Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 15:01 On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > to be sure one way or the other. > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > convert or pass along the same photon. > > ~ BG With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon displaces the neighboring photons. Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether).
From: Double-A on 14 Feb 2010 15:43 On Feb 14, 11:53 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Double-A wrote: > >> Straight lines are defined as the shortest path between two points. These > >> exist in cuved space as well. > > > Question is, how do you define "shortest path"? > > How many dimensions do I get to employ? Some quantum experiments suggest > the shortest path is zero. Good point. Double-A
From: BradGuth on 15 Feb 2010 10:45 On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > ~ BG > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > displaces the neighboring photons. > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). It's all very confusing, isn't it. However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but it's rather huge. It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. ~ BG
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 11:11 On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > ~ BG > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > it's rather huge. > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > ~ BG I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just that there is no way to know. Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon. That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say is the aether acts as a 'one something'. I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of aether. Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle. If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through the aether. As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected collapses into a quanta of aether.
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 11:15
On Feb 15, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > > ~ BG > > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. > > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > > it's rather huge. > > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > > ~ BG > > I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to > consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked > through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether > consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just > that there is no way to know. > > Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of > particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are > photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest > mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other > photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual > how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does > have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with > less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon. > > That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we > can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say > is the aether acts as a 'one something'. > > I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a > quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the > photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a > photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' > as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of > aether. > > Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always > exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether > propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle. > > If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other > waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be > evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through > the aether. > > As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to > conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected > collapses into a quanta of aether. Correction: 'quantum of aether' not 'quanta of aether'. |