Assuming that a photon is the product of the discharge of energy from a charged particle and the dissipation of that energy is observable in the form of illumination over a given distance and that discharge only occurs when that particle encounters a mass greater than its self we can safely assume that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant with a maximum speed, and can not be increased. Although the charged particle that is in fact the potential energy delivering that charge is not held to the speed of light but should be directly proportional to the potential energy of the source. In our solar system that would be SOL. But what if SOL was 10 x the size.
Any ones thoughts please

Welcome to BAUT forums Dennis. I don't exactly understand what your question is. Could you possibly rephrase?

Also, what do you mean by "that discharge only occurs when that particle encounters a mass greater than its self".

The charged particle cannot travel at the speed of light because it has a non-zero rest mass and only radiates electromagnetic energy when it is accelerated.

__________________
I pray to no one.

There is no reason to think that the size, or any other attribute, of the source determines the speed of the light that is produced-- the speed that light passes by a point in empty vacuum appears to be a universal constant under all conditions.

Please understand that this a theoretical question, and requires some thinking outside the box. This question also incorporates consideration of wave-particle duality. So to reciprocate my original intent of the question, I am not disputing a constant for the speed of light, or the speed of a photon. What I am doing is laying down the process that produces a photon and questioning its full potential. Electromagnetic energy leaves the sun and produces no visible form of light in observed space (an empty vacuum) until that electromagnetic radiation comes in contact with a mass having a density greater or equal to itself (ex. electromagnetic energy hitting the moon, a space suit, a space craft, and even the earth). As a result of that contact a discharge of energy is expelled in the form of a photon. That photon has a constant speed and dissipates energy at a given rate (the photon exhausts its energy). That speed is considered the underlying maximum any particle could possibly travel. It is well known that it can be observed in multiple wave lengths (infared, ultraviolet, etc) Now assuming all matter in the Univserse uses more energy then it can possibly produce and that it cannot exceed its given kinetic energy. And that kinetic energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Would it not be safe to assume that a charged electromagnetic radiation produced from the sun would have a higher kinetic energy than that of the photon. And assuming this is true would that not assign the charged electromagnetic radiation as having a capability of not only possessing a higher raw form of energy then the photon but also having the capability to travel at a higher rate of speed. That speed being governed by the kinetic and potential energy of the source (The Sun). Therefore a star having ten times the kinetic energy of our Sun, should possess a larger potential energy, opening up the possibility for greater speeds. In respect to wave-particle duality I have separated the wave as having a potential based on the size of its source. And a photon as being a separate reaction to an electromagnetic wave coming into contact with any form of matter having a density greater or equal to itself. This theory therefore extends the fabric of space as being a smaller unit of density within the Universe.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I am sorry, I was not aware of any rules.This question or idea is the result of well accomplished men discussing possibility's, each of whom extend respect of intellect to each other. I am disheartened that many of the replies contain degrading comments.
In respect to ATM if men such as Galileo, De Vinci, Einstein, Van Buren,Maxwell, Faraday, and countless others did not search outside the ATM advances in science and technology would never have come to pass. In early times as one would look at the space between them and a mirror they were convinced nothing was there but empty space made of nothing. in retro spec if I stated today that empty space is made of nothing, I would have to deny that it exists. this I can not do, because if I can sense that it is there, I know that it exists. I just do not understand what it is made of, until we do, how can we travel through it. Remember the Wright Brothers.
We do welcome any input

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

{Emphasis mine}

Which ones? The first reply contains a welcome and asks for clarification of your question, hardly a "degrading comment". The second reply takes issue with your notion that radiation occurs only when a particle encounters another more massive than itself and is also hardly a "degrading comment". The third and fourth replies (not counting your posts) are moderation messages and likewise it is hard to find anything degrading. I suppose you will find my taking issue with what you feel is "degrading" will be taken to be a "degrading comment".
Van Buren?
Name-dropping will not get you very far. Have you actually read any real mathematical treatments of the work of these people? If you had you would have a better understanding of potential energy, electromagnetic radiation, and other concepts you have alluded to in your posts here.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

In some ways these people were thinking "outside the box", but they were doing orderly development of lines of thought based on observation of new discoveries along with previously known phenomena. In some cases the results of their work confirmed that previous generations of mainstream thinkers were mistaken in ways that could not have been refuted by any technique available in ancient times.

In comparison, most of the ATM ideas presented here appear to be out-of-nowhere conjectures that have little or no basis in well-informed analysis of well-observed phenomena. So far your idea about the radiation coming from the Sun appears to be in that category.
Before lumping the Wright Brothers with what you appear to be attempting, please read some of the history of aeronautical research and development. The following site looks like a good start.
http://inventors.about.com/library/i...arlyflight.htm

Gentleman
It seems that I have attracted some interest, although I do not feel that I have received a valid rebuttal. As you are aware notable researchers such as Maxwell, Planck, Einstein,and Compton who received the Nobel prize in 1927, grappled with the understanding of the photon, and in fact, if it was a particle at all.
Further more you should be aware that Einstein himself spent the rest of his life trying to answer the question, giving birth to the standard model. However disagreement still existed. Specifically Bohr, Hendrik Kramers, and Slater. There inability to maintain Maxwell's continuous electromagnetic theory prompted it into the grave, Although as a result Quantum Mechanics was born.
Today all this clamor has accumulated in the belief that the electromagnetic field its self is produced by Photons, Are we correct?
If you shuffle the ingredients of the Bose-Einstein model new probabilities become possible. One of those I have presented to you Nothing that I have presented contests past or present theory or experimentally prov-en principle Quantum mechanics or the nature of the photon its self ,other than its dual nature.
Actually what I believe I have demonstrated is the possibility that a photon has a symbiotic type relationship rather than a dual nature that can not be observed in any other observable object known to man.
And now I await to your rebuttals, they are welcome

Thank you for suggesting reading in aeronautics although it is not the current subject. I have held a pilots license for about 15 years have been a member of the AOPA and flown with the Civil Air Patrol. (You should not under estimate the ability of your opponent, it has a tendency to bring you down in flames )
( Baron Von Richthofen )

A superior pilot is one who stays out of trouble by using superior judgment to avoid situations that require superior skill. Sound familiar

Actually, the Wright Brothers achieved their breakthroughs from well within the mainstream of aeronautics research. In the years immediately prior to the success of the Wright Flyer, they consulted extensively with Octave Chanute, a scholar who had just completed a thorough review of the history of aerospace R&D up to that point. His review included careful analysis of all the significant advances in heavier-than-air flight, going back hundreds of years. It also included a comprehensive description of the current state of the art. Finally, it included an enumeration of the specific problems that still needed to be solved, in order for manned heavier-than-air flight to become a reality.

Chanute's review of the mainstream work so far, and his advice to the Wright Brothers based on that review, were essential to the success of the Wright Flyer. I would consider the Wright Brothers as a quintessential example of inventors who achieve breakthroughs from squarely inside the mainstream effort.

Horn Blower,
I agree with much of what you are saying, Although you must agree that after reading all that you suggest and I have, how much of it ties together?
Sadly I find little of it that does. Openly I would say the greater amount is very specific and accurate, although a little can spoil the whole lump. Your statement that much was achieved through observation is entirely correct My question to you is, taking the current principles available to you today through your observation ,do they appear consistent with observable nature?

Stute fish
Bravo I could not agree any better, Very well said. We must remember that 50 years prior, Know one had a clue that man could fly and from there began a far greater understanding of the true nature of our atmosphere, from altitude density and beyond
Unfortunately it does not seem that we approach our understanding of space the ultimate none atmosphere as actually being something much less with extreme curiosity of yesterday

That is because so far, there is hasn't been much information to analyse.
It seems the simplest explanation. See below for a test of the idea - no doubt there are other ways to see if there's a distinction.
Electrons and other elementary particles have also been investigated, and found to have both particle and wave characteristics. There's nothing particularly unique about the photon - it's simply the most well-known massless particle.

As for the FTL capabilities of the electromagnetic field, it should be easy enough to test, though we may have to build a fair-sized vacuum chamber or use space probes for the purpose. Turning an EM source on and off and measuring the time it takes for the change to be detected at a distance should suffice, right? How about Earth-Moon communications via radio, do they count? What type of source do you suggest produce this non-photonic EM field?

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

And what causes the discharge?



What exactly do you mean with "illumination"?



So, why do we get gamma photons when an electron and an anti-electron meet? After all, they have the same mass.

On what is your assumption based?



Can you explain in detail the logical steps that connect the assumptions to the conclusion?


The charged particle is directly proportional to the energy?


Your post is not very clear.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Why not "we can observe electromagnetic waves by its interaction with matter"?
Why have you singled out density as the important factor? Isn't it trivial, since photons have zero rest mass, while matter has non-zero rest mass?


Not always.
What happens when a electromagnetic waves interact with matter depends on the properties of both the EM waves and the matter.


How does it lose energy?
Why aren't we observing this energy loss?

Or are you referring to red-shift of light?


On what are these assumptions based?


What if the charged particle ended up at rest after emitting the photon?
And what if the photon is emitted by mechanism that do not involve the velocity of the particle?


No, because the light-speed limit comes from maintaining unambiguous cause-effect relationships, not from energy considerations.


Why would it have a larger potential energy?
How is this potential energy actually defined?


Why? What is this "potential"?
How does it compare to experimental results?


What if EM waves are composed of photons?


What theory?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Oh please! Spare the usual ATM rhetoric!


This is a science board.
Can you substantiate your subjective impressions?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

There is no argument to rebut, because you have not made any argument.
You stated a few unsupported assumption and jumped to conclusions without providing a reasoning.



What do you know about the relevant experimental results?


You are almost right: nothing of what you said contest modern physics, not even the nature of quantum particles.
That's because you have not provide any scientific argument.


"Symbiotic type relationship": what does it actually mean?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

"

The answer to your first question is wrong. The electromagnetic potential that you suggest is the equivalent to a simple radio wave with a very small potential energy as its source, in contrast our suns potential energy is the byproduct of nuclear fusion. Simply put a very large generator. I suggest that the type of source is fusion its self. In contrast nuclear fission produces radiation as well as generating a large momentary EMF field ,While fusion seems to produce radiation with a sustained EMF directly proportional to its magnitude

[QUOTE=papageno;1507486]And what causes the discharge?

Momentum




What exactly do you mean with "illumination"?
Observation of the quanta of light in the natural world in the range of observable frequency's.




So, why do we get gamma photons when an electron and an anti-electron meet? After all, they have the same mass.

I do not believe that the anti - electron has any sound confirmation as to its existence.
A Gama photon as you state is a product of a specific resonate frequency.

On what is your assumption based?

Natural observations




Can you explain in detail the logical steps that connect the assumptions to the conclusion?

We observe the nature of the photon in the physical word in a very small frequency range. This has allowed us to measure its speed , and we have found a constant, the speed of light.( undisputed ) we also know that light can be slowed down to below the speed of light when encountering matter and absorption is related to frequency and frequency determines its quantized energy level ( ultra, Gama etc. ). Each of these can be categorized as a release of a specific quanta of energy, having a specific life or half life non regenerating in nature and therefore Dependant on the potential and kinetic energy of its source.
With in the frequency range of visible light we see the the resultant dissipation of energy when electromagnetic waves interact with matter ( White light ) and in our solar system it may very well be that because of the magnitude of our sun the potential energy (electromagnetic field causing this reaction may be held to a threshold of speed. . This may not be true of a source of greater magnitude producing GRBs. The velocity of that magnetic field may be much greater.

My point, although the photon is held to a constant, considering it to be
singular the unknown force acting upon it may not be limited to the same constant

Dear Dennis schaffert

There are some really strange sentences in your ideas here, which would need a LOT of clafication, before we can even start to evaluate your ideas.

Now, here you really need to clarify what the EMF field is that you are thinking about, is this idea led by the EMP that is created by exploding an atom bomb? Or what do you mean with EMF (Electro Motive Force)?

I think you are really mistaken here, positrons are easily generated (see e.g. this link to NLC for positron sources). We can even create anti-hydrogen (since the 60s, see e.g. wiki) and positronium in the laboratory. So, why you have the idea that the anti-electron is not soundly confirmed is a mystery to me.

This does not even make sense.

Yes, relatively, the speed of light can be "slowed down" in matter with a dielectric constant. This can well be described as "the time lost between absorption and emission" and in between the photon travels a normal c.
However, the second part of this quote (and please not the singular is quantum, whereas the plural is quanta) does again not make any sense. What about the "kinetic energy of the source", what does that have to do with light slowing in a medium? Sure, there is dispersion, i.e. different freuquencies of light going faster or slower through the medium, but that is independent of what the source is doing. You might make a claim that if the source is moving, then relative to the rest frame of the medium, the light may be red or blue shifted.

Again, this makes no sense at all. What "threshold speed" are you talking about? And where does the (-bracket close? (I guess after "field").

Ehhhhh, you have not mentioned anything yet about a magnetic field with a velocity, where does that come from?

Also, I think there is, at least in my eyes (and that is a pun) something wrong with what you claim all the way at the beginning:

That, naturally, sounds very interesting, but there is a major problem here. The sun emits EM radiation which is invisible, and only when it hits a massive objecte, a photon is created, which supposedly is visible.

However, who says that that photon is visible? Unless someone observes it, it is a claim like "If there is no one in the forest and a tree falls, does it make any sound?". It can easily be claimed that, unless there is an interaction with the receptors of the eye, all EM radiation is invisible. However, then you would not need that nasty photon, because, apparently, we can see the sun directly, unless you are going to claim then, that the EM radiation interacts with the massive atmosphere/iris/eyeball liquid/whatever and then turns into a photon, which our eyes can detect.

This whole stuff is rambling at all sides, don't go too fast, it will definitely break down. You might want to read up on some phyisics (e.g. the existence of the positron) and you might want to put some math in this whole idea, to see whether things can/will work.

To a constant WHAT?
To be singular WHAT?
Limited to the same constant WHAT?

Don't write these kind of obscure phrases that may sound profound, but in the end are basically rubbish.

good luck

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

An obvious question that should have been asked sooner: you titled this thread "Greater than the speed of light", yet nowhere do you identify what (if anything) is traveling greater than the speed of light. Could you please explain?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

While I don't agree that Light Speed is a pure limit of everything, it -is- the limit for photons and mass.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Thanks, but you were using the Wright Brothers to support exactly the opposite argument, so I'm not sure how you could agree with me at all.

Actually, 50 years prior to the Wright Brothers, plenty of people "had a clue" that man could fly.

That's what Chanute's review of aeronautics research was all about, and it was exactly those many many clues, discovered by many many people, going back much futher than 50 years, that the Wright Brothers based their success on.

"Space as something much less" than what?

I think Dennis is right on here! Can you please provide a little more insite but I think I fully agree with you.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Bells are going off in my head. Do you care to clarify what Dennis is saying in your own words tommac?

A photon moves at the speed of light in a vacuum ,if a photon is considered a particle and constitutes a magnetic wave or simply stated is the wave. Greater than the speed of light remains impossible.
That being said ,if a photon is the result of the interaction of a magnetic wave and matter,each being a separate component. That wave having a magnitude and a velocity proportional to the product of its source, the wave function component is not necessarily held to the maximum constant velocity of a photon .
Opening up the possibility of greater speed or velocity of the wave function irrespective of the nature of a photon, that is held to a constant.

Ride a photon take a long trip. Hop the right wave function and get there quick.

I am confused here, why do you continue to talke about a mangetic wave when dealing with photons and thus light, whereas we know that light is an electromagnetic wave, which means it has both an electric and magnetic component. And the photon is not considered to be "the wave" if anything it would be a "wave package", you are mixing up the wave and particle nature of light in a way you should not.

Again magnetic wave!
Again, you do not explain why the "interaction" of a "magnetic wave" (whatever that may be) with matter creates a photon.
Then the bolded part does not make ANY sense: the magnitude oand velocitity proportional to ... okay so far so good, you can make something up here, but then ... to the product of its source ... what is THAT supposed to mean? Do you mean product as in multiplication or do you mean products as in something advertized on TV?
And then why would a wavefunction be "held to the maximum constant velocity of a photon? For one, you have not even said what wave function you are talking about.

Again, just sentences with lots of words, sounding very profound, but totally meaningless, one could say word salat.

If you would have studied a wee bit of electrodynamics, you would know that e.g. the phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave can easily be greater than the speed of light.

Yeah, and maybe you will find a white rabbit at the end of your trip.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Care to expand on this, so that it is an actual answer to my question?



The photon is the quantum of light.
Its interaction with matter ("observation", in your words) is fairly well explained within mainstream physics.

You are basically saying this: the dissipation of a photon's energy is observable in the form of other photons. It is just a convoluted way of saying: the photon loses energy by scattering; and arbitrarily restricts the scattering mechanisms.



I am not interested in what you believe. I am interested in what you can argue.
Please explain in detail what is wrong with the wealth of experimental results in support of the existence and properties of the anti-electron.
And please explain what experimental results would be a confirmation for you of the existence of the anti-electron.

"A Gama photon as you state is a product of a specific resonate frequency.": what does this actually mean?



See what I wrote in my other posts:
So, on what do you base your assumption that the important factor for the (as-yet undefined) "discharge" of photons is mass or density?
Why not electric charge, for example, with mass being incidentally non-zero?



And what would this frequency range be?
From gamma to infrared, to microwave, to radio?



We can measure the speed of electromagnetic waves, without observing the particle-like properties of the photon.



Why haven't you read my other posts?
Frequency is not the only factor that determines how EM waves interact with matter.



This is word-salad.
What is the "specific life or half life non regenerating in nature" of a photon (= quantum of EM energy)? What does "non regenerating in nature" actually mean?



This is not limited to visible light.
We have experimental results that go from zero frequency up to gamma photons. And what comes out is not always white light.



What are you actually saying?
This sounds more and more like gibberish...



I asked you to actually lay down a scientific argument, with sound logical steps reaching a conclusion from justified assumptions, and all I got was more incomprehensible word-salad.

You left many questions unanswered, such as:
And you have not been able to clarify your first posts.

Why should we waste more time with your ideas?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)