Blog 20150819
Captain Bligh
writes: “Are you saying that light shifts its energy when encountering
a new medium?”
This
question was stimulated by my discussion of why the speed of light decreases by
25% when it enters water. That’s right, although light travels at 300 million
m/s in vacuum, it travels at only 225 million m/s in water. Now, from the
neomechanical standpoint we are reminded that light is motion. Light is not a
thing, so strictly speaking, the word “it” does not apply to “it” (see how
difficult it is to avoid using the nominative case for what is really a
predicate?). Another lesson: Even if light was a microcosm (which
it is not, despite Einstein’s claim), “it” would not be able to change “its”
own motion independent of all else. All changes in motion—accelerations—are the
result of collisions between microcosms. If light were a microcosm, it might
decelerate by 25% when it entered water, but there would be nothing to cause it
to accelerate 33% when it left the water. Nothing of the sort ever occurs, of
course, because light is motion. It is not a thing.
Now,
remember that the velocity of wave motion is determined by the medium in which
it occurs. Thus, the velocity of sound in air is 343 m/s, while the velocity of
sound in iron is 5,120 m/s. Because sound, like light, is a motion and not a thing, the
energy concept does not apply to it. Sound, like light, does not have mass, so
the kinetic energy equation would be written as:
KE = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 (0)*v2 = 0
Note,
however, that the E=mc2 equation
remains valid for explaining the transfer of submicrocosmic (internal) motion
to supermicrocosms (aether particles) in the macrocosm. Nonetheless, the KE equation above explains why there
is no gain or loss of energy when light or sound enters a new medium. It also
is one of the reasons Einstein had to consider his light corpuscle, the photon,
to be massless. Of course it had to be massless, since it really did not exist.
It had no xyz dimensions because light is motion, not matter—the petard
bedeviling relativity at every turn.
All
this leads to the “tired light theory” favored by Edwin Hubble. The
indeterministic opposite of that theory might be called the “untiring light
theory.” Regressive physicists, who invariably favor such
idealisms, see no reason for light to be affected by their imagined “perfectly
empty space” through which it supposedly travels as a particle for 13.8 billion
years from galaxy to eyeball. But, as I have proclaimed before: “In neomechanics, no microcosm or motion of
microcosms could travel from point A to B without losses.” In the real world
we cannot transmit electricity from New York to San Francisco without losses.
Light is the same. Theoretically, all wave motion should behave the same way
even though the losses may be insignificant at short distances. It is claimed
that sound waves are redshifted when the distance is great enough (Pallidin,
2004). That is because of neomechanical interactions between the particles in
the medium required for wave motion. All microcosms follow the Eighth
Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus, aether-1,
which we speculate is the medium for light transmission, is made up of aether-2
particles. This means that some of the motion of aether-1 particles
must be absorbed internally and taken up by the submicrocosms we call aether-2
(Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) via Type C neomechanical interactions (Borchardt.
2007). Regressive physicists, being steadfast aether deniers and believers in finity, remain estranged from any such
ideas. That was not the case with Hubble, who discovered the cosmic redshifts
and had this to say: "If they are valid, it seems likely that
red-shifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current
speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
(Hubble, 1947).
References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The
Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411
p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html
]
Hubble, Edwin, 1947,
The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve: Publications of the
astronomical society of the Pacific, v. 59, no. 349, p. 165.
Pallidin, 2004, Why does sound
wave frequency not decrease over distance?, Physics Forums - The Fusion of
Science and Community [ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-sound-wave-frequency-not-decrease-over-distance.15125/ ].
Puetz, Stephen J., and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the
hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.
Posts
11 comments:
Blog 20150819
GB: Captain Bligh writes: “Are you saying that light shifts its energy when encountering a new medium?”
This question was stimulated by my discussion of why the speed of light decreases by 25% when it enters water. That’s right, although light travels at 300 million m/s in vacuum, it travels at only 225 million m/s in water. Now, from the neomechanical standpoint we are reminded that light is motion. Light is not a thing, so strictly speaking, the word “it” does not apply to “it” (see how difficult it is to avoid using the nominative case for what is really a predicate?).
CB: Response number 1
That underlined sentence reminds me of Bill Clintons legalistic answer at his trial, “That depends on what you mean by “is”.
I use “Concrete Real’ as language for the concept that humans have of what is truly real, not their ideas of what is real, abstract ideas as they are. We are referring to a concrete reality when we are referring to it in our language. In my previous sentence the noun phrase ( I guess it is, I am not a grammarian) is Concrete Real. The predicate for that is “that which we presume is real by our abstract ideas.” In other words we mean reality as thought of as truly real and to use Concrete Real is to affirm that.
In order to communicate we need some rules so I define Concrete Real as above.
All other ideas we have are also abstractions from experience and our logical functions that are part of what the brain does.
GB: Another lesson: Even if light was a microcosm (which it is not, despite Einstein’s claim), “it” would not be able to change “its” own motion independent of all else. All changes in motion—accelerations—are the result of collisions between microcosms. If light were a microcosm, it might decelerate by 25% when it entered water, but there would be nothing to cause it to accelerate 33% when it left the water. Nothing of the sort ever occurs, of course, because light is motion. It is not a thing.
CB: Response number 2
GB uses micro and macrocosms as in Newtonian physics. I have adopted more modern ideas consistent with quantum physics. Light photons are a microcosm to use GB’s phrase in spite of his denial. Each is a microcosm of a wavelike disturbance in the quantum field. Each photon has a origin and presumably a demise (I am assuming that it does not escapes interaction with other things in the field, eventually, but we cannot know that for any individual photon. As far as we are concerned we see them come and go.) Each photon is defined by a frequency and a wavelength. It has other features as well but it is well accepted in quantum physics that the frequency is equivalent to an energy of sorts. The field determines it’s velocity according to cause and effect. (No, the field does not determine anything. I agree with GB that idealists make those assumptions and they are incorrect. All is determined by prior cause and nothing else. No free will. No free lunches. Those ideas are all idealist imaginations having nothing to do with physics.
But rather that use the words micro and macrocosms, I prefer to use the concept of the field as the infinite universe of concrete reality. It is primary to me, not an artificial perception of microcosm here and macrocosm there. The field is a unity that has motion to its matter, to use another GB phraseology. I have no problem with the phraseology, it is just that I consider the motion to be primary in the undivided aspect of concrete reality. We will never know who is more correct. If you are interested in my theory, you will have to wait until it is published. It is a different paradigm from GB’s, and not that important since we agree on his 10 assumptions of science. We just use slightly different paradigms.
GB: …Nonetheless, the KE equation above explains why there is no gain or loss of energy when light or sound enters a new medium. It also is one of the reasons Einstein had to consider his light corpuscle, the photon, to be massless. Of course it had to be massless, since it really did not exist. It had no xyz dimensions because light is motion, not matter…
CB: Response number 3
This is where the rubber meets the road. Since matter and motion are separate to GB, and not just actions in the field, his motion is equivalent to energy. Although he keeps saying that “energy is just a measurement not a “real” thing we do not deny his own personal view but we (I) substitute energy for motion for the convenience of being able to communicate ideas. In that sense, energy is a concrete reality in order for our abstract thinking to have a framework in which to order our thinking and thus communicate.
Actually, at times I am not sure GB means to separate matter and motion. We agree that matter occupies space and that motion is different in some sense, but in concrete reality those are difficult to separate. They are one and the same. Especially, if one uses my framework which is that the field is both matter and motion. The matter just changes its position constantly. Using the analogy of “freezing the universe” we can see that IF that were possible then Motion would be suspended and we would perceive matter only. But that is not the case. The universe, conceived of as a “physical state” in reality is a constantly changing physical state and at a infinitely small interval of change, thus impossible to ever really know for sure.
There you have a preview of part of my theory.
GB “light travels at 300 million m/s in vacuum, it travels at only 225 million m/s in water.”
CB: Response number 4
Let’s use a prism in a pure vacuum (GB’s ether 1 and my “field”) as a model. In concrete reality, a photon enters the glass at 300K Km per sec and leaves the prism at the same velocity. But what has happened to it is that the photon interacts with an atom after atom or electron after electron in the medium of glass and is absorbed and released. At each encounter with the “particles” of the matter, is loses some frequency and changes direction slightly. Yes, it becomes red shifted and changes its direction slightly. The direction change is minute and accumulative. The exiting photon has a slightly different color than the entering. Ultraviolet light is separated out from the entering white light and is deviated slightly more because for each difference in frequency there is an accompanying difference in wavelength. That is a refracting wave, like the waves at the entrance to a harbor breakwater.
Thus we see how nature is exhibited to us by a simple white light and crystal prism. There is a separation of photons of different color (frequency) and angle of direction (wavelength) so that it appears that photons lose velocity (SOL) but in fact they do not. There are just more encounters by higher frequency photons with more changes of direction WITH EACH ENCOUNTER so that the NET velocity appears decreased but in ACTUAL CONCRETE REALITY longer distance is equivalent to lower NET velocity. Bottom line, photons are absorbed and emitted at each encounter but in between those travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, which is what there is between particles of “matter”. And this vacuum is the field.
Do you now see how different paradigms cause “reality” to be interpreted differently?
As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “all it interpretation.”
I claim my interpretation is more in keeping with quantum theory (wave physics) than Newtonian theory (particle- microcosm, macrocosm) and is thus preferable as a worldview or paradigm.
GB: Einstein had to consider his light corpuscle, the photon, to be massless. Of course it had to be massless, since it really did not exist. It had no xyz dimensions because light is motion, not matter
CB: Response number 5.
Photons ARE massless. Their mass is present in the form of K.E. Photons are wavelike and exhibit their “particle-like” nature only when encountering matter. That happens essentially instantaneously, its called absorption and emission. Of course, photons exist, as a motion (disturbance) in the field. A disturbance in the field is a concrete reality, at lease in my world. Things that are concrete realities do exist. At least to nature lovers, as explained by modern physics. So, regressive theories, as Idealists use them for their purposes, and according to GB, can be turned around as Realism, but a mistaken kind of realism, in more modern physical understanding.
GB: All this leads to the “tired light theory” favored by Edwin Hubble. The indeterministic opposite of that theory might be called the “untiring light theory.” Regressive physicists, who invariably favor such idealisms, see no reason for light to be affected by their imagined “perfectly empty space” through which it supposedly travels as a particle for 13.8 billion years from galaxy to eyeball.
CB: Response number 6
In the BBT, light does not “tire” space expands. Talking about idealism, that is the sine qua non. Space expands! Into what? Ridiculous. Nonsense upon stilts. How can an infinite universe expand?
BTW, the real tired light theories do offer good physical explanations as to how photons are absorbed and re-emitted billions and billions of times crossing 13.7 billion light years of distance. Each time losing a tiny amount of frequency energy and the lost amount being re-radiated by the electron as a tiny photon. Guess what those tiny photons are at the same average frequency as the so-called microwave background energy. Of course spacial background is full of this radiation. Photons encounter electrons and protons throughout space.
Light entering and leaving a prism proves wavelike encounters with matter. The UV part of the white light is deviated more and exits at its own color. It’s direction is affected more than its loss of frequency because of wavelike refraction. This does not prove redshift of course, but then a prism is almost nothing in comparison with interactions in space over a immense distance of 13.7 billion light years.
As soon as someone can demonstrate redshift by encounters rather than “space expanding” the quicker can those interested in physics join the new paradigm.
GB: Regressive physicists, being steadfast aether deniers and believers in finity, remain estranged from any such ideas. That was not the case with Hubble, who discovered the cosmic redshifts and had this to say: "If they are valid, it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Hubble, 1947).
CB: Response number 7
Thank you for that reference GB. I had remember that but have not found the reference. “Hubble, Edwin, 1947, The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve: Publications of the astronomical society of the Pacific, v. 59, no. 349, p. 165.” I assume that is it.
Many also do not know that Fritz Zwicky, who was also present at that early meeting at Hubble’s house with both Einstein and Lemaitre, didn’t jump to that conclusion. Zwicky offered a “tired” light theory. Only the creationists, which still outnumbered the infinity people did at that time, and have had to endure it for years now.
Infinity Forever! And thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express my ideas to others. That is what science is really all about.
George (CB) and copyrighted by this.
GB can use this at his discretion.
A good response and explanation of the speed variance, but I'll take exception to one of your statements:
GB: "Sound, like light, does not have mass ..."
While it is true that sound is a characteristic of the medium, so has no inherent mass, the kinetic energy is passed from one molecule of air to another. It is the mass of that molecule that determines the speed of the sound, so there is always kinetic energy (and therefore, mass) engaged in the process.
Light, IF it is considered a wave, must also be passing kinetic energy from one "molecule" of the "aether medium" to another. Therefore, that medium must have mass and motion. Unlike air, no massive aether "molecule" has ever been detected in any light experiment. It was that experimental failure that required the invocation of arbitrary Lorentz Transformations to explain how light could still be a wave, but aether mass could never be detected. That, in turn, led to the "bedeviling petard" of Special Relativity.
However, there are a multitude of experiments which demonstrate that light is some kind of massive particle with motion, including the home novelty radiometer with four vanes that rotate when exposed to light:
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/radiometer
Einstein's only saving grace was his mathematical formulation describing Hertz's "photoelectric effect" (which got Albert his only Nobel Prize). That doesn't work unless light is a massive particle (photon) in motion, independent of any medium.
Of course, that doesn't explain what kind of particle or groups of particles compose the mass of light, nor what proper motion they include. I'm working on that.
Thanks for this excellent, coherent explanation regarding light.
It is clear that particles exist in motion. A wave motion in the aether is referred to as “light”. Motion can not include any reference to mass in a definition of the word. Because light is properly understood as motion, this explains why there is no mass found in the mythical “photon”. Where there is the absence of mass, there is no existence. This is a logical indisputable truth.
Hi, and thanks for supporting real science!
If the universe expands so that electromagnetic waves stretch out, why would not matter, which is made from electromagnetism, also stretch, thus making matter particles larger, and likely their absorption/emission spectra shifted equally? Why would we be able to notice that the universe has expanded? It seems to me that the cosmic expansion hypothesis is based on a very far-fetched assumption, that matter would not change at all from the expansion.
(I get why large matter clusters would not expand.)
On another note I think it is exciting that we have discovered an absolute frame of reference in the CMB! BTW, is the CMB the aether's re-emission of the energy absorbed through the lossy light transmission?
Anton:
Welcome, and thanks for the comment. Please remember that the expansion hypothesis (rejected by Hubble) is based on Einstein's Untired Light Theory. In addition to hypothesizing perpetual motion, that theory is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No thing or motion travels from Point A to Point B without energy losses. So forget about the expanding universe hypothesis.
All microcosms in the Infinite Universe are in motion with respect to all other microcosms, so forget also about an "absolute frame of reference." The CMB proves that Einstein was wrong about space being empty. Temperature (in this case 2.7K) can only be produced by matter. You may be right that some of this is indicative of the energy losses undergone by light as it produces the cosmological redshift over great distances.
Post a Comment