Light speed

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
The Michelson-Morely experiment showed conclusively there was no aether and the speed of light was invariant in inertial frames of reference.
This has been the standard argument against the existence of an aether for so long that it has become cliched to the point of tedium. In passing I should mention that Michelson himself was bitterly opposed to Einstein’s theories and was an ardent believer in the aether. Leaving that point aside for the moment and concentrating on the actual experiment. Most people are aware that the aether had extremely low interaction with matter. That being so, how could the M&M interferometer possibly detect the aether? Surely, the aether would pass right through the interferometer and through Michelson & Morley themselves? It would be the equivalent of trying to pull oneself up by one’s socks. This is the point to remember, the very low interaction of the aether with matter. How does it happen? According to the theory I have formulated a photon is a series of electric pulses emitted by an electron:





These pulses of electric energy are polarised because the initial pulses of energy are stronger than subsequent pulses of energy:



This polarisation gives to the pulses of energy a stable formation that also enables the structure to store its energy intact since it possesses a capacitor like structure, bands of electrical energy separated by air gaps. This is what a photon looks like. Note that it :

  • Possesses no mass
  • Is neutral in charge
  • Always travels at c
  • Can come in trillions of different energies, frequencies and wave-lengths.
And so on. It is the ideal model of a photon. Most readers must be aware that atoms are very selective in the photon energies they choose to accept. This is why we have such a wonderful spectrum of colours and textures around us. If an atom does not need a photon with a particular energy it simply ignores it and the photon passes right through. The photons from the original big bang that constitute Dark Matter have such incredibly low energy (about 10^-40 J) that no atom could possibly, under any circumstances whatsoever, require such photons. The virtual photons constituting Dark Matter therefore pass right through matter as if it did not exist and vice versa. Yet, because these virtual photons are miniscule electric di-poles, when a real photon is emitted by an electron the photons of the virtual photon aether (dark matter) form into a line whose ends rest on the shoulders on infinity and the energy of the real photon travels along this line of aligned photons. Note it is not the original photon that travels but only its energy. Another fact that people raise in opposition to an aether theory is the theory of the luminiferous aether. The luminiferous aether was such an absolutely ridiculous concept that it shows how desperate the need was to find an aether. The luminiferous aether had to have a stiffness many times greater than steel and at the same time be absolutely permeable to all types of matter. Is it any wonder that it has never been found!

Lastly Dark Matter does not move it is more or less fixed in space but enjoys 360 degrees of freedom of movement. Thus, Dark Matter begins to emerge as the definition of a classical field where every point in space is occupied by a physical entity. Even, if, as in the case of dark matter, it is not possible to see it.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
“Existing dark matter theory predicts that any random galaxy may contain larger or smaller fractions of dark matter. So, when one measures the visible mass, you could potentially be missing a huge chunk of the total mass. As a result, visible mass should be a very poor predictor of the total mass (and thereby rotational speed) of the galaxy. The galaxy's mass could be similar to that of the visible (ordinary) mass or it could be much larger.
Thus, there is no reason to expect that the visible mass should be a good predictor of the rotational speed of the galaxy. Yet it is.
--- By Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermilab”
Absolutely true although different rotational speeds of galaxies that are thousands of light years distant might be due to other factors than an uneven distribution of dark matter. The defining characteristic of dark matter is its absolute fluidity, both through empty space and through matter itself, this being so it is almost axiomatic that dark matter should have an even distribution. Again, If dark matter were easy to identify and measure, there would be absolutely no problem in finding what it was. The whole point is that the existence of dark matter can only be deduced through circumstantial evidence such as the rotation of galaxies. Just like neutrinos, (a real neutrino has never been seen), their presence can only be construed through the byproducts of their destruction.
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
I've several times described the speed of light as I see it, (+/-) 186,000mps because as I see it, there are velocities to the universe negative (-) to '0' (the rest frame of Einstein's observer and, too, the usual frame of measuring the speed of light).

The only thing is, I could just as easily have drawn two circles with diameters:

1.) (+) 186,000mps <----------> 0.
2.) 0 <----------> (-) 186,000mps.
((+) 186,000mps <----------> 0 <----------> (-) 186,000mps.)

The fastest of all speeds there is (+) just happens to also be the slowest of all speeds there is (-).

And get this in your picture of things if I happen to get it right. In speeds toward (+) 186,000mps you accelerate in contracting the universe ahead to get from here to there. In speeds toward (-) 186,000mps, you decelerate and accelerate in expanding the universe behind into the background toward the collapsed horizon of infinity and origin. The superposition, or super-conductor, or whatever, of light speed is the negative ((-) 186,000mps) of the speed of light relative to the rest frame (0) of Einstein's observer. If you want to go there locally, you want to move toward a horizon of blackhole. You will move toward an expansionary horizon (big crunch (m) | big bulge (e); the greater the crunch (m), the greater the bulge (e) ('Big Crunch' ('BC' (M) | 'Big Bulge' ('BB' (E))).

It may seem like crazy backward physics, but there it is. It wouldn't be the first discovery of such seeming crazy backward physics . . . and certainly won't be last. How does it feel to possibly exist and live, and travel, always slower (0) than the speed of light (+) and yet always that much (0) 'faster than the speed of light' (-)?
------
((∞))
------
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Absolutely true although different rotational speeds of galaxies that are thousands of light years distant might be due to other factors than an uneven distribution of dark matter. The defining characteristic of dark matter is its absolute fluidity, both through empty space and through matter itself, this being so it is almost axiomatic that dark matter should have an even distribution. Again, If dark matter were easy to identify and measure, there would be absolutely no problem in finding what it was. The whole point is that the existence of dark matter can only be deduced through circumstantial evidence such as the rotation of galaxies. Just like neutrinos, (a real neutrino has never been seen), their presence can only be construed through the byproducts of their destruction.
Thank you for those interesting comments. I have found this on space.com.
How do you see this?

Dark Matter's New Wrinkle: It May Behave Like Wavy Fluid | Space

Cat :)
 
Let be honest with you how I think. It is totally different than everyone on earth.

For US:

The Light is the eternity and everything is based on it from the beginning till the end till whatever we want to say in infinity or eternally, then the emptiness comes, then Gravity "Gravitons", Higgs or Dark Matter, Energy, Electrons, Neutrons, Protons, Atoms, ....

LIGHT, THEN MATTER COMES

The Light moves in absolute emptiness like in nature, propagates in Gravity that it forms and it is the one which makes the emptiness "Dark Photons" absolute; while moving it creates the vacuum and left behind what we say Gravity (Like the extreme condensed Light while moving too fast, to form the black hole "Extreme Gravity", to penetrate inside the tunnel of space-time, to create the matter by the Quasar of electrons) and it forms the energy by virtue over the mass to create the dark matter because it has a constant speed into action C=π Mm/Cs

"The Dark Photons are the EMPTINESS".
"Electrons are the division EVIL mirrors of Photons"

The Light is the constructive quantum mechanics of the Multiverses Universes.
The Black Holes are the Hole StarGaters of Spacetimes.
The Light Quantum Quarks Photons "wave-particles" is the commander of Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Gravitons, Higgs, Bosons that have "Masses" and which are the matters.

In Reality, there is an absolute emptiness where the matter is constructed on it, like in mathematics concept of the imagination mind, then the Link system format is made from the Photon Existence. When we say dark matter we means matter but it is dark "Not activated Yet by Gluons but Active with Dark Photons or created by Photons" and when we say matter it means there is mass within the subject matter. The Light is not a mass it is invisible and colorful with emptiness through matter by the Gluons elements forces to make matter visible and by its energy virtue that makes while constructing the matter into the absolute emptiness.

The eternity Light is Multi colorful and invisible infinitely with no edges.
The Light from where it goes it returns with no edges. The Same photon here is the same photon there, that warp reality from illusion like parallax universes.

Space-Time is the Gate of Past, Present and Future. Duality of Photons take space back or forward in time.
There is a time for All Times which is Eternity.

The speed of Light when Light moves make that vacuum and left behind the Gravity tournament because of its sinusoidal spiral spins rotations, like it did in black holes or in photons themselves where Light moves to create and left behind the gravity because of its highest constant speed propagation, to form Galaxies, stars, planets by the spherical elliptical multiverses universes energies.









 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2021
486
220
560
Jzzz said: "That being so, how could the M&M interferometer possibly detect the aether? "
The Michelson Morely experiment was not designed to detect the aether, it simply measured the length of a given number of wavelengths of the same beam of light in two orthogonal directions. Had there been aether, and we were traveling through it, the beam would have been a different length but it wasn't. By repeating the experiment at different times of the year we could be assured we just didn't happen to be at rest with respect to it.
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
Okay, Alain, as I read you, you are saying all velocities reside within the constant of the speed of light since it is constant to all velocities, period, and since it encompasses us and everything else both outside-in and inside-out.

All I did was circle around it, 'dancing' around it, so to speak. That is exactly what I was doing with a constant of all constants. There being speeds to the universe existing slower than (negative to) Einstein's rest frame demand 'c' be the 'set" of all speed, all planes of motion and speed (all animation of mass and energy, space and time, that is), without exception. Of course, I've already placed it several times as the Big Vacuum ((C) (C^2)): "The speed of light is constant in a vacuum" because ultimately it is the vacuum ("c^2 = c . . . squaring"), but, of course, the finite realized only closed systemically foreground local-relative.

With all distance gaining or being regained, and relativity graduating in breaking down in horizons of collapse going away or graduating in regaining relativity oncoming, all objects will gradually accelerate beyond the speed of light and relativity to some rest frame in going away from it or if oncoming to it, gradually or speedily return to a relativity always existing below the speed of light. Redshifts display losses in the collapse of relativity, the divisions out from relativity. Blueshifts display gains in relativity building, the oncoming unification of divided cells of relativities.

Light's photo-images slows down in space and time going away from local-relative rest frames as they gradually lose the reality of both the object and the rest frame, thus developing an expanding triangulation in the geometry. They (light's photo-images) speed up in space and time when oncoming as they gradually gain, or regain, the reality of both the object and rest frame, thus a contraction developing of a previously expanded triangulation in the geometry. That is the dynamic, the elasticity, of the geometry. The center piece of the losses and expansions on the one hand and the gains and contractions on the other being the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . it being the vacuum.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Jzzz said: "That being so, how could the M&M interferometer possibly detect the aether? "
The Michelson Morely experiment was not designed to detect the aether, it simply measured the length of a given number of wavelengths of the same beam of light in two orthogonal directions. Had there been aether, and we were traveling through it, the beam would have been a different length but it wasn't. By repeating the experiment at different times of the year we could be assured we just didn't happen to be at rest with respect to it.
Pardon the pun but "same difference" . Any literature on this subject, probably pre-dating Ptolemy from about 2500 years ago, took note of the fact that the sun, the stars and the planets were able to move through the aether without any resistance or opposition whatsoever, this being so, Michelson & Morley's idea to detect the resistance of the aether to earth's movement was equally pointless. Imagine, if no atom (i.e., no matter) could interact with the aether because of its very low energies, there would be no opposition to the movement of objects through the aether and vice-versa. In fact there have been conjectures of late that neutrinos, which also interact very weakly with matter could travel through a block of lead a light year across without experiencing any interaction whatsoever. It is estimated that 10^10 (ten billion) neutrinos pass through every square centimeter of the surface of our skin every second, yet no interaction takes place.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Thank you for those interesting comments. I have found this on space.com.
How do you see this?
The interesting point about the view of Dark Matter that I have put forward in my theory, is that gravity actually acts through it! As I had stated, according to this view, Dark Matter is made up of very low energy photons from the time of the Big Bang, that permeate the whole of the Universe. The ‘virtual’ photons that comprise Dark Matter are more or less fixed in place but possess 360 degrees of freedom. Since they are essentially infinitesimal di-pole points, it means that they form the fabric of the Universe and can orient themselves in any direction. How does this relate to gravity? In another of my posts at this forum ( #36 in “Dark matter: Agreed terms help sensible discussion” ) I had discussed the subject of how electrons might stabilise themselves around the nucleus by emitting and absorbing virtual photons. Try to imagine what happens to the virtual photon aether (Dark Matter) when this happens, the self-interaction of the electron takes place in an incredibly short time, yet it is still enough time to affect the virtual photon aether (Dark Matter) by resulting in the alignment of the aether into lines of force, although no energy is conveyed along these aligned lines of force, as is the case when a real photon is emitted. So, when an electron emits or absorbs a ‘virtual’ photon (as it has been seen to do), there is an alignment of the virtual photon aether into lines of force along the direction of the emitted virtual photon. These interactions by the electron take place constantly at trillions of times a second. It results in the slightest tensioning of the lines of force. If the lines of force land on another object a reciprocity of action takes place, with the object in turn creating or aligning lines of force with the slightest momentary tensioning. This results in a shortening of the distance between the two objects. (They are pulled into a straight line i.e., the shortest distance between two objects). This is the force of gravity! It should be noted that gravity is the weakest force in the Universe, it is also relentless . In fact gravity is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force. This is a number that is so huge that it could probably represent the number of atoms in the milky way! My theory of gravity stating that it is the result of virtual interactions therefore makes perfect sense. This is gravity, it emerges from the very center of objects as Newton had observed.

Therefore, this theory also explains how Dark Matter, in spite of its very low interaction with matter, is still able to gravitationally influence galaxies!
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
The electromagnetic and weak forces have close affinity in electroweak theory. The strong force's strongest affinity, as I see it, is more to the gravitational force than either of the two others or even both together, although there are attempts to force it into an electro-strong theory within (tied into) electroweak theory. But though I've never heard of a 'strong-gravitational theory', as other and parallel to (rather than opposed to) electroweak theory, I think there should be one. The strong and gravitational forces, together in an electroweak-like unification theory (a 'strong-gravitational theory'), are essentially why there are more dimensions to the Universe (U), and universes (u), than a flat two (a flat 2-dimensionality (still kind of comes out funny-like but it isn't meant to)).
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2021
486
220
560
Jzz said:" Michelson & Morley's idea to detect the resistance of the aether to earth's movement was equally pointless. "

Except that's not what they did. They simply measured the wavelengths of light at directions with and across the movement of the supposed aether and found them to be exactly the same. Had aether been there, the wavelengths would have been different but they weren't. Thus no aether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Except that's not what they did. They simply measured the wavelengths of light at directions with and across the movement of the supposed aether and found them to be exactly the same. Had aether been there, the wavelengths would have been different but they weren't. Thus no aether.
I appreciate your posts because I find that they normally make a lot of sense. However, in this particular instance, you seem to be toeing the widely accepted but wrong belief, that the Michelson & Morley experiment was the last word in proving that the aether does not exist. It does not! Michelson & Morley were looking for the luminiferous aether which is a totally different kettle of fish. The luminiferous aether had to possess a rigidity that was many times that of steel and yet be absolutely permeable to all forms of matter. Therefore, it was difficult (read impossible) to find.

I have given a perfectly logical counter to the statement that the M&M experiment was the ultimate proof of the non-existence of an aether. You don’t seem to want to address that explanation which you have every right to do. On the other hand repeating the same objection without paying due attention to the rejoinder that has been given seems a bit pointless.

Think about it, even if my answer is not mainstream, it is still a logical explanation as to why the M&M experiment did not prove the non-existence of an aether.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Encyclopaedia Britannica gives:

QUOTE
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space. The theory met with increasing difficulties as the nature of light and the structure of matter became better understood.
ether | theoretical substance - Encyclopedia Britannica
QUOTE

Please excuse my ignorance, but I am here to learn.

Jzz, I am tending to agree with billslugg. Can you please enlighten me as to (briefly) how you differ from the above. I am still stuck with having read about the MME about 65-70 years ago.

Cat :) :) :)

P.S. My problem is with this:
"The luminiferous aether had to possess a rigidity that was many times that of steel and yet be absolutely permeable to all forms of matter."
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
I have this in two places because Helio made me see it applies in both, if it applies at all:

Hmmm. I just awoke from my retired old man's nap with this thought having come to mind:

I read that some famous physicist, I don't remember which one, once said that it isn't that an "aether," or "ether," whichever, doesn't exist, it's just that Einstein made it completely superfluous.

Here goes my take once more:

It isn't that dark matter and dark energy don't exist, it's just that, from here / 'Now (t=0)', observable and observed pasts (-) through unobserved and unobservable but still detectable futures (+) to any quantumly entangled distantly unobservable 'Now (t=0)' (again from here / 'Now (t=0)') make them completely superfluous.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Jzz, I am tending to agree with billslugg. Can you please enlighten me as to (briefly) how you differ from the above. I am still stuck with having read about the MME about 65-70 years ago.
In reply to billslug and cat. The reply that : “The Michelson-Morely experiment showed conclusively there was no aether and the speed of light was invariant in inertial frames of reference “, has been so widely used that it has become a ‘fait accomplait’, as if there were really no rejoinder and the Michelson & Morley experiment were the last and absolute word on the subject. Consider for a moment if this is true? Look at things logically: Dark Matter is thought to make up 85% of all the matter in the Universe the other 15% being made up of baryonic matter. Even taking dark energy into account, this is a huge figure and is positive proof that something other than ordinary or baryonic matter exists in the Universe. Are we agreed on this? Dark matter would have to possess identical properties to the aether that was once thought to exist. (Quoting cat at #65 in this thread)

“The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space. The theory met with increasing difficulties as the nature of light and the structure of matter became better understood.”

Dark matter possesses identical properties. If an experiment like that of the Michelson & Morley interferometry experiment were set up in space and no interference were detected, would this conclusively prove that Dark Matter did not exist? There are too many things that are set in stone, which is a wrong and even harmful attitude to have in science.

Like it or not, the existence of an aether like medium would be a much better alternative than special relativity and would therefore also negate General Relativity.

Finally in reply to cats query as to how the aether was required to have a rigidity many times that of steel. It all comes down to the extremely high frequencies of light. In order to accommodate a transverse wave travelling at 300,000 kms an object would have to possess great rigidity and at the same time be absolutely permeable, invisible and undetectable.

"Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale."
(https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/l/Luminiferous_aether.htm)
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Jzz, I do not mean to be pernickity or hair splitting, but I do think it would be better in such instances to phrase it as "Cat, quoting Encyclopaedia Britannica . . . . . . " as, otherwise, it seems as if you are quoting me directly.
I am not being 'funny' about this, or tricky or aggressive. I am just asking politely for some added clarity. :) :) :)

Now, to this:
"Finally in reply to cats query as to how the aether was required to have a rigidity many times that of steel. It all comes down to the extremely high frequencies of light. In order to accommodate a transverse wave travelling at 300,000 kms an object would have to possess great rigidity and at the same time be absolutely permeable, invisible and undetectable." question.

If one were to utilise the "particle" nature, instead of the "wave" nature, would you still have to invoke the rigidity aspect? I would have thought not.
Vide, also:
"In this work he demonstrated that light can be considered as particles that have a "wave like nature". Particles obviously do not need a medium to travel, and thus, neither did light."

Now, I have tried to search for some information but, without your superior knowledge in this area, I need better search questions. As a start, I used:
"the aether was required to have a rigidity many times that of steel" in Google, but did not find it very rewarding.
For example, the first 'hit' was:
QUOTE
Rest In Peace: Luminiferous aether (interlockeducation.co.uk)
Rest In Peace: Luminiferous aether
Updated: Mar 14, 2021
AKA: Wibbly, insubstantial space gas that is stronger than steel
Theory born: 4th century BCE
Parent(s): Aristotle
QUOTE

I am sure you will be able to provide me with much better suggestions :) :) :)

Very seriously and politely, I am requesting some help here, as I stated above.

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I have continued looking, and found this:


which contains this:

"Transverse waves, at the time, were only known to propagate through solids. Thus, it was argued that the luminiferous aether must have the properties of a solid, rather than a gas or liquid. However, it didn't seem that there was any interaction between the aether and any other regular matter, which posed a problem."

Does this help?

Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
The force of gravity has the longest reach of all the forces. And string theory says it may have as many as eleven dimensions. I have a problem then with gravity and the universe's pasts - futures . . . and more. Gravities' overlapping, or overlaying, expanses broad and deep in both space and time. There are as many, if not more, waves of gravitational force abroad in the space-times of the universes as there are light waves abroad and they do not pass the same way light waves do . . . or do they (?) when there are as countless many waves of gravity crisscrossing as there are light waves crisscrossing. And no matter how greatly or trivially, they have an effect on light.

There is no place in space and/or time without gravity. It is the one infinite (therefore constant of '1') force and, therefore, it is the one infinitesimal (therefore constant of '1') force at one and the same time (and 11-dimensional?). It does not zero out. It can cause a superconducting, inertialess or negative inertia, accelerative surf, carry, or push, effect in the universe, but it does not ever reach the point of zeroing out. If from nowhere else, it will come from the outer rim of universe, from the "event horizon," from the outside-in; from gravity's superposed "set."

Once more, there are as countless many gravity waves crisscrossing the universe as there are light waves, with as long or longer reaches, and they aren't massless single-sided frame 2-dimensionalities like the light time frames are. There will exist acceleration to the universe (to the universes). Open systemically, countless planes of acceleration (planes of universes opening vertically up and out / planes of universes vertically down and in disappearing . . . whole . . . into points). Inertial frame closed systemically: Planes of acceleration mounting toward the speed of light but developing such weight of relativistic drag on the reel-like, tether-like, steel cable-like, line as never to quite make it to the speed of light.
----------------------------------

It's an infinitely greater, many more dimensioned, Multiverse Universe than so many realize, or even want to realize. And what I described regarding verticality of planes works just as well -- works exactly the same actually -- regarding horizons horizontally.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Jzz, I do not mean to be pernickity or hair splitting, but I do think it would be better in such instances to phrase it as "Cat, quoting Encyclopaedia Britannica . . . . . . " as, otherwise, it seems as if you are quoting me directly.
I am not being 'funny' about this, or tricky or aggressive. I am just asking politely for some added clarity. :) :) :)
I agree with you one hundred percent, in fact I was in two minds as to whether to include the citation but thought anyone looking your post up would see it.

If one were to utilise the "particle" nature, instead of the "wave" nature, would you still have to invoke the rigidity aspect? I would have thought not.
Vide, also:
"In this work he demonstrated that light can be considered as particles that have a "wave like nature". Particles obviously do not need a medium to travel, and thus, neither did light."
In my post #67 I had quoted from the McGill University web-site which seems to have lifted the quote from wikispeedia and is a fairly accurate account of what the luminiferous aether was supposed to be like. Well one can use either particle or wave but in the manner that they have been used it just doesn't work. Quantum theory states that from the moment light is emitted at point A it ceases to be something real and exists instead as an abstract probability wave function, which travels through multiple dimensions that cannot be found in our Universe. It is only when it is detected at point B that the wave function collapses giving rise to multiple realities (Universes)!
The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... Quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, 'Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance', p. 107)
AND
The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Physics, 1940)


Look at this article from Scientific American

The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, say researchers. At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties.17-Nov-2011
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Sep 15, 2021
43
10
35
Why would the speed of light have to appear in an equation that's supposed to show to what extent matter can be turned into energy or viceversa? This seems to be suspiciously contrived and forced, but no one dares to contradict Albert the Great, and even worse, many physicists are unable to understand his mathematics, so even if they would like to test the truthfulness of E = mc^2 they would be unable to do it. Maybe all one needs to do to calculate how much "critical mass" of an unstable element one needs to make it explode is make up a huge number that will be the multiplier of the amount of mass, and you will have the explosion, and it doesn't have to be precisely the speed of EM radiation. I think I'll go search for that new multiplier myself, be the next Physics Nobel Prize winner and buy a penthouse on Fifth Avenue, a yacht and a helicopter.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
122
54
660
Why would the speed of light have to appear in an equation that's supposed to show to what extent matter can be turned into energy or viceversa? This seems to be suspiciously contrived and forced, but no one dares to contradict Albert the Great, and even worse, many physicists are unable to understand his mathematics, so even if they would like to test the truthfulness of E = mc^2 they would be unable to do it. Maybe all one needs to do to calculate how much "critical mass" of an unstable element one needs to make it explode is make up a huge number that will be the multiplier of the amount of mass, and you will have the explosion, and it doesn't have to be precisely the speed of EM radiation. I think I'll go search for that new multiplier myself, be the next Physics Nobel Prize winner and buy a penthouse on Fifth Avenue, a yacht and a helicopter.
Ha! Ha!:D:D I enjoyed the good natured, light heartedness of this post. But, of course, the scientists who were Einstein’s peers were pretty smart people in their own right. The question of how something immaterial (i.e., a wave) could convey energy was the big question of the day. How could something so apparently intangible as a radio-wave convey energy? Everyone from the Curies to Poincare, Lorentz, Oliver Lodge and Einstein (to name a few) were occupied with trying to solve this problem. With Einstein’s explanation for the photoelectric effect, the answer to this question grew tantalizingly close. Now they actually had figures to work with. Compton figured out that energy is conserved in quantum mechanics as in classical and relativistic physics. He found that in a collision between an electron and a photon, the momentum of the photon could be calculated by p = h/λ; where p = momentum, h = planck’s constant and λ = wavelength. The momentum of the photon is very small.

Since photons always travel at c. Momentum can be rewritten as (1) p = E/c or (2) E = pc. Energy equals momentum of photon x speed of light. According to Newton (3) p = mv, if this equation is applied to light (4) p = mc. Combining (2) and (4) E = (mc)c = E = mc^2. As I had stated many scientists were juggling around with these numbers but it was Einstein who first came up with the correct solution. The equation E= mc^2 normally refers to rest mass but since a photon is never at rest it applies to photon energy too.
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
E = m x c^2 (c^2 = c . . . squaring)
F = m x a

Einstein wasn't the first. He was just the first to see some things in a different light (pardon the pun).
--------------------------------

Big Time! "The 'Irresistible Force' of the 'Immovable Object' (outside-in || inside-out)." -- by me, for one.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts