Quantum Theory

[James_S_Saint]

I am interested in your ideas here. Now, to be accepted, any new ideas in science need not only to explain the new unexplained phenomenon better than existing theories, but explain all the other stuff the existing theories explain at least as well as they do.

Let’s stick with the OP and consider light and photons. The question was about the quantised Young’s experiment. I don’t think your explanation involving the analogy of bicycle wheels actually addressed this specific observation. Would you like to expand on how the quantised Young’s experiment is explained by your ideas?

Let’s now consider elementary diffraction theory - you should be able to use your formulation to arrive at the Fresnel-Kirchoff diffraction integral or something equivalent for the general case of diffraction at an aperture. You should then be able to solve the general case for particular cases of Fraunhofer diffraction, say a rectangular aperture, involving decaying sinusoids of the form sin(x)/x; or for a circular aperture in the form of Bessel functions. Can you? And we haven’t asked anything about rigorous diffraction theory involving surface currents.

By the way, the idea of pure logical/mathematical limits to the speed of light and other bodies seems strange. The speed of light in vacuo is finite - I’d be interested in any *mathematical *or *logical *argument that limits action to this speed independent of observation. There is no way that I know of to sit in a darkened room with a wet towel round your head and *mathematically *or *logically *prove that there is a speed limit of exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in this and every conceivable universe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

All excellent points with which I agree entirely. But I hope you don’t expect for me to do all of that here and now.

The bike wheel concept very easily displays the interference patterns seen because as you know, a sinusoid is derived by a circle. You merely need to imagine the effect of 2 wheels spinning in opposite direction, but very close to each other as they strike a detector. One counteracts the other.

But the distance between the wheels forms what is measurably the “phase difference” between them. This is the same as the normal understanding that the “peaks” of the “sinusoidal wave” are lagged.

The greater the lag or the distance of the “wheels” from each other, the less effect they have at canceling each other. Thus in a dispersion, you would expect to see gradual lightening and darkening indicating their “phase relationship”, or the “wheel distance” (wheewe is twue).

But also just think of what happens when 2 wheels of the same spin touch side to side as they strike a detector screen. The fact they are are spinning in the same direction, but beside each other causes interference also.

The whole reason they disperse in the first place is that the “wheel” is necessarily closer to a slit wall on one side than the other and thus that side must lag as its wave gets close to the mass of that edge. The space that the wave is traveling through is already being effected by that mass and thus the wave propagation through that space must slow.

This causes a “bend” in the path just as you can easily imagine any such wheel being touched would do as it passes by. Touch the wheel of a gyroscope from above and see what happens. The touch on a spinning wheel that is traveling along its axis would create a “wobble” as the wheel realigned along a new vector. Note that ALL bending is done toward the edge.

But you must also look at exactly why the photon is effecting the detector. The energy of its spin must be “absorbed” and that means that the wheel must be “stopped” from spinning and thus release its positive (contracting) and negative (expanding) effect. If another wheel strikes by the right timing, the two events will be in harmony and thus have the effect of greater intensity. That is assuming you have a “line” of singular photons.

The entire situation becomes largely unpredictable merely due to the parameters needed to know how close the wheel is going to come to an edge, which spin each photon had, and what other photon was near enough to interfere. What you see on a screen is a statistical effect. Measuring one at a time, becomes far more predictable.

---

And as to the issue of being able to predict from pure logic the speed of light, realize that all size and distance is created by that speed, the “maximum propagation velocity of affect”. If you are merely given what it is that you want to compare so as to have a measurement, then by reverse designing the necessary sizes of the comparison object, the speed of light (or what I refer to as the velocity of affect) is determinable. In a sense, this is why light must always “appear” to be the same speed.

The velocity of affect CAUSES distance and thus size and thus comparative measurement. The blind man can certainly know the speed of the light that he cannot see if you merely give him an accurate “picture” of what you are using to measure it against.

Anything and everything you can mathematically create, I can logically create. Anything you can know through observation, I can deduce through logic before you ever open your eyes to see it (forgiving a little hyperbole of course).

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You should then be able to solve the general case for particular cases of Fraunhofer diffraction, say a rectangular aperture, involving decaying sinusoids of the form sin(x)/x; or for a circular aperture in the form of Bessel functions. Can you?

I once had a rectangular aperture involving decaying sinusoids. Hurt like hell all the way through the end of allergy season.

And as to the issue of being able to predict from pure logic the speed of light, realize that all size and distance is created by that speed, the “maximum propagation velocity of affect”. If you are merely given what it is that you want to compare so as to have a measurement, then by reverse designing the necessary sizes of the comparison object, the speed of light (or what I refer to as the velocity of affect) is determinable. In a sense, this is why light must always “appear” to be the same speed.

Anything and everything you can mathematically create, I can logically create. Anything you can know through observation, I can deduce through logic before you ever open your eyes to see it (forgiving a little hyperbole of course).

Kant said that Hume was wrong, and that not only is there such a thing as a priori reasoning (stuff I know independent of sensory observation), there’s even synthetic a priori reasoning (stuff I know that is not logically implicit from other stuff I knew), and he referred specifically to Newtonian physics as an example. But Kant’s advocacy of synthetic a priori propositions depended on his Categories, two of which were “space” and “time”. Now, in non-Newtonain physics (quantum & partical physics), where Kant’s idea of a “universal” category of “space” and “time” is shattered, can we still derive synthetic a priori propositions, like the speed of light?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Now, in non-Newtonain physics (quantum & partical physics), where Kant’s idea of a “universal” category of “space” and “time” is shattered, can we still derive synthetic a priori propositions, like the speed of light?

And the very defining attribute of existence, effect.

But we must not leave out Logic itself.

If while standing on the edge of a building, via radio, you ask a question of a distant blind man, “I have a ball in my hand that has absolutely nothing preventing it from falling when I release it. I have now released it. Did it fall? How do you know?”

The blind man can KNOW that the ball fell assuming that what you told him was accurate. It is a matter of Logic that “if there is nothing but the hand preventing an action, then when the hand is removed, the action will take place.” There is no need at all to empirically see the fall to KNOW that it fell. Although it might be necessary to empirically ensure that the stated conditions were really accurate.

Emergency repair for space vehicles is done in that exact manner. They simulate what they believe to be the actual situation, but then use logic to tell them how it got that way and what to do to fix the problem. Empiricism is merely for the purpose of checking your attempt at accurate logic. Man can presume that he knows God’s plan, but it is only with empirical evidence that he can be certain due to his innate inability to use accurate logic (walk with God).

 

[geometer]

quantum mechanics

 

[James_S_Saint]

quantum mechanics

I just love to watch the Quantum Magi do their hand waving to make it appear that they “know” what they have said and intimidate students.

Back in the 70’s when I taught a college course, I ensured that every student knew exactly what I was trying to say and why I was saying it. Every student would get 100% on every actual test. I used many passive tests and probes just to see what might need more explanation or repetition.

To me, every course was no more than an hour worth of material spread over a semester so as to let it soak in. How different professors filled that gap varied.

Note that in Quantum related subjects, probability filters into everything as they replace the lack of understanding of the actual situation with probability rather than logic. In that video, he quickly slips in “P|…|” with the comment, “of course we all know that…” then continues while burying the slight of hand under as many quasi-understood elite sounding words and names. By the time you search through all of the appended ethos names, you will have forgotten what you were trying to understand.

The problem is that probability is all about knowing the number of unknowns involved so as to be able to produce a probability distribution from a state of ignorance of what the real situation is. That is fine as long as you accept that things cannot be known (the uncertainty principle incentive) and need to predict a probable outcome. How they get away with calling it physics is a bit puzzling but I imagine because they were talking about something involving physics at the time, it must be “quantum physics”.

The word “quantum” seems to be no more than the understanding that we are going to make a quantum leap from ignorance to presumption of understanding, formerly known as creating a “super-stition” (stitching events together with presumptuous principles).

In quantum science it is accepted that effects appear from nothingness due to the “probability” of them occurring. But of course, how did anyone ever calculate a probability without knowing all of the possibilities first? Well, they didn’t. They measured a few things and declared that 9 out of 10 times it happens this way, therefore, the probability is 0.9 or 9:10.

Quantumization of particulate matter is another issue entirely and arose long ago when they realized that subatomic particles always maintain a particular size regardless of how they got created. They measured the quantum jumps from one state to another and saw a pattern. From that pattern they can predict without ever understanding why those jumps take place. The lust to rush into claiming total understanding of all things, encourages not looking back to see the gaps, “we don’t need to fill those” - “superstition”.

The uncertainty principle arose from the understanding that in order to measure the state of a photon (for example), any attempt to measure it would alter the state and thus leave it still unknown. That was fine for years, but then of course, someone came up with a way to know without ever touching the photon - entanglement.

But even that got the hand-waving bit as it turned into “isn’t it magical how one photon instantly knows to flip in the direction communicated by the entangled observed photon at a distance”. And, “See how conscious observation of a mind causes reality? If we hadn’t observed it, it wouldn’t be what it is.”

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.”

It is just a way to say, “We don’t really know. You cannot know. But we are to be accepted as the experts. There are none above US.”

Of course, in my earlier explanations, I did a bit of hand waving myself, but this isn’t any effort to actually teach a college course. Besides, I lost my ability to be very clear some time back and now just try to get the idea across with the hopes that it might soak in. Without pictorials, I’m a bit hobbled.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

I have enjoyed this thread…thank you all:clapping::clapping:

 

[hecd2]

All excellent points with which I agree entirely. But I hope you don’t expect for me to do all of that here and now.

Well, if you’re writing a book, you’ll have to do it at some point. And if you haven’t done it already, then your hand-waving model hasn’t begun to get off the ground - these calculations lie at the very foundation of physical optics - you can’t get more elementary than these, and if you can’t derive them, you’re sunk.

The bike wheel concept very easily displays the interference patterns seen…

The greater the lag or the distance of the “wheels” from each other, the less effect they have at canceling each other. Thus in a dispersion, you would expect to see gradual lightening and darkening indicating their “phase relationship”, or the “wheel distance” (wheewe is twue).

So how do you get from those words to:

I(P)= (sin kpa/ kpa)^2 (sin *kqb / kqb) *Io (rectangular aperture, where k is the wave number, a and b are the aperture dimensions and p and q are the difference in the direction cosines before and after the aperture)

or to:

I(P)= [2J1(kaw)/kaw]^2 Io (circular aperture where J1 is the Bessel function of the first kind order 1, and a the radius of the aperture)?

By dispersion, do you mean what optical scientists call diffraction (dispersion is something else entirely - it is the dependence of refractive index on wavelength)? And do you mean to say that if two waves or photons interfere, they do so destructively depending on the distance between them? But how do you explain the repeated maxima and minima in diffraction at an aperture or at Young’s slits. The intensity in Fraunhofer diffraction is not a monotonic function in |x|.

But also just think of what happens when 2 wheels of the same spin touch side to side as they strike a detector screen…
The whole reason they disperse in the first place is that the “wheel” is necessarily closer to a slit wall on one side than the other and thus that side must lag as its wave gets close to the mass of that edge…

So you can derive the diffraction (not dispersion!) at a straight edge by this principle, can you? The answer should give you an intensity of 0.25 at the geometric edge, decreasing monotonically in the geometric shadow, and oscillating with diminishing amplitude in the geometric illuminated region, approaching unity asymptotically away from the edge, as determined by the square of the distance from the asymptotic point P- of the Cornu spiral.

This causes a “bend” in the path just as you can easily imagine any such wheel being touched would do as it passes by… Note that ALL bending is done toward the edge

I am afraid this is not so, as the form of the Fresnel diffraction above demonstrates. In fact, in Fresnel diffraction at a straight edge, one finds less energy in the geometric shadow and more in the illuminated region than one would expect from geometry, exactly opposite to your claim.

But you must also look at exactly why the photon is effecting the detector. The energy of its spin must be “absorbed” and that means that the wheel must be “stopped” from spinning and thus release its positive (contracting) and negative (expanding) effect. If another wheel strikes by the right timing, the two events will be in harmony and thus have the effect of greater intensity. That is assuming you have a “line” of singular photons.

This doesn’t work either, because in quantised Young’s you get exactly the same result whether the average time between photons is a second or a month. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ timing.

The entire situation becomes largely unpredictable merely due to the parameters needed to know how close the wheel is going to come to an edge, which spin each photon had, and what other photon was near enough to interfere. What you see on a screen is a statistical effect. Measuring one at a time, becomes far more predictable.

So how does the superposition of single photons, without any others “near enough to interfere” lead to Young’s fringes again?

And as to the issue of being able to predict from pure logic the speed of light, realize that all size and distance is created by that speed, the “maximum propagation velocity of affect”. If you are merely given what it is that you want to compare so as to have a measurement, then by reverse designing the necessary sizes of the comparison object, the speed of light (or what I refer to as the velocity of affect) is determinable. In a sense, this is why light must always “appear” to be the same speed.

I didn’t ask how you logically or mathematically know that light must always be the same speed (in different frames of reference) - you can’t by the way - but how you can logically or mathematically determine that light must have a finite speed and that it is 299,792,458 metres per second. I give you a metre ruler - now logically derive the speed of light.

Anything and everything you can mathematically create, I can logically create. Anything you can know through observation, I can deduce through logic before you ever open your eyes to see it (forgiving a little hyperbole of course).

Absolutely not forgiving it. The reason we know that light has a finite speed is because we have measured it to be so. The reason we know what that finite speed is is because we have measured it to be so. The reason that we know that light has the same speed in different inertial frames is because we have measured it to be so. The natural world is exactly contrary to your claim - there is *nothing *we can know about it by pure logic and without the benefit of observation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Perhaps we cannot measure the particular speed of light with pure logic, but surely if we agree that logical truth applies to and is known from our experience of the real, then we can certainly know what is ontologically impossible.
What is meaningful about the idea of light moving at an infinite speed?

There is no meaning in that idea.

Why is an infinite speed of light ontologically impossible? Why is there no meaning in the idea? We have a posteriori reasons for agreeing that the speed of light is finite and the same for all observers but they are results of observation. How can you possibly know that the speed of light must be finite by the application of pure reason.

Now, if we forget for the moment all of the observations (including those leading to Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory) that show that the speed of light is finite, why do you say that the idea of infinite light speed is a priori meaningless? In such a universe, we would observe things at they are, not as they were, a situation that is far kinder to common sense than the actual situation (and one that holds for almost all casual observations on earth). What is logically violated by an infinite light speed? There were no protests from philosophers and logicians before Romer’s demonstration of finite speed in the 17th century.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[James_S_Saint]

Okay, back off. I was NOT proposing a thesis here on this thread. I proposed a legitimate way to envision the physical event so as to help with what the OP was trying to understand.

I have not compiled the thesis for this part of the proposed book. Certainly in that thesis ALL of your questions would be addressed. And after that thesis has been written, I would certainly appreciate your scrutiny and (name removed by moderator)ut. Where were you on my “Dear Thomas” thread and thesis concerning “nothingness” and creation? Your kind of detailed criticism was what I wanted for an actual thesis.

So how do you get from those words to:

I(P)= (sin kpa/ kpa)^2 (sin *kqb / kqb) *Io (rectangular aperture, where k is the wave number, a and b are the aperture dimensions and p and q are the difference in the direction cosines before and after the aperture)

or to:

I(P)= [2J1

(kaw)/kaw]^2 Io (circular aperture where J1 is the Bessel function of the first kind order 1, and a the radius of the aperture)?You’ll see when I get there. I’ll post it here first just to let you harass me first, okay?

By dispersion, do you mean what optical scientists call diffraction (dispersion is something else entirely -

Yes and no. “Diffraction” is usually in reference to waves. “Dispersion” is usually in reference to particles. Both actually apply to this phenomena, but as I was speaking of “wheels”, the word “dispersion” was more appropriate.

I am afraid this is not so, as the form of the Fresnel diffraction above demonstrates. In fact, in Fresnel diffraction at a straight edge, one finds less energy in the geometric shadow and more in the illuminated region than one would expect from geometry, exactly opposite to your claim.

I can only presume a misunderstanding here. Are you saying that in practice, if I gradually align a single stream of photons close to a razor edge, the stream will be diverted away from the edge rather than toward it? I don’t believe that, but I haven’t gone through the details yet to prove it either way. The first glance at the logic of it says that in no way would the stream bend away from the edge. That would be saying that in the case of distant hidden stars, the light doesn’t bend into the “shadow” of the blocking entity, but diverts away from it. Such would make the locating of the distant hidden star nearly impossible.

This doesn’t work either, because in quantised Young’s you get exactly the same result whether the average time between photons is a second or a month. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ timing.

The timing that I am talking about (really needed pictures) is in pico-seconds as I am referring to the interference of one “wheel” with another just ahead of it as the forward wheel strikes the detector. It has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about.

I didn’t ask how you logically or mathematically know that light must always be the same speed (in different frames of reference)

And that isn’t what I answered. What you didn’t pickup on is that the propagation of light is what directly determines the size of anything that would be used to measure the speed of that light. If universally, the speed of light were to double for some magical reason, the entire universe would simply double in size (from some absolute frame) and thus no change would ever be noticed. By knowing the relationship between the size of things and that propagation effect, all that is needed is an arbitrary reference measurement, like the definition of a “meter” for the logic to then have enough information to calculate the exact speed of light.

The fact that light is always observed to be the same speed is due to this fact that the size of things is caused directly by the propagation being measured by that size. But again, I have not proposed this to be a thesis here. I am just mentioning it because I happen to know it. You have nothing with which to dispute it.

Absolutely not forgiving it.

Then how about save your absolute lack of forgiveness for the actual proposed thesis.

If you are concerned that the proposed analogy of a spinning wheel is not helpful to the OPer, then for now, just say that. I have no intention of proving the entire issue here and now.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why is an infinite speed of light ontologically impossible?

Because SIZE would not exist at all. All things would be the same thing. This involves the metaphysics of why distance and dimensions exist in the first place.

 

[AnAtheist]

They have what is called “rest mass” when they “land” or are absorbed. But while in flight, they have merely momentum. The distinction had to be made to make the math work out right.

No they don’t. Photons do not rest, they always travel at lightspeed. The rest mass of a photon is 0.

 

[AnAtheist]

By the way, the idea of pure logical/mathematical limits to the speed of light and other bodies seems strange. The speed of light in vacuo is finite - I’d be interested in any *mathematical *or *logical *argument that limits action to this speed independent of observation. There is no way that I know of to sit in a darkened room with a wet towel round your head and *mathematically *or *logically *prove that there is a speed limit of exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in this and every conceivable universe.

On the contrary, based on the empirical fact that physical interactions do not take place instaniously, it is perfectly logical that a maximum speed must exist. Otherwise particles moving faster than the interaction speed could interact with themselves, thus violating all sorts of conservation laws.
The amount of lightspeed btw depend only on the units we use, we can gauge it to 1 or any other value we like.
I recommend Landu & Lifschitz, Physics Vol. II, The Classical Theory of Fields.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No they don’t. Photons do not rest, they always travel at lightspeed. The rest mass of a photon is 0.

So you think that when a photon lands on a leaf, it races around at the speed of light throughout the leaf and that’s why they glow green at night?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why is an infinite speed of light ontologically impossible? Why is there no meaning in the idea? We have a posteriori reasons for agreeing that the speed of light is finite and the same for all observers but they are results of observation. How can you possibly know that the speed of light must be finite by the application of pure reason.

Now, if we forget for the moment all of the observations (including those leading to Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory) that show that the speed of light is finite, why do you say that the idea of infinite light speed is a priori meaningless? In such a universe, we would observe things at they are, not as they were, a situation that is far kinder to common sense than the actual situation (and one that holds for almost all casual observations on earth). What is logically violated by an infinite light speed? There were no protests from philosophers and logicians before Romer’s demonstration of finite speed in the 17th century.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Perhaps i am wrong. But please do me the honer, young sir, of describing to me what an infinite speed is? Give me a number.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

By the way, the idea of pure logical/mathematical limits to the speed of light and other bodies seems strange. The speed of light in vacuo is finite - I’d be interested in any *mathematical *

or *logical *argument that limits action to this speed independent of observation. There is no way that I know of to sit in a darkened room with a wet towel round your head and *mathematically *or *logically *prove that there is a speed limit of exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in this and every conceivable universe On the contrary, based on the empirical fact that physical interactions do not take place instaniously, it is perfectly logical that a maximum speed must exist. Otherwise particles moving faster than the interaction speed could interact with themselves, thus violating all sorts of conservation laws.

Thank you for reinforcing my point for me - as you say “based on the *empirical *fact that physical interactions do not take place instaniously” light must have a finite speed. We know that light has a finite speed on the basis of observations not on the basis of pure logic independent of observation.

The amount of lightspeed btw depend only on the units we use, we can gauge it to 1 or any other value we like.

No - the speed of light is whatever it is and we can measure it in metres per second or cubits per fortnight, or any units of dimension distance per time; or we can *normalise *it to 1 to create natural units.

Alec
htp://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Perhaps i am wrong. But please do me the honer, young sir, of describing to me what an infinite speed is? Give me a number.

An infinite light speed would be one where the light arrives at the same time that it is emitted. There is no *purely logical *reason why this shouldn’t be so. (It isn’t so of course, but we only know that by observation). As for the number, it would be infinity since we would have a finite distance covered in zero time. This is consistent with classical pre-Romerian pre-Maxwellian physics and if the universe were like this it would be much simpler and easier to understand. We know it’s not - not through pure logic but through observation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

So you think that when a photon lands on a leaf, it races around at the speed of light throughout the leaf and that’s why they glow green at night?

When a photon lands on a leaf it either passes through, or it is absorbed and excites the electron of a molecule in the leaf to a higher energy state by an quantity equal to the energy of the photon (which is h * nu). The photon has zero rest mass so the rest mass energy term in the relativistic energy relationship vanishes. Photons only ever exist travelling at a speed of c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[James_S_Saint]

Thank you for reinforcing my point for me - as you say “based on the *empirical *fact that physical interactions do not take place instaniously” light must have a finite speed. We know that light has a finite speed on the basis of observations not on the basis of pure logic independent of observation.

You seem to be missing most of the points being made by everyone. He was saying that because we know it to be true (regardless of how) it stands to reason that there is logic behind it and therefore possibly logically derivable.

No - the speed of light is whatever it is and we can measure it in metres per second or cubits per fortnight, or any units of dimension distance per time; or we can *normalise *it to 1 to create natural units.

That is exactly what AnAtheist already said.

An infinite light speed would be one where the light arrives at the same time that it is emitted. There is no *purely logical *reason why this shouldn’t be so. (It isn’t so of course, but we only know that by observation). As for the number, it would be infinity since we would have a finite distance covered in zero time. This is consistent with classical pre-Romerian pre-Maxwellian physics and if the universe were like this it would be much simpler and easier to understand. We know it’s not - not through pure logic but through observation.

He asked for a NUMBER.

And if the “universe were like this”, it wouldn’t be understandable at all, because it couldn’t exist at all. Light is made of the same substance as everything else. If it could travel at infinite speed, so would every other wave. As such ALL things would happen instantaneously. The entire history of the universe would take zero time to get to this point and zero time to use up the entire future.

Due to this, what we call “change of state” could not happen because change requires time and there would be no time because the beginning and the end would be at the same moment.

Why is it that people like you declare that because YOU cannot see the logic, “there is no logic”? People end up having to write books just because other people can’t already see what they see. The whole reason I have to go to the trouble of writing that book is because seeing the logic is so hard for some people, that someone has to very carefully explain with pictures and concepts exactly what the logic is. Any book worth writing takes a lot of research, clarifying, explaining, creating pictorials, verifying, trying out on a few people, rewriting, and reordering which to explain first, step by step. It is ALL merely the attempt to communicate to those who can’t already see what is already so obvious to many others. But somehow you and many people get the idea that they already know what ALL the world knows and thus have no need to listen.

I’m pretty confident that you wouldn’t read the book even if I already had it written, just out of utter disrespect… unless of course, I use one of the many psychological tricks to get people like yourself to read it anyway.

When a photon lands on a leaf it either passes through, or it is absorbed and excites the electron of a molecule in the leaf to a higher energy state by an quantity equal to the energy of the photon (which is h * nu). The photon has zero rest mass so the rest mass energy term in the relativistic energy relationship vanishes. Photons only ever exist travelling at a speed of c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium.

This issue is simple;

e = mc^2

For a mass of 0, the energy, e, is zero…? Photons have no energy?? No, we just name it different. We say they have a “rest mass”, meaning that IF (and when) they get absorbed, they impart an “equivalent” amount of energy as something would if it had a specific amount of mass. This is about a 100 year old issue.

 

[MindOverMatter]

An infinite light speed would be one where the light arrives at the same time that it is emitted. There is no *purely logical *reason why this shouldn’t be so. (It isn’t so of course, but we only know that by observation). As for the number, it would be infinity since we would have a finite distance covered in zero time. This is consistent with classical pre-Romerian pre-Maxwellian physics and if the universe were like this it would be much simpler and easier to understand. We know it’s not - not through pure logic but through observation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Whats the number of infinity

 

[Colmcille]

You seem to be missing most of the points being made by everyone. He was saying that because we know it to be true (regardless of how) it stands to reason that there is logic behind it and therefore possibly logically derivable.

That is exactly what AnAtheist already said.

He asked for a NUMBER.

And if the “universe were like this”, it wouldn’t be understandable at all, because it couldn’t exist at all. Light is made of the same substance as everything else. If it could travel at infinite speed, so would every other wave. As such ALL things would happen instantaneously. The entire history of the universe would take zero time to get to this point and zero time to use up the entire future.

Due to this, what we call “change of state” could not happen because change requires time and there would be no time because the beginning and the end would be at the same moment.

Why is it that people like you declare that because YOU cannot see the logic, “there is no logic”? People end up having to write books just because other people can’t already see what they see. The whole reason I have to go to the trouble of writing that book is because seeing the logic is so hard for some people, that someone has to very carefully explain with pictures and concepts exactly what the logic is. Any book worth writing takes a lot of research, clarifying, explaining, creating pictorials, verifying, trying out on a few people, rewriting, and reordering which to explain first, step by step. It is ALL merely the attempt to communicate to those who can’t already see what is already so obvious to many others. But somehow you and many people get the idea that they already know what ALL the world knows and thus have no need to listen.

I’m pretty confident that you wouldn’t read the book even if I already had it written, just out of utter disrespect… unless of course, I use one of the many psychological tricks to get people like yourself to read it anyway.

This issue is simple;

e = mc^2

For a mass of 0, the energy, e, is zero…? Photons have no energy?? No, we just name it different. We say they have a “rest mass”, meaning that IF (and when) they get absorbed, they impart an “equivalent” amount of energy as something would if it had a specific amount of mass. This is about a 100 year old issue.

• I wandered through the posts and pages and wondered what ever happened to the good ole Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle… Now they’ve replaced it or made it obsolete with “entanglement”? It’s been a couple of decades since I’ve subscribed to Scientific American, and the lingo and knowledge have changed a lot.
  Hope helps us deal with uncertainty… Analyze and quantify that. Where there is life, there can be hope. Kathryn Lasky’s (ca. 1994) “Beyond The BurningTime”, a short docunovel about the Salem, Massachusetts mess of 1692 shows how deceit and ignorance, intimidation, fear, presumption (intellectual arrogance) and other politically useful tools can cause despair and hijack sanity and wholesome progress. Caring and the resulting due diligence will do wonders. Keep up your good work, all you girfted posters, and have a great future. *