In other words the speed of light can be changed b shaping the travelling photons. Your statement that captive photons that which though some elaboate mechanism are forced to remain still for a while, sitting idle in their cage, somehow don't have to do with the speed of light. Are photons no light? What is light in our opinion? If you slow down light to a speed of ZERO and the light (photon) packet no longer moves at all, then the speed of that light packet is ZERO, NULL. C is bound to photons. That is how c it is defined. If a photon comes to rest, through whatever means, the speed of light for that photon is, by definition of the speed of light, ZERO. The Einsteinian equations collapse when the speed of light deviates from its supposedly invariant value which was fixed by a committee to 299792458 m/sec. Your assertion that a slow photon, tentatively a California beach bum photon, idling along the San Diego shoreline, travels at 299792458 m/sec while in earthen reality it has slowed down to a mere 0.01 m/sec by attraction to local beauties, has nothing to do with c is a contradiction like day and night. Einsteinianism is evaporating quickly. But this simple fact has not been communicated to the public since it is not wanted because the invariance of c is the central support of modern physics. Please excuse occasional missing characters. The keyboard of my internet access is becoming increasingly uncooperative. There is a good chance that some slow photons are disrupting my typing. sequoia |
Responses:
[6622] [6623] [6624] [6625] [6627] [6629] [6630] [6632]
6622
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam's transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. And regarding their last statement about the speed of light only applying to plane waves, that still doesn't change the value of c. All this means is that 'speed of light' of a plane wave will travel at c, but the 'speed of light' of a gaussian shaped wave will travel slower than c. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE VALUE OF C. The universal constant known as 'c' and the speed that a packet of light travels ARE NOT THE SAME THING. That a packet of light can be slowed down is no big fricken deal. It happens all the time. It is already well known and well established science (eg index of refraction). All this guy did is discover another way to slow down light. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INVARIANCE OF C. Furthermore, the reason some single photons will arrive at a different time has to do with the wave/particle duality of light. Light has particle properties (photons, quanta) and wave like properties (waves, frequencies, interference, refraction, diffraction). There are statistical probabilities involved. For a full treatment of this, I suggest you read Richard Feynman's book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It is readily accessible to the layperson as it skips all the math. Feynman literally helped write the book on quantum electrodynamics and got a Nobel Prize for his work. And he was extraordinary in his ability to explain complex science to non science folks. https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter-ebook/dp/B00BR40XJ6/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 Brian |
6623
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian, often people who take to yelling have run out of good arguments. "That a packet of light can be slowed down is no big fricken deal." you say. Quite to the contrary. The experiment in question which clearly determined that two light packets originating from the same source at the same time arrive at the finish line at different times one trailing the other by at least 1 part in 1 million. Now, that I call one frriiiggggiiinng deal. Excuse the exaggeration, please. You suggest it's all about quantum mechanics which lay persons cannot understand unless they read Feynman's lectures. Who says that I am a lay person and understand no math? Feynman's books I consumed with my müsli for breakfast in earlier times. The fact that he received a Nobel prize does not impress me at all as it is a closed shop system. I question that there is what you call "a universal constant of c". Apparently, in free space light in the form of planar waves travels with a speed approximating c. But light which is not in the form of planar waves does not travel with a speed of c but, as suggested by the above experiment, can slow down by at least 1/1000000 parts. There goes your sacred, holy, divine universality of c. You cannot claim a universal constant of c at which light is supposed to travel if certain types of light don't care at all about Einsteins's universality and do their own thing by taking it easy and slowing down as they please. Please tell me how astronomers can determine what kind of light they register from Alpha Centauri or Orion or some other star in a far away galaxy. Are they dealing with planar light, Gaussian shaped light, egg shaped light, banana shaped light? A universal constant can only be called universal if the universality applies everywhere and under all circumstances. And that is obviously not the case. The universality of c is broken because there are circumstances where light packets go by their own speed ignoring Einstein's demand that all light travel at a speed of c. If not all light travels at the value of c which is supposed to be a constant everywhere and anytime then Einstein's equations break down because they require the constancy of the speed of light. You cannot have one speed of light here and another one there and a third one behind the moon. The speed of light is either constant o not. But it cannot be constant and variant at the same time. If you find one counter example to a claim of c constancy then the claim dematerializes into ZERO or NULL if you prefer. In your kind recommendation to read Feynman's book you indirectly suggest that I may be a member of the non-science folk. That could be an incorrect assumption. No matter how many ..ds of physics you enumerate in our discussion on the spread of two propagating light packets the fact remains that shaped light disobeys the supposed universality of the speed of light. sequoia |
6624
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian, correction: The last sentence in my previous message No matter how many ..ds of physics you enumerate in our discussion on the spread of two propagating light packets the fact remains that shaped light disobeys the supposed universality of the speed of light. should read: No matter how many ..ds of physics you enumerate in our discussion on the spread of two propagating light packets the fact remains that shaped light disobeys the supposed universality of c as the speed of light. (... c as ... was added) sequoia |
6625
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
"... the fact remains that shaped light disobeys the supposed universality of c as the speed of light." This little sentence seems to highlight our disagreement. c as a fundamental 'universal' constant is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. Yes? It is the fastest speed at which anything can travel in the universe. Yes? But light does not always travel at c. Light can go as fast as c, but is not required to do so. For example when it passes through glass. Experiments have been done that have slowed down light tremendously. But this doesn't mean c is no longer constant, right? c is the maximum "speed limit". It doesn't mean that something that can move at this speed can't move slower, right? How is shaping light to cause it to slow down any different? Does it change the universal constant c? The point here is that the speed of light under certain conditions may change, but that still doesn't change the value of c. And changing the shape of the pulse of light is a condition. Ok, so a gaussian pulse travels ever so slightly slower than a planar pulse in vacuum. Interesting discovery. We now know another little detail of how the universe works. Does this change the value of the universal constant c? The speed of light is not always "the speed of light". And again, the experiment was measuring the group velocity of the light pulses. All the experiment is showing is that shaping the light pulse changes the group velocity. Does this change the value of the universal constant c? Brian |
6627
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity "Relativity is a falsifiable theory: It makes predictions that can be tested by experiment. In the case of special relativity, these include the principle of relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, and time dilation. The constancy of the speed of light is violated by the Giovannini experiment. Therefore special relativity is a broken theory. You cannot have constancy and not-constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum and claim everything is fine and dandy. I am aware of the fact that light can go slower, refract, bend, and do all sorts of things when it goes through a medium such as glass or water, as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index But the Giovannini experiment involves two light packets travelling through free space, not through a medium, not through glass, not through water, not through diamond, not through gold. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light you find "The primary properties of visible light are intensity, propagation direction, frequency or wavelength spectrum, and polarization, while its speed in a vacuum, 299,792,458 metres per second, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. Visible light, as with all types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is experimentally found to always move at this speed in a vacuum." The "constant" speed of light in a vacuum (free space, devoid of any substance) is not supposed to vary under any circumstances. That is why it is called a constant and fixed to 9 decimal digits. The Giovannini experiment proves that by shaping of light you can change its speed in free space significantly, by at least 1 part in 1 million parts over a travelling distance of 1 m. This experimental observation violates Einstein's constancy criterium of light in free space. Therefore Einstein's theory is false. sequoia |
6629
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Nice how you cherry picked one sentence out of that lengthy Wikipedia article. Let's quote the whole paragraph for context. Tests of special relativity Main article: Tests of special relativity Relativity is a falsifiable theory: It makes predictions that can be tested by experiment. In the case of special relativity, these include the principle of relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, and time dilation.[11] The predictions of special relativity have been confirmed in numerous tests since Einstein published his paper in 1905, but three experiments conducted between 1881 and 1938 were critical to its validation. These are the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, and the Ives–Stilwell experiment. Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from first principles in 1905, but these three experiments allow the transformations to be induced from experimental evidence. And since it's talking about Special Relativity, let's quote from that article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original pedagogical treatment, it is based on two postulates: 1. The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference). 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. The devilish details are in the fine print. Einstein's Relativity says that light is constant/invariant to all observers, that is, in all frames of reference. Giovanninni's experiment measured the speed of light of two packets of photons. Change the frame of reference and do the same experiment and you will get the same results. THAT is the "constant" that relativity is talking about. Therefore, that these experiments slow down light in a vacuum does not break relativity. Brian |
6630
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
Hi Brian, as you say: "The devilish details are in the fine print." Einstein's theory requires that (in a vacuum = in free space) light travels at the speed of light which is, according to the fixed determination, 299792458 m/sec. No other value is allowed. This requirement is violated by the Giovannini experiment. You can yell at me with all kinds of other arguments from Einstein's theories which are of no relevance here. However, none of them undo the discrepancy by the experiment in question which shows that in free space a Gaussian shaped form of light slows down and that Einstein's postulate that in free space all light must travel with a speed of exactly c is false. sequoia |
Responses:
[6632]
6632
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a variant c collapses Einsteinianism but not the universe
|
And again, from the very paper by Giovannini that you cite, "We study the group velocity..." I'm not going to continue following you around you circular logic. Brian |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]