the speed of light, is it infinite

[north]

as far as the speed of light goes I always thought it would interesting to do an experiment where, say a star a million light yrs away ( or shorter distance of course, but enough to make my point) has its light blocked. then take this blockage away. I predict that the light would not take a million yrs to get to us again. light and its speed are based on Earth experiments, assuming I'm right, the light from this particluar star would be instantaneous, when reaching us.

any reason I should be wrong?

[north]

this an argument for(from the particle physics forum)

An eclipsing binary is a pair of stars orbiting eachother in such a way that one passes in front of another during its orbit from our point of view. That is to say, from the direction we are looking, one stars light is temporarily blocked by the other star, and then unblocked. This happens during each orbit.

[north]

an argument against.



you need to read more about gravitational lensing
see link: http://web.mit.edu/eakeyes/www/18.337/intro.html




Originally Posted by north

Robert the thing is that first you assume a bending of light. what if there is no bending of light from this eclipse?

and the light is simply coming at us directly with no bending at all.

__________________
My School Website

[north]

then a reply


Yes, the light is totally blocked. This is not gravitational lensing

[north]

as well another reply;


Originally Posted by MartinM
Yes, the light is totally blocked. This is not gravitational lensing.


so we say that in actual fact , the speed of light if not infinite, is certainly much higher then 186,000 mps?

if this is true, this changes well almost everything, in astronomy!!!


for it seems that we see things in real time rather than time pasted!!!

[Tim Thompson]

What about Ole Roemer? He measured the speed of light in the 1670's, by using the orbits of Jupiter's moons. He used the fact that light takes longer to get here from the far side of the orbit, than from the near side. So if the speed of light is infinite, as you suggest, then orbital mechanics is wrong. But since we know from experience that orbital mechanics is not wrong, we know that the speed of light cannot be infinite.

In other words, the measurement you propose to make has already been done, and the results are in. The speed of light is not infinite.


Measuring the Speed of Light (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html)
Roemer and the speed of light (http://www.rundetaarn.dk/engelsk/observatorium/light.htm)
More on Roemer & the speed of light (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi682.htm)
Measuring the Speed of light from Dummies.Com (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-3247.html)
How was the speed of light determined? (http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae22.cfm)
Wikipedia on Ole Roemer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer)

[north]

your example has been brought up by MartinM and then answered by him;


Well.. Jupiter is several light minutes away. Therefore, when a moon passes behind Jupiter, the blockage is several light minutes away. If you prefer, there are eclipsing binary stars several hundred light years away. Perhaps you could use these to give an example of what you mean.

answer;

Hah! nevermind. Apparently, just last year astronomers discovered an eclipsing binary in the Andromeda galaxy. 2.5 million light years away. So there you go.

[Nereid]

Roemer's isn't the only measurement of the speed of light, nor the only type of measurement - Google on Fizeau, Foucault, and Michelson (yep, the same one), to take just a few examples.

Now, since this is the ATM section, and not the Q&A one, what ATM idea are you proposing, north?

[north]

Roemer's isn't the only measurement of the speed of light, nor the only type of measurement - Google on Fizeau, Foucault, and Michelson (yep, the same one), to take just a few examples.

Now, since this is the ATM section, and not the Q&A one, what ATM idea are you proposing, north?

that instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite.( actually I'll go out on a limb and say that it is infinite).

[RussT]

http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/default.asp

north, you might get more love over here.

[Celestial Mechanic]

That instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite. [Snip!]
As far as most of our daily activities are concerned it might as well be infinite. (Of course the time-delays in transmissions via satellite are quite real and are part of our daily experience.) The fact that it is so mind-bogglingly fast (299,792.458 km/sec) is part of the reason people have trouble accepting such things as the difference between coordinate and proper time, etc.

[RussT]

Here is another mind altering (crazy) possibility!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity, and the speed of light appears as a key parameter even where light itself does not. Think of it this way. The speed of light is embedded into reality in a very deep way, and that's why light goes that speed-- not the other way around. end quote


This is a very insightful concept!

Understanding our universe has so far been almost entirely based on understanding the light that we can detect at all the different wave lengths and frequencies and we have certainly come a VERY long way. However, it is my contention that it is understanding the Darkness (DM/DE), the true properties of 'space', that will take us another GIANT step forward in that understanding.

So based on your above statement Ken G, I would like to propose a concept that I have recently developed based on numerous other determinations.

This will sound crazy at first (and may be).

[Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity,]

Let's start with your first insight here...if this is indeed the case (and I believe it is), this is made up of Planck size (infitesimal DM), and I am going to suggest that 'all' of it, the entire universe worth of pure dark matter is moving @ the speed of light, and that as we know, it does not interact with
'ordinary' matter. It also has no real interaction with itself, so that there is no attraction of any of the infitesimal bits to each other, so there is no clumping of any kind, so in effect, all the bits are moving at the speed of light, in 'all' directions, so there is no prefered direction of the bits in any given volume of space. So they cannot 'bump' into each other!

Now Einstein showed that the speed of light in a vacuum is C.

So, if that vacuum, is what I described above, and since light has 0 mass and the pure dark matter 'space' bits have an infitesimal mass, that would mean that the light is 'lighter' (mass wise), and would mean that the light itself is not actually 'traveling' of its own velocity, BUT is being 'carried' along with the DM field of space which is traveling at C. Obviously until it bumps into something that it must react with.

So, if this DM field of space bits is traveling at C, that easily explains why space just travels right through the earth, our bodies, and all baryonic matter.

Here is the way I actually came up with part of this and the easiest way for me to think of it. When you turn on a light in a big room, the light is not eminating at the speed of light throughout the room. The light bulb is eminating light right at the bulb, and 'space', moving everywhere/every direction at C is carring that light everywhere/every direction @ C.

Crazy Huh!

[north]

As far as most of our daily activities are concerned it might as well be infinite. (Of course the time-delays in transmissions via satellite are quite real and are part of our daily experience.) The fact that it is so mind-bogglingly fast (299,792.458 km/sec) is part of the reason people have trouble accepting such things as the difference between coordinate and proper time, etc.


true

and the implications, that the speed of light is in fact infinite, even to the vast distances in the Universe is to say the least enormous.

for we are seeing the Universe in real time.

[north]

http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/default.asp

north, you might get more love over here.

Russ just deal with whats being presented here. ( I'm not looking for love just the truth!!!)

[Van Rijn]

true

and the implications, that the speed of light is in fact infinite, even to the vast distances in the Universe is to say the least enormous.

for we are seeing the Universe in real time.

As has been pointed out, it clearly is not infinite, and we see plenty of examples of that. Are you suggesting it is faster in some circumstances, and if so, what are those circumstances?

[north]

As has been pointed out, it clearly is not infinite, and we see plenty of examples of that. Are you suggesting it is faster in some circumstances, and if so, what are those circumstances?


go to #7 in this thread.

[RussT]

Sorry, I thought I was dealing with what was being presented.

Tom Van Flandern has the same concept (nearly) for gravity that you are presenting for light speed, so I thought...

The universe can only work as a whole in one self consistent way so all of the history of cosmology and especially that last 100 years have resulted only in clues to what that self consistent way is.

The bottom line is, like I stated in your other thread, is that GR is partially correct *nucleosynthesis* via Gamma from a singularity and Fred Hoyle was also partially correct in that it gets here a little at a time!

[montebianco]

that instead of the speed of light being a finite, it is in fact close if not infinite.( actually I'll go out on a limb and say that it is infinite).

By "close" to infinite, do you mean finite?

[Van Rijn]

go to #7 in this thread.

I already had. On one hand, it looked like you had admitted that the speed of light is the accepted value. On the other hand, you keep talking about an infinite light velocity. Please clarify.

[RobA]

I'd say there are big 2 reasons (among MANY others!) against speed-of-light being infinite:
1) The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.
2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.

[RussT]

I'd say there are big 2 reasons (among MANY others!) against speed-of-light being infinite:
1) The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.
2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.

While definitely not real time, the deep-field photos also show fully developed and very mature galaxies, while at the same time more and more 'new' galaxies are being found in our nearby local or semi-local space. This is more of a problem than is currently being realized.

[papageno]

The value of c was derived from Maxwells equations even before it was measured.

Actually the speed of light had been measured before, since -- I think -- Galileo's time.

What was derived in Maxwell's theory was the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, which turned out to equal the measured speed of light. This was one more bit in support of the idea that light is indeed an EM wave.

[north]

2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.

how so?

[RobA]

Actually the speed of light had been measured before, since -- I think -- Galileo's time.

What was derived in Maxwell's theory was the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves, which turned out to equal the measured speed of light. This was one more bit in support of the idea that light is indeed an EM wave.

Oops, of course - thanks for the correction. I got too used to thinking around Michelson-Morley :doh:

[RobA]

2) The Hubble deep-field photos show galaxies that are markedly younger than near-by. These are definitely not real-time.how so?

If the Hubble deep-field shows galaxies 10billion lightyears away looking younger than galaxies nearby, then the simplest explanation is that we're seeing galaxies like our own was 10billion years ago.

The simplest explanation is that the speed of light is finite, and those galaxies are indeed younger (soon after the BigBang), and would "now" be the same age, and look as mature, as ours.

However, if the speed of light is infinite, then we must be in a special place (a "mature-looking galaxy" island) surrounded by a sea of younger galaxies, but that's not really on.

RussT: Thanks for the comment. I must admit to this just being my understanding - I'll have to leave it to others to confirm or debate :)

[north]

If the Hubble deep-field shows galaxies 10billion lightyears away looking younger than galaxies nearby, then the simplest explanation is that we're seeing galaxies like our own was 10billion years ago.

the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies.

The simplest explanation is that the speed of light is finite, and those galaxies are indeed younger (soon after the BigBang), and would "now" be the same age, and look as mature, as ours.

assuming that the big-bang concept is correct.

However, if the speed of light is infinite, then we must be in a special place (a "mature-looking galaxy" island) surrounded by a sea of younger galaxies, but that's not really on.

on the whole as I've mentioned before there is NO difference between local galaxies and very distant( billions of light yrs away) by Hubbles' deep field is there?

[Nereid]

[snip]

on the whole as I've mentioned before there is NO difference between local galaxies and very distant( billions of light yrs away) by Hubbles' deep field is there?Are you claiming there is no such difference? Or asking whether there is any such?

If the former, then can you back up your claim; if the latter, then why not start a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section on that very topic?

[RobA]

the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies.

A quick google, I found this (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/) (emphasis mine)


The final ACS image, assembled by Anton Koekemoer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, is studded with a wide range of galaxies of various sizes, shapes, and colors. In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

[Cookie]

IIRC, there are mirrors on the Earth's Moon that have had lazers bounced off of them (or something to that effect) and measurements have been taken of the speed of light... I think?

[WHarris]

IIRC, there are mirrors on the Earth's Moon that have had lazers bounced off of them (or something to that effect) and measurements have been taken of the speed of light... I think?

I don't know if they have been used to measure the speed of light, but they do measure the time it takes light to get to the Moon and back. And since there is a measurable time of flight, the speed of light cannot be infinite.

[Tim Thompson]

the thing is that we don't see any difference between ( structurally) very distant galaxies and nearby galaxies. ... on the whole as I've mentioned before there is NO difference between local galaxies and very distant( billions of light yrs away) by Hubbles' deep field is there?

This is entirely wrong. We do see a great deal of difference, structurally, as a function of redshift, in galaxies. The evolution of galaxies as a function of redshift is obvious, and is heavily documented in the scientific literature. If big bang cosmology is in general correct, then this means that galaxies have evolved significantly with time, and we can see direct evidence of that evolution in the morphology & spectra of galaxies. But I am sure it is also not really relevant to the original question for this thread.

The speed of light (in a vacuum) should be finite, if special & general relativity are correct. So far they look pretty solid, so on theoretical grounds we would argue that the speed of light should not be infinite.

Observationally, all attempts to measure the speed of light have returned very finite, and very measureable speeds. Always. This includes measurements made in a vacuum, or as close to a vacuum as we can get.

So, you ask, "any reason I should be wrong?" Yes, there is a reason. The reason you should be wrong is simply that every measurement ever made of anything relevant to the speed of light shows that it is not infinite. I call that a good reason why you should be wrong.

Now I will ask a question: Is there any reason you should be right? Throughout this entire thread you have not given a hint as to what the answer to this question might be, nor any indication as to why you think the speed of light should be infinite. If you are unwilling to support your own idea, why bother with it at all?

[Hamlet]

true

and the implications, that the speed of light is in fact infinite, even to the vast distances in the Universe is to say the least enormous.

for we are seeing the Universe in real time.

When we communicate with the various probes that are exploring the Solar System, we always see a round-trip time that works out to be a finite speed of light. This is not real-time.

If the speed of light were infinite, we would be teleoperating Spirit and Opportunity on Mars instead of uploading instructions for semi-autonomous operation. Why aren't we doing this? Because the finite speed of light makes teleoperation impractical.

[north]

good points all and I have one of my own;

1) for the Hubble deep field why does it take Time for light to be gathered?


however as far the binary in Andromeda is concerned there a time gap between when the light is blocked and when it reappears?

if not, if there is NO gap, then it appears that the speed of light is for some reason in this circumstance is instantaneous.

[dgavin]

There have been some few experiments where the speed of light through a material, such as glass, has been pushed beyond the speed of light through that material.

The Result is what appears to be a temporal anomoly where the light exits the material before entering it, and a lot of Cherkov radiation generated during it's trip through the material (a sided effect of the causality violation probably)

However i don't think they have managed to push light beyond the speed of light in a vacum.

If light somehow managed to push iteself beyond light speed in a vacum, all of space itself would be emiting Cherkov radiation. As space doesn't do this, it's a safe bet from that alone that Light doesn't move faster then light in a vacum.

[Nereid]

good points all and I have one of my own;

1) for the Hubble deep field why does it take Time for light to be gathered?Because the photons in the relevant wavebands arrive at a rate of x per second per square metre of collecting area - if the HST were 2400 metres in diameter (instead of 2.4), it would take but a second to collect the same number of photons as it took the (real) HST a million seconds to collect (and if the HST were 2400 km in diameter, it would take a microsecond).however as far the binary in Andromeda is concerned there a time gap between when the light is blocked and when it reappears?What does this mean? Please clarify.if not, if there is NO gap, then it appears that the speed of light is for some reason in this circumstance is instantaneous.When can we expect your answers to the direct questions put to you, re your ATM idea?

[Hamlet]

good points all and I have one of my own;

1) for the Hubble deep field why does it take Time for light to be gathered?


You have to collect enough photons to make an image. These objects in the HDF are very far away and relatively few photons make it here from there. You need a lot of time to build up an image. In principle, this is no different from terrestrial imaging in low-light. The less light you have, the longer the exposure needs to be in order to create a useable image.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
good points all and I have one of my own;

1) for the Hubble deep field why does it take Time for light to be gathered?

You have to collect enough photons to make an image. These objects in the HDF are very far away and relatively few photons make it here from there.

why is that exactly? what makes some photons reach here before others? why the lag for some photons?

[Spock Jenkins]

Being just a laymen in scientific details such as this - I think a get what the OP is questioning.

If light get's blocked by an object and the source of that light is thousands of light years away - why isn't that object "turned off" for thousands of years while the light has time to start it's journey over from scratch? Instead, it just blinks off and blinks back on.

My explanation would be to try dripping water from the top of a ladder. If you make the drops frequent enough - several will be on their way down at the same time, but not yet hitting the ground. They will hit the ground with the same pace that you are letting them drop. You won't have to wait until a drop actually hits the ground before you let another drop fall.

Then again I could be all wet - pardon the pun.

[Nereid]

why is that exactly? what makes some photons reach here before others? why the lag for some photons?If it's a sunny day where you are, take a look outside. Photons reach your eyes from the Sun, reflected off trees, cars, etc.

Take a look again, after a few minutes. Photons reach your eyes from the Sun, reflected off trees, cars, etc.

You can do the same at night, by looking at a streetlamp (for example).

Why did some photons reach your eyes before others? There was a lag in when they were emitted.

(DO NOT look directly at the Sun, even for a fraction of second!)

[Spock Jenkins]

why is that exactly? what makes some photons reach here before others? why the lag for some photons?

I would guess because the light source emits in all directions at once covering a vast area of space. The photons would be scattered. The further away from the source, the farther apart they would scatter - so it would take a long time for enough of them to hit one spot millions of light years away.

I'm just guessing though.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
why is that exactly? what makes some photons reach here before others? why the lag for some photons

I would guess because the light source emits in all directions at once covering a vast area of space. The photons would be scattered. The further away from the source, the farther apart they would scatter - so it would take a long time for enough of them to hit one spot millions of light years away.

I'm just guessing though.

but if scattering of photons then there should be nevertheless a center focus of this light. so is there?

and if scattering of light is the answer then we are missing part of the light message.since some of this light from an object is missed.

and what of those photons that are scattered but not enough that they do not miss the gathering of telescopic light, that still lag behind those photons that initinally strike the light gathering plate.

[Hamlet]

why is that exactly?

Have a look here (http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s3.htm). It explains the Inverse Square Law and why the photon flux decreases with the square of the distance.


what makes some photons reach here before others?


Because some photons are emitted before others and it takes a finite amount of time to reach our detectors here on Earth.


why the lag for some photons?

See above. The photons "lag" for the same reason two baseballs lag each other if I throw one and then another.

[north]

Hamlet

what would be interesting to know is the consentration of photons on the plate and where on the plate,position. for some photons are releasted at the sametime.

[Tassel]

however as far the binary in Andromeda is concerned there a time gap between when the light is blocked and when it reappears?

if not, if there is NO gap, then it appears that the speed of light is for some reason in this circumstance is instantaneous.
If understand you correctly, you're assuming that once the light from a distant star is blocked, the photons already on their way suddenly disappear. But they don't. If a star that's 1 million ly away from us (for example) was suddenly blocked for ten seconds, we would not know until 1 million years later when the last photons emitted before the block arrive at our eyeballs. At that time we would see the star wink out and then ten seconds later, when the first photons emitted after the block is removed arrive, the star would reappear.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
however as far the binary in Andromeda is concerned there a time gap between when the light is blocked and when it reappears?

if not, if there is NO gap, then it appears that the speed of light is for some reason in this circumstance is instantaneous.


If understand you correctly, you're assuming that once the light from a distant star is blocked, the photons already on their way suddenly disappear. But they don't.

good point!



If a star that's 1 million ly away from us (for example) was suddenly blocked for ten seconds, we would not know until 1 million years later when the last photons emitted before the block arrive at our eyeballs. At that time we would see the star wink out and then ten seconds later, when the first photons emitted after the block is removed arrive, the star would reappear.

although this makes sense;

do we see this, in the binary system of Andromeda?

for it seems we don't. at least nobody has mentioned this, that if and when the light is blocked there is a gap between the before and after the blockage.

[Hamlet]

Hamlet

what would be interesting to know is the consentration of photons on the plate and where on the plate,position. for some photons are releasted at the sametime.

I'm not sure what you're going for here, but the concentration of photons at the detector depends on the initial luminosity of the emitting object and the distance between the object and the detector. To be accurate, we would also need to take into account any absorption and scattering by intervening gas and dust.

[Hamlet]

although this makes sense;

do we see this, in the binary system of Andromeda?


What difference does it make if it's a binary system in Andromeda or the Moon eclipsing the Sun? If a body interrupts light from another body, the observed gap lasts as long the blockage is there.


for it seems we don't.

We don't?

at least nobody has mentioned this, that if and when the light is blocked there is a gap between the before and after the blockage.

Sure there's a gap. It's no different than you blocking the Moon with your thumb for 10 seconds and then unblocking it.

[SMEaton]

North, can you post a link to this binary in Andromeda? And why are you focused on just this specific binary system?
Is this (http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3640) what you're talking about?
If so, the binary system is eclipsing, meaning that the orbital plane of the binary system is aligned 'edge on' with our field of view.
for it seems we don't. at least nobody has mentioned this, that if and when the light is blocked there is a gap between the before and after the blockage.
Why do you say this? If the link I gave refers to the same binary system you mentioned, they have observed an orbit of just over 3.5 days. The physics and orbital mechanics of this system is the same as any other eclipsing pair of stars, or for a moon orbiting Jupiter.

Regards
SMEaton

[north]

Originally Posted by north
Hamlet

what would be interesting to know is the consentration of photons on the plate and where on the plate,position. for some photons are releasted at the sametime.

I'm not sure what you're going for here, but the concentration of photons at the detector depends on the initial luminosity of the emitting object and the distance between the object and the detector. To be accurate, we would also need to take into account any absorption and scattering by intervening gas and dust.


but your statement has not adressed my question;

what is the consentration of photons and where, on the plate.

and certainly, despite the luminosity of a said object, there must be a focal point of photons,density of photons.

[Hamlet]

but your statement has not adressed my question;

what is the consentration of photons and where, on the plate.

and certainly, despite the luminosity of a said object, there must be a focal point of photons,density of photons.

My previous posts addressed this. The flux (photon density) is related to the luminosity of the object and the distance between the object and the detector. Where it falls on the detector and the focal point has more to do with the optics of the detector. A telescope or lens collects the light and focuses it on a CCD or on film.

[Bob Angstrom]

Here is another mind altering (crazy) possibility!

[Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity,]

Crazy Huh!
You and Ken G have the right idea. The speed of light would still be a universal constant even if light did not exist. The speed of light is determined by our choice of units for time and distance and may not be the actual speed of anything and it also can not be measured experimentally. Measuring the speed of light only serves to verify the correctness of our measurements of length and time. Jethro Cole explains in the following quote:
-------------------------
"One example of gauge invariance shows up in the speed of light: Despite what Newtonian dynamics implies, c cannot be determined by experiment. To see why, suppose that our unit of time is taken as so many periods of some cesium transition; and the value of c is taken arbitrarily - to be 30 cm/nsec. Then by adjusting the distance of some mirror from a strobed light source in the lab so that it causes a reflection time of 2 nsec at the source, we will have assigned the mirror a distance of 30 cm away.
But the speed of light is a universal constant. Accordingly, any other lab that adopts the same value of c, will get the same value for the centimeter as we do. And, needless to say, any experiment that now purports to measure the speed of light using the units for the second and meter defined this way, will come up with the same value of c.

In other words, the choice of units for time, distance and c, are dependent: any two already determine the third. To retain data previously entered in the records, c has been assigned formally as
299,792,458 m/sec *exactly*.
In practice the meter was assigned as a given number of wavelengths of the Cs transition, and the unit of time was then fixed by the value of c."

Jethro Cole

[SMEaton]

but your statement has not adressed my question;
what is the consentration of photons and where, on the plate.
and certainly, despite the luminosity of a said object, there must be a focal point of photons,density of photons.
"Focal point" is probably not a correct term in this case. However, "density of photons" is quite correct. Do you have any experience with photography? In an image produced from either photographic film or CCD array, the bright areas correspond to a higher number of photons 'hitting' the film emulsion or CCD array over the exposure time. Incoming photons (or 'flux') and brightness in an image are proportional.
Regarding "lag" of photons, Hamlet has already covered this. And after rereading his previous post, he basically covered what I just said. Oops.
What are actually driving at, though? Are you still saying that light is instantaneous?

Regards

[RussT]

You and Ken G have the right idea. The speed of light would still be a universal constant even if light did not exist. The speed of light is determined by our choice of units for time and distance and may not be the actual speed of anything and it also can not be measured experimentally. Measuring the speed of light only serves to verify the correctness of our measurements of length and time. Jethro Cole explains in the following quote:
-------------------------
"One example of gauge invariance shows up in the speed of light: Despite what Newtonian dynamics implies, c cannot be determined by experiment. To see why, suppose that our unit of time is taken as so many periods of some cesium transition; and the value of c is taken arbitrarily - to be 30 cm/nsec. Then by adjusting the distance of some mirror from a strobed light source in the lab so that it causes a reflection time of 2 nsec at the source, we will have assigned the mirror a distance of 30 cm away.
But the speed of light is a universal constant. Accordingly, any other lab that adopts the same value of c, will get the same value for the centimeter as we do. And, needless to say, any experiment that now purports to measure the speed of light using the units for the second and meter defined this way, will come up with the same value of c.

In other words, the choice of units for time, distance and c, are dependent: any two already determine the third. To retain data previously entered in the records, c has been assigned formally as
299,792,458 m/sec *exactly*.
In practice the meter was assigned as a given number of wavelengths of the Cs transition, and the unit of time was then fixed by the value of c."

Jethro Cole

[You and Ken G have the right idea. The speed of light would still be a universal constant even if light did not exist.]

If 'space' is moving at C and carrying light along with it, that would actually be an explanation for a 'mechanism' for light travel.

But wouldn't Jethro's explanation apply to anything and everything that we measure in any way at all?

[Bob Angstrom]

[You and Ken G have the right idea. The speed of light would still be a universal constant even if light did not exist.]

If 'space' is moving at C and carrying light along with it, that would actually be an explanation for a 'mechanism' for light travel.

But wouldn't Jethro's explanation apply to anything and everything that we measure in any way at all?Jethro explained that our units for time, distance, and c are all dependent since the value of one is used to define the other two so our experimental measurement of the speed of light will always give us the same result. If we measure the speed of light under conditions where we should expect the speed of light to change by Newtonian physics, the same conditions that should cause the speed of light to change will also cause our measurements of length and time to change so the speed of light can not be measured experimentally. The Michaelson- Morley apparatus is an example of this interdependence. The M-M apparatus tried to measure the addition and subtraction of the Earth’s motion to the speed of light and discovered that the motions can not be added. This is one clue that c is not a ‘speed’ in the normal sense of the word. Jethro’s explanation does not apply to measurements under conditions that could be called Newtonian.

[Lurker]

By "close" to infinite, do you mean finite?
That't what he means, but he won't say it... :)

[aurora]

There have already been quite a few people posting examples that clearly demonstrate that the speed of light is not infinite, and has in fact been determined and measured (as early as the 1600's).

I'll add one more example, the Mars Rovers. If the speed of light was infinite, that would sure make landing and operating the Rovers on Mars a lot easier than it in fact is!

[RussT]

Great example Aurora, and in addition instant communication with all our spacecraft on all the different missions would have certainly caused much less stress for the command posts!

[RussT]

Jethro explained that our units for time, distance, and c are all dependent since the value of one is used to define the other two so our experimental measurement of the speed of light will always give us the same result. If we measure the speed of light under conditions where we should expect the speed of light to change by Newtonian physics, the same conditions that should cause the speed of light to change will also cause our measurements of length and time to change so the speed of light can not be measured experimentally. The Michaelson- Morley apparatus is an example of this interdependence. The M-M apparatus tried to measure the addition and subtraction of the Earth’s motion to the speed of light and discovered that the motions can not be added. This is one clue that c is not a ‘speed’ in the normal sense of the word. Jethro’s explanation does not apply to measurements under conditions that could be called Newtonian.

[The M-M apparatus tried to measure the addition and subtraction of the Earth’s motion to the speed of light and discovered that the motions can not be added.]

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong here, but it does not seem to me that this statement is correctly depicting what was being measured (or attempting to be measured) here.

AFAIK, the M&M experiment was using light to attempt to determine if there was/is a 'background field', in addition to our proper motion, that the earth, our solar system, or galaxy, could be seen moving against.

[madman]

the assumptions for "what was being measured" are left unproven by the negative result of the mmx.

neither the "proper motion" nor the "motion against a background field" are exhibited by the experiment.

the only time a positive result occurs is if the interferometer is "unsettled"...or not at rest with respect to the earth.

[RussT]

the assumptions for "what was being measured" are left unproven by the negative result of the mmx.

neither the "proper motion" nor the "motion against a background field" are exhibited by the experiment.

the only time a positive result occurs is if the interferometer is "unsettled"...or not at rest with respect to the earth.


yes, and I should have just asked Bob how he felt that the experiment was actually testing against the speed of light rather than the two we've mentioned.

[madman]

(nb: semi? thread hijacking......apologies again)

RussT
...the experiment was actually testing against the speed of light (?)

unfortunately the experiment does not "test against the speed of light".

only objects that move relatively to the earth will show a result that is detectable using light motion as the tool....those that remain at rest (like the components of the interferometer) will not return a positive result.

this effect is detailed by the range of velocity values vs doppler shift that is obtained via the science of doppler radar.

doppler shift reduces as relative velocity (to the earth) reduces...until finally we have no doppler shift when the components are held completely at rest with respect to the earth.

[Bob Angstrom]

[The M-M apparatus tried to measure the addition and subtraction of the Earth’s motion to the speed of light and discovered that the motions can not be added.]

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong here, but it does not seem to me that this statement is correctly depicting what was being measured (or attempting to be measured) here.

AFAIK, the M&M experiment was using light to attempt to determine if there was/is a 'background field', in addition to our proper motion, that the earth, our solar system, or galaxy, could be seen moving against.
I agree that yours is a better statement of what they were trying to do at the time.

[madman]

the important thing is that they still didn't get a positive result...regardless of whatever assumptions are correct.

(the last point mentioned by Bob may be important for historical accuracy....but it makes no real difference in determining whether there is or isn't (for example) an "ether" in space....since no data means no proof of what is physically occuring in space.)

the "no proof" result left us with the need to (at the very least) explain what happened to the proper motion of the earth.

[hijacking begins]*********************

SR supplied an answer...but is it really the correct one?


in my thread "inertial field theory"...i've pointed out the fact that the science of doppler radar actually answers for the effects of objects moving relative to the earth.

this situation cannot be (and is not) overidden by the effects of SR....since not only do we see that objects have relative velocites to light that are directly related to their relative velocity to the earth.....but we also see that the root basis for the SR answer to the mmx negative result is not related to the root basis of doppler radar...which, as i have pointed out, already speaks for relative motion upon the earth...regardless of any opinion SR might have on the subject.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=815352&postcount=14

*********************************[/hijacking ends]

********************************
edited to note instance of hijacking

[Nereid]

... that the speed of light is infinite (or, very much greater than c).

If no such (ATM) proposal is put on the table, then what is the point of this thread?

[Setumadhava]

hello.
according to me the speed of light is infinite.what ever we assume it as 3x10^8 m/s is just relative to us and earth and not to the whole universe.this means that we can cross the mark of 3x10^8 m/s with no tensions.this can be justified.well,when a person is standing,to him the speed of light is 3x10^8(c).ok.lets assume a man in a spaceship going at 2/3c.to him also the speed of light is 3x10^8m/s and not 1x10^8m/s.this means that no matter at what speed you are going at,the speed of light is 3x10^8m/s more than your speed.so if you travel at infinite speed,the speed of light seems to be 3x10^8m/s times your speed.this means that 3x10^8m/s is not the actual speed of light.like a photon of zero mass,light is a quantity os infinite velocity.this does not mean that velocity of light can be reached.it cannot be.but the speed which we assume as 3x10^8m/s is not right.

[R.A.F.]

...according to me the speed of light is infinite.

Although wrong, I can('t) help but admire the confidence demonstrated in that statement. :)

[SMEaton]

Although wrong, I can help but admire the confidence demonstrated in that statement. :) (emphasis mine) I'm not sure if that was a typo or a sardonic twist, but either way it's hilarious.

[R.A.F.]

DOH!!...I've fixed it...

[Fortis]

hello.
according to me the speed of light is infinite.
How do you explain all of the measurements of it that result in finite velocities?

[RussT]

Setumadhava
Junior Member

And north.

And this includes explaining these.

http://www.bautforum.com/report.php?p=815794

http://www.bautforum.com/report.php?p=815797

[TheThorn]

One working GPS is enough to prove that the speed of light is finite.

Does your GPS work? Mine does. Case closed.

[Bob Angstrom]

... that the speed of light is infinite (or, very much greater than c).

If no such (ATM) proposal is put on the table, then what is the point of this thread?I thought the proposal was on the table. In any case, I would also like propose that the transmission of light may be an instant and unmediated exchange of energy between an emitter and an absorber. As Gilbert Lewis pointed out in 1926, so far as the ‘photon’ is concerned, its ‘emission’ and ‘absorption’ are one and the same event, its intrinsic or ‘proper’ time of transit being exactly zero according to relativity. From a ‘photon’s eye view’, light has no space or time.
The theories of Bell and the experiments Aspic as well as some of recent experiments involving the quantum teleportation of light suggest an atemporal nature to the transmission of light that conflicts with our notion that light has a speed. Our measurements of the speed of light include the addition of space and time to the mix but space and time, even though essential for our observations, may not be essential to the transmission of light. Viv Pope has suggested that the ‘motion’ of light may be a cinematic illusion like the apparent motion of lights on a moving signboard where there is no actual motion or speed involved and no physical transmission of light through space.
Pope also makes the point that light is the exchange of radial energy from one point to another and we have no theory to explain how radial energy (light) might be packaged and sent from one location to another as either a particle or as a wave.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-1/Pope.pdf

[Bob Angstrom]

How do you explain all of the measurements of it that result in finite velocities?My eyes tell me Shakira is moving all over my TV screen but is her image really moving?

[Setumadhava]

One working GPS is enough to prove that the speed of light is finite.

Does your GPS work? Mine does. Case closed.

can you please tell me how a GPS can be used to measure the velocity of light???well what what do you say about that spaceship part?

[Fortis]

can you please tell me how a GPS can be used to measure the velocity of light???well what what do you say about that spaceship part?
GPS uses the fact that EM waves propagate at a finite velocity in order to determine the receiver's range from each GPS satellite, and hence the position of the receiver on the Earth. If EM waves propagated instantaneously then GPS wouldn't work.

[TheThorn]

can you please tell me how a GPS can be used to measure the velocity of light???well what what do you say about that spaceship part?

What Fortis said. I don't think GPS can be used directly to measure the speed of light, but if the speed of light was infinite, it wouldn't work at all, and if we didn't already know c to a very very very good degree of accuracy, GPS would be inaccurate.

Check out http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html for a good explanation.

GPS is just one of many everyday technologies that rely on c being finite and known. Radar might be an even better example.

It's so obvious, this thread should have been 2 posts long.

[Bob Angstrom]

GPS uses the fact that EM waves propagate at a finite velocity in order to determine the receiver's range from each GPS satellite, and hence the position of the receiver on the Earth. If EM waves propagated instantaneously then GPS wouldn't work.A GPS uses highly accurate measurements of distance and time and their relationship to c but these are not necessarily a measurement of the speed of light. (I mentioned earlier that the speed of light can not be measured.) An exception to the possibility that light follows a straight line path from one point to another is Richard Feynman’s "sum over histories" theory which is illustrated in the second drawing in the following article.

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/path_integrals/index.html

In Feynman’s theory light can take any, and possibly every, possible path between two points with most paths requiring speeds far in excess of c. When a photon strikes the surface of a transparent object it can either be reflected or enter the surface. If the object has opposite surfaces that are perfectly smooth and flat, whether the photon is reflected or not, depends largely on the wavelength of the photon and the distance between the surfaces. An example is a soap bubble or a diamond that reflects light in different colors. Feynman noted in his book QED that this effect has been observed in glass as much as thirty meters thick so how does a photon entering a glass surface ‘know’ that there is another surface thirty meters away that can determine whether or not the photon will be reflected? In Feynman’s theory, the photon entering the glass meets one of its many alternate selves that has just been reflected from the far surface and how they interact determines the path of the photon. There is nothing logical about Feynman’s theory and there may not be any truth to it but it does describe the way light works in the ‘real world’ and the way light works is not consistent with the possibility of light traveling only at the speed of c.

[Nereid]

Jethro explained that our units for time, distance, and c are all dependent since the value of one is used to define the other two so our experimental measurement of the speed of light will always give us the same result. If we measure the speed of light under conditions where we should expect the speed of light to change by Newtonian physics, the same conditions that should cause the speed of light to change will also cause our measurements of length and time to change so the speed of light can not be measured experimentally. The Michaelson- Morley apparatus is an example of this interdependence. The M-M apparatus tried to measure the addition and subtraction of the Earth’s motion to the speed of light and discovered that the motions can not be added. This is one clue that c is not a ‘speed’ in the normal sense of the word. Jethro’s explanation does not apply to measurements under conditions that could be called Newtonian.(my bold)

There's a subtle aspect to this which I think should be brought out more clearly.

And it may seem like a bit of nitpick, but I feel it's actually quite important (and relevant to my forthcoming comment on another of Bob Angstrom's posts).

Rather than "under conditions that could be called Newtonian", perhaps "if the universe behaved as if it were Newtonian".

A mere philosophical difference? Yes and no.

If someone is proposing that the speed of light is infinite (in the usual sense of 'speed'), then a legitimate question to ask is "which parts of SR are you seeking to change/throw out?" Why? Because, as far as we call tell, the universe works as if SR rules.

Another legitimate question would be "what are the definitions of unit mass and unit time, in your ATM idea (in which the speed of light is infinite)?"

[Nereid]

A GPS uses highly accurate measurements of distance and time and their relationship to c but these are not necessarily a measurement of the speed of light. (I mentioned earlier that the speed of light can not be measured.) An exception to the possibility that light follows a straight line path from one point to another is Richard Feynman’s "sum over histories" theory which is illustrated in the second drawing in the following article.

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/path_integrals/index.html

In Feynman’s theory light can take any, and possibly every, possible path between two points with most paths requiring speeds far in excess of c. When a photon strikes the surface of a transparent object it can either be reflected or enter the surface. If the object has opposite surfaces that are perfectly smooth and flat, whether the photon is reflected or not, depends largely on the wavelength of the photon and the distance between the surfaces. An example is a soap bubble or a diamond that reflects light in different colors. Feynman noted in his book QED that this effect has been observed in glass as much as thirty meters thick so how does a photon entering a glass surface ‘know’ that there is another surface thirty meters away that can determine whether or not the photon will be reflected? In Feynman’s theory, the photon entering the glass meets one of its many alternate selves that has just been reflected from the far surface and how they interact determines the path of the photon. There is nothing logical about Feynman’s theory and there may not be any truth to it but it does describe the way light works in the ‘real world’ and the way light works is not consistent with the possibility of light traveling only at the speed of c.Well, I don't think this is in any way an ATM idea!

Unless it morphs into a discussion of the 'reality' which the highly successful quantum theories describe ... and that takes us right to the EPR paradox (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35006).

Is there a radical philosophical interpretation on the table? Is it so radical that it claims observables which are different from any of the standard interpretations?

[Bob Angstrom]

There's a subtle aspect to this which I think should be brought out more clearly.

And it may seem like a bit of nitpick, but I feel it's actually quite important (and relevant to my forthcoming comment on another of Bob Angstrom's posts).

Rather than "under conditions that could be called Newtonian", perhaps "if the universe behaved as if it were Newtonian".

A mere philosophical difference? Yes and no. ) A better phrasing would be to say that Jethro’s observations apply under non-relativistic conditions. I would not limit them to a Newtonian-only universe because they apply to our 'real world' sort of observations. They are not just theoretical.
(If someone is proposing that the speed of light is infinite (in the usual sense of 'speed'), then a legitimate question to ask is "which parts of SR are you seeking to change/throw out?" Why? Because, as far as we call tell, the universe works as if SR rules.

Another legitimate question would be "what are the definitions of unit mass and unit time, in your ATM idea (in which the speed of light is infinite)?"I would toss out the popular idea that c is the actual speed of light but keep c as a universal constant. I do not consider this to be either a change in SR or ATM.
I am saying the speed of light is inmeasurable…take your pick of units. If it is inmeasurable, we can’t say if it is infinite or not. I just call it atemporal and aspatial or direct and non-local but it isn't necessarily limited by c.

[Bob Angstrom]

Well, I don't think this is in any way an ATM idea!

Unless it morphs into a discussion of the 'reality' which the highly successful quantum theories describe ... and that takes us right to the EPR paradox (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35006).

Is there a radical philosophical interpretation on the table? Is it so radical that it claims observables which are different from any of the standard interpretations? I agree. Feynman’s sum over histories is not ATM.

I think you will find that we have a diverse set of opinions including no decisive view of what is or is not ATM. The Thorn said," One working GPS is enough to prove that the speed of light is finite. Does your GPS work? Mine does. Case closed."
I consider this to be ATM. Do you? Does he?
Viv Pope has some topics in his article that might be considered to be ATM. He describes the transmission of light as direct and non-local and not mediated by either particles or waves. This may be the sort of transmission of light "north" had in mind with his "infinite" speed of light and it does not play by the rules of Copenhagen.

[Thanatos]

Does Pope satisfactorily explain all experimental tests of relativity to date [that insist upon a finite speed of light], or does he cherry pick and snip pieces as needed to force fit them to his pet theory?

[Bob Angstrom]

Does Pope satisfactorily explain all experimental tests of relativity to date [that insist upon a finite speed of light], or does he cherry pick and snip pieces as needed to force fit them to his pet theory?
Pope cherry picks and snips pieces as needed to fit his pet theory and then he pounds all the square pegs with a large hammer until they fit the round holes. What else can a person do?
Experimental tests of relativity insist on the constancy of c for all observers but they do not insist that c be the finite speed of light or even a speed. It is simply a constant. The universal constant of c and the speed of light have gone separate ways since the Bell and Aspic disproved the EPR effect back in the sixties. Recent experiments with the quantum teleportation of light have shown that we can decide the polarity of a light beam after the light leaves its source. This is not possible in the Einsteinian view and neither is Feynman’s QED.
C as the finite speed of light is square peg that can not be forced into experimental results by anyone’s hammer.
For example, measure the speed of light in this test with your GPS.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html

[Bob Angstrom]

If you consider the views of Viv Pope together with some other recent, and not so recent, views on the subject, this is a concept of light that emerges. Light is the exchange of angular momentum between one quantum accumulator (the emitter) and another (the absorber) in energy units h. The most common accumulator and absorbers of light energy are electrons so light is mainly an energy exchange among electrons and this exchange is neither easy nor random. The exchange takes place only among electrons having the proper orientation and frequency and only when a two way connection of what may be called ‘probability waves’ has been established between two suitable electrons does the exchange of energy (light) take place. The exchange itself is an instantaneous and unmediated exchange of quantum information. This is the same instant and non-local exchange of information described by Bell and Aspic in their tests of the EPR theory. Angular momentum of the electrons is conserved whenever light energy is exchanged because the exchange is instant and there is no time interval between emission and absorption. There are also no particles (photons) involved. This view is quite different from what we observe when we see an obvious time delay between the emission and absorption of light and the way that light appears to travel with a predictable speed. Pope explains that the distance/time relation that experiments measure is not the velocity of anything. It is the distance-time relation itself, in the constant ratio of units c between any one point in space and another. I like to think of this as saying that time is Nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once and space as Nature’s way of keeping everything from in the same place. I don’t know of a better definition for space and time than that. From light’s point of view, which is also the quantum world view where everything is holistic and interconnected, concepts such as distance and speed become meaningless. It is our observation of light related events that places space and time and their relationship to c between the events of emission and absorption and this gives light its time like quality. As Pope explains, light does not pass through space. Instead our observations place space and time between the events of emission and absorption. "From light in space to space in light." In Pope’s view, the apparent motion of light is strictly cinematic like the moving letters on an electric signboard. Electrons exchanging light energy are like the bulbs flashing on and off as they create the illusion of motion but light itself has no speed other than instant and it has no motion through space.

[Nereid]

Does Pope satisfactorily explain all experimental tests of relativity to date [that insist upon a finite speed of light], or does he cherry pick and snip pieces as needed to force fit them to his pet theory?Pope cherry picks and snips pieces as needed to fit his pet theory and then he pounds all the square pegs with a large hammer until they fit the round holes. What else can a person do?
Experimental tests of relativity insist on the constancy of c for all observers but they do not insist that c be the finite speed of light or even a speed. It is simply a constant. The universal constant of c and the speed of light have gone separate ways since the Bell and Aspic disproved the EPR effect back in the sixties. Recent experiments with the quantum teleportation of light have shown that we can decide the polarity of a light beam after the light leaves its source. This is not possible in the Einsteinian view and neither is Feynman’s QED.
C as the finite speed of light is square peg that can not be forced into experimental results by anyone’s hammer.
For example, measure the speed of light in this test with your GPS.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.htmlIndeed.

From the Page document that Bob Angstrom gave us a link to (my bold):This neo-Berkeleyan approach to physics, then, matches point-for-point the purely practical findings of classical physics but is much more conceptually economical.In fact, only a tiny number of relevant points are matched, and none quantitatively (it's all words, no attempt seems to have been made to show that this philosophically different way of looking at things does match, at the numbers/equations/math level).There is very little practical difference, then, between the sorts of explanations of optical phenomena that are supplied by our phenomenalist, or information-digital theory and classical wave-theory.Yep, that's what it says - with no (apparent) attempt made to even hint what sorts of 'practical difference' there might be, let alone whether any such might be testable (even in principle).

Nonetheless, it's refreshing to see an attempt to so radically redefine all (?) of modern physics.

[Nereid]

If you consider the views of Viv Pope together with some other recent, and not so recent, views on the subject, this is a concept of light that emerges. Light is the exchange of angular momentum between one quantum accumulator (the emitter) and another (the absorber) in energy units h. The most common accumulator and absorbers of light energy are electrons so light is mainly an energy exchange among electrons and this exchange is neither easy nor random. The exchange takes place only among electrons having the proper orientation and frequency and only when a two way connection of what may be called ‘probability waves’ has been established between two suitable electrons does the exchange of energy (light) take place. The exchange itself is an instantaneous and unmediated exchange of quantum information. This is the same instant and non-local exchange of information described by Bell and Aspic in their tests of the EPR theory. Angular momentum of the electrons is conserved whenever light energy is exchanged because the exchange is instant and there is no time interval between emission and absorption. There are also no particles (photons) involved. This view is quite different from what we observe when we see an obvious time delay between the emission and absorption of light and the way that light appears to travel with a predictable speed. Pope explains that the distance/time relation that experiments measure is not the velocity of anything. It is the distance-time relation itself, in the constant ratio of units c between any one point in space and another. I like to think of this as saying that time is Nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once and space as Nature’s way of keeping everything from in the same place. I don’t know of a better definition for space and time than that. From light’s point of view, which is also the quantum world view where everything is holistic and interconnected, concepts such as distance and speed become meaningless. It is our observation of light related events that places space and time and their relationship to c between the events of emission and absorption and this gives light its time like quality. As Pope explains, light does not pass through space. Instead our observations place space and time between the events of emission and absorption. "From light in space to space in light." In Pope’s view, the apparent motion of light is strictly cinematic like the moving letters on an electric signboard. Electrons exchanging light energy are like the bulbs flashing on and off as they create the illusion of motion but light itself has no speed other than instant and it has no motion through space.So which of the following have been worked out, in detail, in this new way of looking at things?

* gravitational redshift

* gravitational bending (lensing) of light

* two-slit experiment

* Hubble relationship

* photonic crystals

* Cherenkov radiation

* photon-photon scattering, vacuum birefringence, and other vacuum polarisation effects (http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~rafelski/vacuum.html)

* pair production.

How well does the new explanation match the observational results?

[Beards]

But the speed of light is infinite in its own frame of reference.

Not really relevant but just thought I'd throw that in there!

:-P

[Boxes]

But the speed of light is infinite in its own frame of reference.

Not really relevant but just thought I'd throw that in there!

:-P

Also not relevant, I believe, but couldn't you also say that from light's frame of reference there is no space between any matter in the Universe? Could you then say that, in light's frame of reference, the Universe is a singularity?

[RussT]

Everything I am reading in this thread (that deals with the OP) is bringing back to this;

Here is another mind altering (crazy) possibility!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity, and the speed of light appears as a key parameter even where light itself does not. Think of it this way. The speed of light is embedded into reality in a very deep way, and that's why light goes that speed-- not the other way around. end quote

Orginally Posted by RussT
This is a very insightful concept!

Understanding our universe has so far been almost entirely based on understanding the light that we can detect at all the different wave lengths and frequencies and we have certainly come a VERY long way. However, it is my contention that it is understanding the Darkness (DM/DE), the true properties of 'space', that will take us another GIANT step forward in that understanding.

So based on your above statement Ken G, I would like to propose a concept that I have recently developed based on numerous other determinations.

This will sound crazy at first (and may be).

[Even a universe of pure dark matter and no light at all should obey the rules of relativity,]

Let's start with your first insight here...if this is indeed the case (and I believe it is), this is made up of Planck size (infitesimal DM), and I am going to suggest that 'all' of it, the entire universe worth of pure dark matter is moving @ the speed of light, and that as we know, it does not interact with
'ordinary' matter. It also has no real interaction with itself, so that there is no attraction of any of the infitesimal bits to each other, so there is no clumping of any kind, so in effect, all the bits are moving at the speed of light, in 'all' directions, so there is no prefered direction of the bits in any given volume of space. So they cannot 'bump' into each other!

Now Einstein showed that the speed of light in a vacuum is C.

So, if that vacuum, is what I described above, and since light has 0 mass and the pure dark matter 'space' bits have an infitesimal mass, that would mean that the light is 'lighter' (mass wise), and would mean that the light itself is not actually 'traveling' of its own velocity, BUT is being 'carried' along with the DM field of space which is traveling at C. Obviously until it bumps into something that it must react with.

So, if this DM field of space bits is traveling at C, that easily explains why space just travels right through the earth, our bodies, and all baryonic matter.

Here is the way I actually came up with part of this and the easiest way for me to think of it. When you turn on a light in a big room, the light is not eminating at the speed of light throughout the room. The light bulb is eminating light right at the bulb, and 'space', moving everywhere/every direction at C is carring that light everywhere/every direction @ C.

Crazy Huh!

[Fortis]

But the speed of light is infinite in its own frame of reference.

Not really relevant but just thought I'd throw that in there!

:-P
The rest frame of a photon is not a valid inertial frame.

[Fortis]

A GPS uses highly accurate measurements of distance and time and their relationship to c but these are not necessarily a measurement of the speed of light. (I mentioned earlier that the speed of light can not be measured.) An exception to the possibility that light follows a straight line path from one point to another is Richard Feynman’s "sum over histories" theory which is illustrated in the second drawing in the following article.

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/path_integrals/index.html

In Feynman’s theory light can take any, and possibly every, possible path between two points with most paths requiring speeds far in excess of c. When a photon strikes the surface of a transparent object it can either be reflected or enter the surface. If the object has opposite surfaces that are perfectly smooth and flat, whether the photon is reflected or not, depends largely on the wavelength of the photon and the distance between the surfaces. An example is a soap bubble or a diamond that reflects light in different colors. Feynman noted in his book QED that this effect has been observed in glass as much as thirty meters thick so how does a photon entering a glass surface ‘know’ that there is another surface thirty meters away that can determine whether or not the photon will be reflected? In Feynman’s theory, the photon entering the glass meets one of its many alternate selves that has just been reflected from the far surface and how they interact determines the path of the photon. There is nothing logical about Feynman’s theory and there may not be any truth to it but it does describe the way light works in the ‘real world’ and the way light works is not consistent with the possibility of light traveling only at the speed of c.
The sum over histories approach is a wonderful way to do the QM, and is also great at showing how classical mechanics arises from QM. (Effectively the principle of stationary action can be thought of arising from minimising the exponent.)

Even so, a photon that is emitted by some source at time t_0, and detected at some sensor, at a distance d from the source, at time t_1 will follow the constraint

d/(t_1-t_0) <= c

:)

By the way, I agree with the notion that the 'c' in SR is really just a constant that happens to correspond to the speed that a massless particle propagates in the theory. It is only identified as the "speed of light" because, as far as we know, photons have zero rest mass.

[Bob Angstrom]

So which of the following have been worked out, in detail, in this new way of looking at things?

* gravitational redshift

* gravitational bending (lensing) of light

* two-slit experiment

* Hubble relationship

* photonic crystals

* Cherenkov radiation

* photon-photon scattering, vacuum birefringence, and other vacuum polarisation effects (http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~rafelski/vacuum.html)

* pair production.

How well does the new explanation match the observational results?
I can't possibly answer shotgun qustions like these. Books have been written on the neo-Machian aspects of some of the topics you mentioned but I havent had time to read any but the thinnest of the books. There are some relevant observations regarding Afshar's modification of the double slit experiment but his work has no numbers to support either Pope's view or the classical view. And besides the double slit experiment is totally without practical value so who cares?

[Bob Angstrom]

Richard Feynman predicted that we may one day understand the double-slit experiment be able to explain any of the other bizarre observations of quantum physics with this one explanation, "Remember that experiment with the two slits? Well, this works the same way."
Viv Pope claimed that light goes directly from the emitter to the absorber without passing through the space between, in which case, there may be a clever way of inserting an opaque object between a photon source and a detector without blocking the light. This is what Afshar has done with the insertion of a wire grid in his double-split experiment. Afshar set up a double slit apparatus in a way that had been used previously to demonstrate the particle nature of light. He then inserted a wire grid in a location where the grid could be expected to partially block light if light is present as a particle but not if it is a wave. Waves could go around the grid but particles moving in straight lines could not so the grid was essentially a particle detector. Afshar found that there was no blockage of light even when the apparatus was set up to work with particles of light (photons) from beginning to end.
In the neo-Machian view of light, which was partly explained in Pope’s paper, light is an instant and non-local exchange of energy and light does not travel as either a particle or a wave. Material objects are interconnected by probability waves and these are the waves that determine where the exchange will begin and end. These are also the waves that are not blocked by Afshar’s wire grid.
Here are the details of the Afshar experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
http://irims.org/quant-ph/030503/

And these are some of John Cramer’s views. There no consensus on terminology in these matters and Cramer has his own unique jargon with his Transactional Theory where the exchange of light energy is a "transaction" established by waves moving forward and backward in time.

http://www.analogsf.com/0409/altview2.shtml
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html

[Nereid]

I can't possibly answer shotgun qustions like these.Interesting - so, as far as you know, has there been any work done on showing, quantitatively, that these alternative, philosophy-based views match experimental/observational results (other than in the material which follows, in this post and the next)?Books have been written on the neo-Machian aspects of some of the topics you mentioned but I havent had time to read any but the thinnest of the books. There are some relevant observations regarding Afshar's modification of the double slit experiment but his work has no numbers to support either Pope's view or the classical view. And besides the double slit experiment is totally without practical value so who cares?I guess "a great many physicists" would be an answer - if I've understood the Pope material you gave a link to, this alternative, philosophy-based view may be testable, in principle. If so, then what could possibly be more exciting, to philosophers, than the opportunity to see how well a shiny new idea conforms to 'reality' (whatever they may choose to define this as)?

Or do you think they're more interested in determining the number of teeth a horse has, by debates conducted in armchairs?

[Nereid]

Richard Feynman predicted that we may one day understand the double-slit experiment be able to explain any of the other bizarre observations of quantum physics with this one explanation, "Remember that experiment with the two slits? Well, this works the same way."
Viv Pope claimed that light goes directly from the emitter to the absorber without passing through the space between, in which case, there may be a clever way of inserting an opaque object between a photon source and a detector without blocking the light. This is what Afshar has done with the insertion of a wire grid in his double-split experiment. Afshar set up a double slit apparatus in a way that had been used previously to demonstrate the particle nature of light. He then inserted a wire grid in a location where the grid could be expected to partially block light if light is present as a particle but not if it is a wave. Waves could go around the grid but particles moving in straight lines could not so the grid was essentially a particle detector. Afshar found that there was no blockage of light even when the apparatus was set up to work with particles of light (photons) from beginning to end.
In the neo-Machian view of light, which was partly explained in Pope’s paper, light is an instant and non-local exchange of energy and light does not travel as either a particle or a wave. Material objects are interconnected by probability waves and these are the waves that determine where the exchange will begin and end. These are also the waves that are not blocked by Afshar’s wire grid.
Here are the details of the Afshar experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
http://irims.org/quant-ph/030503/

And these are some of John Cramer’s views. There no consensus on terminology in these matters and Cramer has his own unique jargon with his Transactional Theory where the exchange of light energy is a "transaction" established by waves moving forward and backward in time.

http://www.analogsf.com/0409/altview2.shtml
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.htmlLeaving aside the philosophy, I think you'd agree that 'the Afshar experiment' is, as yet, far from 'established science'.

Further, both the experiment itself (particularly a variant in which only one photon at a time is present in the apparatus) and its interpretation are somewhat controversial.

In any case, this takes us somewhat away from astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science (and well away from the OP's claims!) - maybe a new thread in the General Science section (I think it's a very interesting topic, but out of scope for this ATM section)?

[Bob Angstrom]

Leaving aside the philosophy, I think you'd agree that 'the Afshar experiment' is, as yet, far from 'established science'.)?
Leaving the philosophy aside, how is a modification of the Thomas Young double-slit experiment "far" from established science?
Further, both the experiment itself (particularly a variant in which only one photon at a time is present in the apparatus) and its interpretation are somewhat controversial.Yes, and this is why scientists have long been obsessed with the Thomas Young experiment.
In any case, this takes us somewhat away from astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science (and well away from the OP's claims!) - maybe a new thread in the General Science section (I think it's a very interesting topic, but out of scope for this ATM section.)Is Afshar's experiment GS or ATM?

[Nereid]

Leaving aside the philosophy, I think you'd agree that 'the Afshar experiment' is, as yet, far from 'established science'.)?Leaving the philosophy aside, how is a modification of the Thomas Young double-slit experiment "far" from established science?Of course it isn't ... but then what I wrote was "... that 'the Afshar experiment' is, as yet ..." - with quote marks. By which I intended to distinguish between whatever Afshar may (or may not) have done in his lab, and the class of experiments, the papers on them, the interpretations of the results, and so on.

If the Wikipedia article is reliable (and I revived a sleeping thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=39582), in the General Science section, to see if anyone has any updates - I'll also be asking questions in another forum), not only are the claimed results as yet unverified, but there's little in the peer-reviewed literature on it yet (and considerable disagreement).Yes, and this is why scientists have long been obsessed with the Thomas Young experiment.
Is Afshar's experiment GS or ATM?You mean for BAUT? It'd have to be GS - this ATM section is rather narrowly focussed - astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, space science (or it should be - occassionally other stuff sneaks in, but doesn't last very long). In any case, I can't see how yet another version of the two-slit experiment could be anything other than mainstream physics ... unless, like the early reports of detecting quarks in bubble chamber photos, it could not be independently verified and validated.

[Bob Angstrom]

Interesting - so, as far as you know, has there been any work done on showing, quantitatively, that these alternative, philosophy-based views match experimental/observational results?These alternative views are based on observational results so naturally they match observations. But are they simpler, more comprehensive, more predictive, more testable...these are the sort of questions we need to ask. And remember, we don't judge eggs by how well they can fly.

I was looking through some writings by Robert Duncan for examples of observations that looked like they could easily be verified and I found one but then (this is hard to believe) my dog tripped over the power cord and my computer went black. It was on Duncan’s website http://www.rbduncan.com/ but I may never find the quote again.
As I recall, Duncan was saying that pairs of stars or galaxies in close proximity and on a similar plane, are always found to rotate with their closest sides moving in opposite directions like gears clashing. I am sure he has looked into the matter to his satisfaction and he has a theory to explain why but I don’t know of any hard data to confirm this observation. Nor do I know of any conventional gravitational theories that might explain the same phenomenon except for objects in binary orbit but Duncan claims they do not need to be in binary orbit. He uses our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy as an example.
Has anyone besides Robert Duncan ever looked into this rotation or found exceptions?

Duncan also claims, somewhere in his writings, that Saul Perlmutter, unlike the rest of his team, favors a CC explanation for his findings over accelerated expansion. ??

These are some other observations from the same source that look testable but I don’t know how. There are some detailed tests of gravity in the planning that may apply.
I know these examples are hard to follow when removed from their explanatory text.

************************************
These laws (Aufbau Laws) are essentially Ampere's simple 1824 long wire laws with a frequency modification.
(snip)
These are universal laws that unify all the forces by seeing all forces as space-time creations similar to the way it's done in general relativity. These laws, though, visualize different space-time intervals (different gauges) being created at various different spin/orbit frequencies.
http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm

Gravity, for instance, then becomes a bi-polar force similar to magnetism with the spinning stars all repelling each other similar to the spinning electrons that repel themselves ONLY when free as the stars. http://www.rbduncan.com/phase.htm

As Perlmutter said, this discovery is proof of Einstein's cosmological constant.
What is Einstein's cosmological constant?
It is a repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity between every Dr. Milo Wolff type Scalar, standing wave resonance (stars, galaxies and possibly even electrons).
This force can be now seen as between not only the stars but between atoms and molecules as well.
http://www.rbduncan.com/toTOEgroup1.htm

What Saul Perlmutter's group discovered will eventually end enthusiasm for this red shift based expanding universe. Saul Perlmutter, himself, stated that Einstein's original cosmological constant truly exists even though Einstein and many others had written it off.

What no one seemed to realize was that if, via the Principle of Equivalence, gravity cannot be discerned from an accelerating, contraction then gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force, Einstein's original cosmological constant, cannot be discerned from an accelerating, expansion.
(not a very clear statement in the middle)

But acceleration is impossible because while there may have been a past beta decay force there to cause some sort of an expanding universe, certainly there is no present force, which would be needed for such an acceleration to this expansion. Therefore a real accelerating, expanding universe is not here but what is here is this repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity that Einstein predicted, which he called his original cosmological constant.
http://www.rbduncan.com/mybook.htm

[hhEb09'1]

He uses our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy as an example.Interesting. Andromeda galaxy is close to our galactic plane, and we see it more or less edge on. It is true that they rotate oppositely?

[Bob Angstrom]

Of course it isn't ... but then what I wrote was "... that 'the Afshar experiment' is, as yet ..." - with quote marks. By which I intended to distinguish between whatever Afshar may (or may not) have done in his lab, and the class of experiments, the papers on them, the interpretations of the results, and so on.
Leaving the philosophy aside, why do you think I should agree that ‘the Afshar experiment’ is, as yet, far from ‘established science’?

[hhEb09'1]

Leaving the philosophy aside, why do you think I should agree that ‘the Afshar experiment’ is, as yet, far from ‘established science’?How many times has it been replicated? is the usual metric

[Bob Angstrom]

Interesting. Andromeda galaxy is close to our galactic plane, and we see it more or less edge on. It is true that they rotate oppositely?Robert Duncan says they do, or rather, he says they are rotating in the same direction if you imagine one on top of the other. Objects rotating with their closest sides moving in the same direction attract while objects rotating in opposite directions repel. Our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are repelling each other. They may be moving together but they are 'putting on the brakes'. If two close galaxies are rotating in the same (attractive) positions, they will twist (flip over) so they are rotating in opposite directions. This keeps the universe from collapsing into one big heap...or so the theory goes.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Robert Duncan says they do, or rather, he says they are rotating in the same direction if you imagine one on top of the other. Objects rotating with their closest sides moving in the same direction attract while objects rotating in opposite directions repel. Our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are repelling each other. They may be moving together but they are 'putting on the brakes'. If two close galaxies are rotating in the same (attractive) positions, they will twist (flip over) so they are rotating in opposite directions. This keeps the universe from collapsing into one big heap...or so the theory goes.
Oddly Enough, I Thiink I See What he's Gettin' at ...

It Sounds Liike a MUUCH Larger Version of What Happens Between Moons and Ring Particles ...

In an Ironic Twist to The Three Body Problem, Two Objects Gravitationally Bound to a Larger Object, Will Appear to Repel Each Other as they Orbit The More Massive Body!

Liikewise, The Andromeda and Milky Way Galaxies Are Both Bound Within The Local Super-Cluster, If The Surrounding Masses Are Heavy Enough, they Will Appear to Repel Each Other In their Respective Orbits; The Rotational Vector Is Probably as a Result of Tidal Effects Upon The Outermost Stars, Whether This Causes or Is Caused By The Repelling Action, Is Liikely a Chicken or The Egg Proposition That May Very Well Untangle itself Wiith Tiime!

[Nereid]

[snip]
Viv Pope claimed that light goes directly from the emitter to the absorber without passing through the space between, in which case, there may be a clever way of inserting an opaque object between a photon source and a detector without blocking the light. This is what Afshar has done with the insertion of a wire grid in his double-split experiment. Afshar set up a double slit apparatus in a way that had been used previously to demonstrate the particle nature of light. He then inserted a wire grid in a location where the grid could be expected to partially block light if light is present as a particle but not if it is a wave. Waves could go around the grid but particles moving in straight lines could not so the grid was essentially a particle detector. Afshar found that there was no blockage of light even when the apparatus was set up to work with particles of light (photons) from beginning to end.
In the neo-Machian view of light, which was partly explained in Pope’s paper, light is an instant and non-local exchange of energy and light does not travel as either a particle or a wave. Material objects are interconnected by probability waves and these are the waves that determine where the exchange will begin and end. These are also the waves that are not blocked by Afshar’s wire grid.
[snip]I missed the following implication of the Pope idea: electrons are not light.

The two-slit experiment works with electrons (and neutrons, and ... though I don't know the full range of things that it's been done with, especially in the 'single entity in the apparatus at any one time' variant), and it works the same way as for light.

In the Pope idea, as I understand it, there would need to be a completely separate account of the 'electrons experiment', because electrons are clearly not "an instant and non-local exchange of energy". Do you know if Pope has address all non-light quantum entities too?

[Bob Angstrom]

I missed the following implication of the Pope idea: electrons are not light.Informed electrons are light. This is the implication of the Pope idea. Take away the electrons, and there is nothing left but quantum information…whatever that might be.

Afshar’s double-slit experiment was a test of the Copenhagen interpretation and it may have predated Pope’s work but the two were probably totally independent. It would be interesting to see how electrons might work in Afshar’s experiment but this would be a "completely separate account" and not a real test of Pope’s theory. A better test would be the quantum teleportation of particles and I understand this has been done with successfully electrons and tests with other particles are in the works. Pope’s theory is a theory of quantum teleportation and not a theory of classical transport which is what the double slit experiment is looking for. In Pope’s theory, you have two electrons in remote locations. One is at a high energy level and another is at a low energy level and then- abracadabra- the two switch places. This is what we call light.

[Nereid]

Informed electrons are light. This is the implication of the Pope idea. Take away the electrons, and there is nothing left but quantum information…whatever that might be.

Afshar’s double-slit experiment was a test of the Copenhagen interpretation and it may have predated Pope’s work but the two were probably totally independent. It would be interesting to see how electrons might work in Afshar’s experiment but this would be a "completely separate account" and not a real test of Pope’s theory. A better test would be the quantum teleportation of particles and I understand this has been done with successfully electrons and tests with other particles are in the works. Pope’s theory is a theory of quantum teleportation and not a theory of classical transport which is what the double slit experiment is looking for. In Pope’s theory, you have two electrons in remote locations. One is at a high energy level and another is at a low energy level and then- abracadabra- the two switch places. This is what we call light.Hmm, not sure what failed to get across ...

You do a double-slit experiment with light, you get a result.

You do the same kind of experiment with electrons (neutrons, ...), you get the same result (after allowing for the different wavelengths).

In the Pope re-writing of physics, the first class of experiments (with light) has a radically different interpretation from the ones you find in most textbooks.

However, as far as I can see, the same sort of radically different interpretation cannot work for the second class of experiments (with electrons, neutrons, etc) ... despite the fact that they give the same results (as the ones with light).

IOW, there is a rather significant loss of explanatory power, going down the Pope route - two-slit experiments with electrons (neutrons, etc) will become 'unexplained'.

Not that there isn't, maybe, a way to address this; however, the reduction in the scope of the 'theory' (from today's) should at least be acknowledged.

[Nereid]

These alternative views are based on observational results so naturally they match observations. But are they simpler, more comprehensive, more predictive, more testable...these are the sort of questions we need to ask. And remember, we don't judge eggs by how well they can fly.

I was looking through some writings by Robert Duncan for examples of observations that looked like they could easily be verified and I found one but then (this is hard to believe) my dog tripped over the power cord and my computer went black. It was on Duncan’s website http://www.rbduncan.com/ but I may never find the quote again.
As I recall, Duncan was saying that pairs of stars or galaxies in close proximity and on a similar plane, are always found to rotate with their closest sides moving in opposite directions like gears clashing. I am sure he has looked into the matter to his satisfaction and he has a theory to explain why but I don’t know of any hard data to confirm this observation. Nor do I know of any conventional gravitational theories that might explain the same phenomenon except for objects in binary orbit but Duncan claims they do not need to be in binary orbit. He uses our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy as an example.
Has anyone besides Robert Duncan ever looked into this rotation or found exceptions?

Duncan also claims, somewhere in his writings, that Saul Perlmutter, unlike the rest of his team, favors a CC explanation for his findings over accelerated expansion. ??

These are some other observations from the same source that look testable but I don’t know how. There are some detailed tests of gravity in the planning that may apply.
I know these examples are hard to follow when removed from their explanatory text.

************************************
These laws (Aufbau Laws) are essentially Ampere's simple 1824 long wire laws with a frequency modification.
(snip)
These are universal laws that unify all the forces by seeing all forces as space-time creations similar to the way it's done in general relativity. These laws, though, visualize different space-time intervals (different gauges) being created at various different spin/orbit frequencies.
http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm

Gravity, for instance, then becomes a bi-polar force similar to magnetism with the spinning stars all repelling each other similar to the spinning electrons that repel themselves ONLY when free as the stars. http://www.rbduncan.com/phase.htm

As Perlmutter said, this discovery is proof of Einstein's cosmological constant.
What is Einstein's cosmological constant?
It is a repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity between every Dr. Milo Wolff type Scalar, standing wave resonance (stars, galaxies and possibly even electrons).
This force can be now seen as between not only the stars but between atoms and molecules as well.
http://www.rbduncan.com/toTOEgroup1.htm

What Saul Perlmutter's group discovered will eventually end enthusiasm for this red shift based expanding universe. Saul Perlmutter, himself, stated that Einstein's original cosmological constant truly exists even though Einstein and many others had written it off.

What no one seemed to realize was that if, via the Principle of Equivalence, gravity cannot be discerned from an accelerating, contraction then gravity's equal and opposite repulsive force, Einstein's original cosmological constant, cannot be discerned from an accelerating, expansion.
(not a very clear statement in the middle)

But acceleration is impossible because while there may have been a past beta decay force there to cause some sort of an expanding universe, certainly there is no present force, which would be needed for such an acceleration to this expansion. Therefore a real accelerating, expanding universe is not here but what is here is this repulsive force equal and opposite to gravity that Einstein predicted, which he called his original cosmological constant.
http://www.rbduncan.com/mybook.htmFrom the Duncan webpage:Absolute proof of this is that out of the millions of stars and galaxies, whose spin orientation we can ascertain, the closest sides of every star or galaxy are moving like gears clashing (not meshing) with their nearest neighbor.Nowhere, that I could see, does he back up this astonishing assertion ... with data from astronomical observations.

Do you know if there is any observational support for this claim?

[Bob Angstrom]

IOW, there is a rather significant loss of explanatory power, going down the Pope route - two-slit experiments with electrons (neutrons, etc) will become 'unexplained'.

Not that there isn't, maybe, a way to address this; however, the reduction in the scope of the 'theory' (from today's) should at least be acknowledged.The double-slit experiment is not a relevant tool for testing the correctness of Pope’s theory and using particles instead of light would not give us any useful information- no matter what the result. Demonstrating that particles have a wave-like nature would not invalidate any part of Pope’s theory. Or did you have something else in mind? I mentioned Afshar’s modification which uses a wire grid as a particle detector and his null result suggests that light is not a particle even when it appears to be a particle. This ‘no particle’ conclusion gives weak support to Pope’s theory in which there are also no particles (photons) passing through the apparatus.

If you look into experiments involving the quantum teleportation of particles, this is where Pope’s theory must either live or die.

[Nereid]

The double-slit experiment is not a relevant tool for testing the correctness of Pope’s theory and using particles instead of light would not give us any useful information- no matter what the result. Demonstrating that particles have a wave-like nature would not invalidate any part of Pope’s theory. Or did you have something else in mind?You've answered the question - essentially Pope's new physics applies only to 'light' - the extent to which the rest of physics would need to be re-written is not within scope.

In modern physics, 'light' plays many roles - not only wrt 'perception' (the core of Pope's new physics), but also as the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (to take just one other role).

How is this role re-explained, in Pope's new physics?

One other force carrier - the gluon - travels at c, in modern physics. Is this also within the scope of Pope's new physics?

In GR, the 'speed of gravity' is also c. To what extent is gravity within the scope of Pope's new physics?I mentioned Afshar’s modification which uses a wire grid as a particle detector and his null result suggests that light is not a particle even when it appears to be a particle. This ‘no particle’ conclusion gives weak support to Pope’s theory in which there are also no particles (photons) passing through the apparatus.

If you look into experiments involving the quantum teleportation of particles, this is where Pope’s theory must either live or die.They may be good tests.

As you can see from my questions above, I'm wondering just how narrow the scope of Pope's new physics is ... and whether it can be tested in other realms.

Also, you've not answered my earlier questions (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=821406&postcount=86), about the extent to which Pope's new physics addresses other 'light phenomena'; it may be that, within one of those, Pope's idea* has already been tested (and falsified).

*Your response to my questions ("I can't possibly answer shotgun qustions like these") says, to me, that Pope's new physics isn't any more than an idea; it most certainly isn't a theory - otherwise there'd be papers on most of these questions, showing either consistency with the experiments or observations, or that they are irrelevant. Further, your response ("Books have been written on the neo-Machian aspects of some of the topics you mentioned") seems irrelevant, in light of your subsequent clarifications - Pope's new physics apparently has a very narrow scope.

[Bob Angstrom]

You've answered the question - essentially Pope's new physics applies only to 'light' - the extent to which the rest of physics would need to be re-written is not within scope.

In modern physics, 'light' plays many roles - not only wrt 'perception' (the core of Pope's new physics), but also as the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (to take just one other role).

How is this role re-explained, in Pope's new physics?

One other force carrier - the gluon - travels at c, in modern physics. Is this also within the scope of Pope's new physics?

In GR, the 'speed of gravity' is also c. To what extent is gravity within the scope of Pope's new physics?They may be good tests.

As you can see from my questions above, I'm wondering just how narrow the scope of Pope's new physics is ... and whether it can be tested in other realms.

Also, you've not answered my earlier questions (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=821406&postcount=86), about the extent to which Pope's new physics addresses other 'light phenomena'; it may be that, within one of those, Pope's idea* has already been tested (and falsified).

*Your response to my questions ("I can't possibly answer shotgun qustions like these") says, to me, that Pope's new physics isn't any more than an idea; it most certainly isn't a theory - otherwise there'd be papers on most of these questions, showing either consistency with the experiments or observations, or that they are irrelevant. Further, your response ("Books have been written on the neo-Machian aspects of some of the topics you mentioned") seems irrelevant, in light of your subsequent clarifications - Pope's new physics apparently has a very narrow scope.I’ve read three or four of Pope’s papers that dealt mainly with light so my knowledge of his views are limited to light. Pope has written extensively on a great number of science related topics in a number of prestigious publications. He had a webpage that listed his books, publications, and recent activities but it is no longer active. Viv Pope died recently but failed to appoint me as his official apologist so I can not comment on his world views as a recognized authority on the topic. I hope you will understand my limitations in these matters and should my comments about Pope’s views go beyond a few comments on light you will know that I am just blowing it out my…

If you have any specific topic related questions I will be glad to answer them but, if you want to know the full extent of my knowledge on the topic of neo-Machian physics, you will have to buy my books. I’m not giving my genius away for free.

[Bob Angstrom]

"How can anything have a velocity, constant or otherwise, relative to a vacuum?"--- Viv Pope

http://www.poams.org/lib/pub/pub_umbala.pdf

[Fortis]

"How can anything have a velocity, constant or otherwise, relative to a vacuum?"--- Viv Pope

http://www.poams.org/lib/pub/pub_umbala.pdf
What does Viv Pope mean by "the vacuum"?

[RussT]

And........What if the 'Vacuum' is moving at the speed of light itself???

[Bob Angstrom]

What does Viv Pope mean by "the vacuum"?
I am sure Pope would define a vacuum as an emptiness but, when speaking of light in a vacuum he says," The dime