Who needs photons?

  • Thread starter Faradave
  • Start date

reilly

Science Advisor
1,069
0
Faradave -- There's a good reason why the concept of photon has survived for over a century -- the concept is immensely useful, spanning many branches of physics, and it passed many tests with flying colours. Simply stated, there is no reason to challenge the idea of a photon -- there's no evidence at all that the concept is wrong.

To gain any legitimacy, you must show 1. that your ideas agree with experiment, and 2. the specifics of where current theory is not correct and your theory is.
You have yet to do this.

Lot's of luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
Light from the sun is slowed when entering water. What is its speed after emerging from the water?
 
1,568
0
Light from the sun is slowed when entering water. What is its speed after emerging from the water?
c.

BTW, light is not slowed down in water, its path is lengthened. This is a complex phaenomenon.
 
We know that light is slowed when passing through water. Is this slowing cumulative? What is the speed of the same light upon emerging from the water?
 
Btw: I disagree. But let me put it another way. When I see objects that are under water, like a tasty tuna, I know that this light has passed through a given distance, let's say 100 feet. 100 feet is the same distance whether in air or water. Is the light from the tuna faster after leaving the water?
 
1,568
0
Btw: I disagree.
That's your problem. Taking a physics class might help.


But let me put it another way. When I see objects that are under water, like a tasty tuna, I know that this light has passed through a given distance, let's say 100 feet.
Actually light in the water has taken a complex, zig-zag path, not a straigh one like in vacuum.


100 feet is the same distance whether in air or water.
No, see above.



Is the light from the tuna faster after leaving the water?
No. It is still c.
 
We know that light is slowed when passing through water. Is this slowing cumulative? What is the speed of the same light upon emerging from the water?
This shows that you have literally no idea what Relativity in its special or general formulation is. None at all, which is alright, but not if you're trying to debunk photons, instead of learning basic physics.
 

DrGreg

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,225
606
l=ct, l'=c't', c=c' {...goose bumps}
There are not transforms, these are nothing.
Faradave, what is being asked for here are equations that express l' and t' in terms of l and t (although I'd prefer to use the symbol x instead of l), not just for the motion of photons but for any arbitrary events.

Hint: the Lorentz transform between two inertial frames is conventionally given by the equations

[tex]t' = \gamma(t -vx/c^2)[/tex]
[tex]x' = \gamma(x - vt)[/tex]​

where [itex]\gamma = 1/\sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}[/itex].
 
108
0
Faradave, what is being asked for here are equations that express l' and t' in terms of l and t...
DrGreg, Thankyou for your kind assitance to me and Starthaus. I couldn't help but think these were rather generally available in PF and elsewhere such as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction). And a look at the Starthaus posts/blogs suggest that full use of these has already been made.

The more basic equations I offered, while not transforms in themselves, contain all the elements necessary to derive them (with a little help from Pythagoras). Alas, like my pseudonamesake, my math (and Latex) skills are not up to par and I am left at the mercy of intuition and the benevolence of aquaintences such as yourself.

Also like Faraday, I love to attend lectures, particularly those offered by The Teaching Company. One entitled, "Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution" by Dr. Richard Wolfson, offered a form which I like:
[tex]t'=t\sqrt{1-v^{2}}[/tex]
and the same for length, where v is the velocity of the moving frame expressed as a fraction of lightspeed.
 
Last edited:
27,315
3,902
I assert that a speed of light reference frame (Frame c) is a relativistic inertial reference frame because its motion is uniform and all photons have speed c (even those traveling zero distance).
Hi Faradave, I agree with starthaus, you need to do more than assert this, you need to derive this. You have been given good reasons by many people why your assertion is wrong, so you need to back up your assertion with some solid derivation.

What you are being asked for is for the complete set of 4 equations of the following form:
t'=f1(t,x,y,z)
x'=f2(t,x,y,z)
y'=f3(t,x,y,z)
z'=f4(t,x,y,z)
which will allow you to transform from a standard inertial frame coordinates (t,x,y,z), to your frame c coordinates (t',x',y',z'). This transformation needs to transform all coordinates (t,x,y,z) in the standard inertial frame, not just those on a light cone as in post 39 and not just those which are co-located as in post 51.

Once you have given this transformation rule then you can prove that your frame c is inertial by writing down the laws of physics in the unprimed frame, doing the transform, and demonstrating that they have the same form in the primed frame. Anything less is insufficient.
 
Last edited:

DrGreg

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,225
606
Faradave,

the reason starthaus, DaleSpam & myself are asking you for these transforms is because we don't believe there is any sensible answer that will apply apply between your "frame c" and a standard inertial frame, which is why everyone has been objecting. So it's up to you to prove us wrong and come up with a sensible answer as DaleSpam spelled out in more detail.
 
1,568
0
Faradave,

the reason starthaus, DaleSpam & myself are asking you for these transforms is because we don't believe there is any sensible answer that will apply apply between your "frame c" and a standard inertial frame, which is why everyone has been objecting. So it's up to you to prove us wrong and come up with a sensible answer as DaleSpam spelled out in more detail.
Actually, we know that there is no such thing.
 

jtbell

Mentor
15,230
2,841
What you are being asked for is for the complete set of 4 equations of the following form:
t'=f1(t,x,y,z)
x'=f2(t,x,y,z)
y'=f3(t,x,y,z)
z'=f4(t,x,y,z)
which will allow you to transform from a standard inertial frame coordinates (t,x,y,z), to your frame c coordinates (t',x',y',z'). This transformation needs to transform all coordinates (t,x,y,z) in the standard inertial frame, not just those on a light cone as in post 39 and not just those which are co-located as in post 51.
You also need to show that there is an inverse transformation that has the following form:
t=f5(t',x',y',z')
x=f6(t',x',y',z')
y=f7(t',x',y',z')
z=f8(t',x',y',z')
which "goes the other way", i.e. transforms from the (t',x',y',z') calculated with the preceding transformation back to the original (t,x,y,z), and only to the original (t,x,y,z).
 
108
0
...we don't believe there is any sensible answer that will apply apply between your "frame c" and a standard inertial frame, which is why everyone has been objecting. So it's up to you to prove us wrong...
This is in response to the impressive consensus that I must provide a satisfactory set of transforms relating my Frame c (moving at lightspeed) to standard inertial reference frames. These began at post #36 with starthaus. I think it’s obvious that I will not be forthcoming with these any time soon. Perhaps it would be worth the effort, but some of you are quite certain the task would be futile.

I hope it is safe to assume, since you are active in the Relativity forums, that you all believe that the speed of light is absolute, that time “really” dilates, that length “really” contracts and that simultaneity is relative.

Any thinking time dilation to be an illusion should have been convinced by the change in time captured between a still and a previously synchronized Cs clock returning from a round trip to other frames. Being covariant with velocity, length contraction is equally real, but to date there has been no direct way to capture that. A game of tag (between electron and positron) could fix that, as long as length contraction is real, all the way down to zero.

Thus, my OP suggesting photons are, though useful, superfluous to a model of remote contact through pinholes (photo-induced wormholes) mediated by path contraction to zero. The pushback was loud and clear: Path contraction does not go to zero because Frame c is not a relativistic inertial reference frame (RIRF). Specifically, Frame c is disallowed because photons can never be “at rest”. I solved that. Frame c has uniform motion and all light travels at speed c, even when distance is zero.

Now, I am “burdened” with another task. Why? I am of the impression all Frames<c in uniform motion and with c=c’ are accepted as RIRFs. And a great accomplishment of SR is that it gives us that the laws of physics (including electricity and magnetism) are the same in all RIRFs.

But here’s the kicker. Suppose I take a year, become adept at these transforms, run into your "unsolvable" problem and in a flash of brilliance fix it? I then come back here and, by golly, you’re all impressed! Great, right? Then someone does the first spectral analysis of antihydrogen and there’s no spooky annihilation at a distance (illustration post #34). What's been accomplished? Nothing! No pinholes! I’m WRONG anyway!

Alternatively, I wait till that experiment is done. And son of a gun, they get all kinds of unexpected antihydrogen instability. A lot like Mills & Cassidy had with positronium (see post #16). Then someone finds matching gamma emissions from the antihydrogen and from its remote illumination source. Pretty soon, folks like you (who are far more capable anyway) are busy fixing the transforms lickety-split. That’s more likely the way it’s going to work out.

Meanwhile, l’=ct’ is about my speed. A nice linear equation with slope c in every frame, even the limit as l’ goes to zero. With or without transforms, pinholes offer simplification and potential answers to many of the outstanding problems in physics today.
 
Last edited:
This is in response to the impressive consensus that I must provide a satisfactory set of transforms relating my Frame c (moving at lightspeed) to standard inertial reference frames. These began at post #36 with starthaus. I think it’s obvious that I will not be forthcoming with these any time soon. Perhaps it would be worth the effort, but some of you are quite certain the task would be futile.

I hope it is safe to assume, since you are active in the Relativity forums, that you all believe that the speed of light is absolute, that time “really” dilates, that length “really” contracts and that simultaneity is relative.

Any thinking time dilation to be an illusion should have been convinced by the change in time captured between a still and a previously synchronized Cs clock returning from a round trip to other frames. Being covariant with velocity, length contraction is equally real, but to date there has been no direct way to capture that. A game of tag (between electron and positron) could fix that, as long as length contraction is real, all the way down to zero.

Thus, my OP suggesting photons are, though useful, superfluous to a model of remote contact through pinholes (photo-induced wormholes) mediated by path contraction to zero. The pushback was loud and clear: Path contraction does not go to zero because Frame c is not a relativistic inertial reference frame (RIRF). Specifically, Frame c is disallowed because photons can never be “at rest”. I solved that. Frame c has uniform motion and all light travels at speed c, even when distance is zero.

Now, I am “burdened” with another task. Why? I am of the impression all Frames<c in uniform motion and with c=c’ are accepted as RIRFs. And a great accomplishment of SR is that it gives us that the laws of physics (including electricity and magnetism) are the same in all RIRFs.

But here’s the kicker. Suppose I take a year, become adept at these transforms, run into your "unsolvable" problem and in a flash of brilliance fix it? I then come back here and, by golly, you’re all impressed! Great, right? Then someone does the first spectral analysis of antihydrogen and there’s no spooky annihilation at a distance (illustration post #34). What's been accomplished? Nothing! No pinholes! I’m WRONG anyway!

Alternatively, I wait till that experiment is done. And son of a gun, they get all kinds of unexpected antihydrogen instability. A lot like Mills & Cassidy had with positronium (see post #16). Then someone finds matching gamma emissions from the antihydrogen and from its remote illumination source. Pretty soon, folks like you (who are far more adept anyway) are busy fixing the transforms lickety-split. That’s more likely the way it’s going to work out.

Meanwhile, l’=ct’ is about my speed. A nice linear equation with slope c in every frame, even the limit as l’ goes to zero. With or without transforms, pinholes offer simplification and potential answers to many of the outstanding problems in physics today.
This is simple, provide the derivations, and if you can't admit that and go away, the "golly" possibility is your own fantasy, not reality.
 
27,315
3,902
Now, I am “burdened” with another task. Why?
Because this is how science is done, particularly revolutionary science. Take a look at Einstein for example, even he was not allowed to simply have a flash of physical insight and then leave the detailed work to others, he had to go through the derivations and the detailed math and lay it out for the scientific community to judge. Do you somehow think that you are more of a genius than Einstein? That you should be given a "pass" where he was not due to the sheer granduer of your ideas?

But here’s the kicker. Suppose I take a year, become adept at these transforms, run into your "unsolvable" problem and in a flash of brilliance fix it? I then come back here and, by golly, you’re all impressed! Great, right? Then someone does the first spectral analysis of antihydrogen and there’s no spooky annihilation at a distance (illustration post #34). What's been accomplished? Nothing! No pinholes! I’m WRONG anyway!
Again, that is science! I had a friend in grad school who spent not just one year but several years on his dissertation research and at the end his conclusion was that his initial idea was wrong. Negative results in science are important too.

You seem to think that you can change the world without effort and that your big picture is the only important thing and the details can be ignored. You seem to think that your idea is so compelling that you should not have to do any work and that the successful outcome of any attempt should be guaranteed. Sorry, that is simply not science, it is a lot of tedious work without any guarantee that nature will conform to your beautiful vision. If you can't be bothered to put in the scientific effort for your own idea then why should anyone else do it?
 
1,568
0
Suppose I take a year, become adept at these transforms,
That would be a better use of your time than spending time to post fringe stuff.

run into your "unsolvable" problem and in a flash of brilliance fix it?
Not a chance.


I then come back here and, by golly, you’re all impressed! Great, right? Then someone does the first spectral analysis of antihydrogen and there’s no spooky annihilation at a distance (illustration post #34). What's been accomplished? Nothing! No pinholes! I’m WRONG anyway!
You have been wrong all along.


Meanwhile, l’=ct’ is about my speed.
So far, despite grandiose claims, you demonstrated that you don't know basic stuff.
 
108
0
Yeah, I meant to say that. So there!
After three times, you should realize, mere heckling doesn’t help. Your parroting is Bohr-ing, in view of the fact that Einstein would have gladly sacrificed his photons for quantum non-local connections (such as pinholes). It was clear from, “I think it’s obvious that I will not be forthcoming with these” that I am a Faradave, without a McSwell to help with the math (Any volunteers?) It did not stop Faraday from making his contributions.

If you want to help, give me a symptom. With Frame c a relativistic inertial reference frame (RIRF), what physical problem arises from your lack of satisfactory transforms? Or, you can just wait with me for the spectral analysis of antihydrogen. What I offer you is a chance to get a head start on fixing the transforms yourself.
Actually, we know that there is no such thing.
Ha! That’s what they said about those nagging infinities in QED (such as charge on a proton) just before they came up with “renormalization”! Or you’ll invent a word like “duality” to sweep your problem under. But believe me, if spooky annihilation at a distance occurs, you will think of something, because observation must always trump theory.
 
Last edited:

Want to reply to this thread?

"Who needs photons?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top