Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 271 to 294 of 294

Thread: the speed of light, is it infinite

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    Nor do I understand the difficulty you seem to have with my point that for a proper refutation of POAMS the PVLAS-type of experiment should be carried out with the source and sink of the signal placed far away from each other and from the region of influence of the magnet. Perhaps I could have put this point more clearly but, unfortunately, I don’t know how!

    Your point was entirely and absolutely clear, you would only accept the PVLAS result if the experiment was on a galactic scale such that there would be no conceivable influence of the magnet on the optics. I don't know how this could ever be achieved, therefore in this sense the PVLAS experiment could never refute POAMS.

    However what I would say is, instead of thinking in such unworkable terms, could the effects you rightly choose to challenge be isolated and quantified? For example, PVLAS have stated that by removing the mirrors in the cavity the observed rotation disappears. (The mirrors form part of a Fabry-Perot optical resonator which makes up the vacuum interaction region.) Removing the mirrors dramatically reduces the sensitivity of the apparatus to measure optical rotation since the resonator depends on the mirrors to function as such. On this basis PVLAS claim that whatever interaction is going on, it is occurring within the vacuum chamber. However, your point regarding a residual magnetic field is valid here because, despite the mirrors being away from the interaction region and the magnet, it is possible that they could still be affected by any residual field. So what I would say to PVLAS is, find out what this residual level is and then correlate this with the known rotation that occurs within a similar dielectric material, since the mirrors themselves are described as a "pair of dielectric, multilayer mirrors".

    If the level of rotation expected within the mirrors can be calculated based upon known dielectric and magnetic properties, then this can be taken into account in assessing the observed results.

    Perhaps PVLAS have done this, I don't know because so far I have found nothing in the papers to suggest that they have, but it doesn't stop anyone, including POAMS, asking them the question.

    I agree that the experiment is couched in standard Physics, and I stated that I would not expect you to comment on such entities as photons, fields etc. The way I suggested to look at the experiment is in terms of a change occurring when a magnetic field is applied to a vacuum with a laser passing through it. You say there is no justification to accept the result because of the impossibility to clearly define and separate residual influences. All I am trying to say is that I think this is too much of a black and white approach to take, it should be possible to go some way towards isolating these influences, based upon accepted experimental evidence outside of the current experiment in the way that I have illustrated. And so on for any other potential anomalies with the experiment.

    I don't know whether the PVLAS experiment would ever refute POAMS, but without properly examining the areas of contention we may never know.

    Just one point regarding the proposal to create a new thread for POAMS. I think care would be needed to keep a focus on the main idea of POAMS, otherwise there would be a real possibility of the thread becoming quite scattered, far more so than has occurred on this thread. If the moderators decided to split the new thread because of this, I feel it would be detrimental to POAMS.
    Last edited by Len Moran; 2007-Jan-15 at 04:56 PM. Reason: spelling

  2. #272
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    [QUOTE=VivPope;904001]
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post

    Viv Pope replies
    These are nice questions. Thanks.

    2. What do I mean by "sequential elements"? Is this, you ask, intended to describe the photon? By sequential elements I mean an observational time-sequence of locally confined movements of entities which do not travel in the same way or at the same speed that is attributed to the wave. I think I am repeating myself, here, but a typical example is the phenomenon of a water wave, whose elements are little circular motions of the water molecules around a central, stationary point. These little rotational motions are nothing like the motion that is ascribed to the wave. If those molecules did travel in the same way and at the same speed as the wave, it would not be a wave but a flood. Perhaps a more vivid example is the so-called ‘Mexican Wave’ which is a slow sequence of arm-movements among members of the crowd in a sports stadium, where the arms, in waving, move in sequence from waver to waver without (obviously) the arms leaving the bodies of the wavers and travelling with the wave around the stadium.
    For an EM wave propagating through a vacuum what are the motions that you refer to? (This notion is not consistent with Maxwellian EM where the oscillation is in terms of electric and magnetic fields.)

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Moran View Post
    If the level of rotation expected within the mirrors can be calculated based upon known dielectric and magnetic properties, then this can be taken into account in assessing the observed results.

    Perhaps PVLAS have done this, I don't know because so far I have found nothing in the papers to suggest that they have, but it doesn't stop anyone, including POAMS, asking them the question.
    I have e-mailed Professor Zavattini of PVLAS requesting information relating to the above. Should I get a reply I will post it in this thread.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom View Post
    I agree that the POAMS thesis deserves a new thread of its own. As a matter of history, this thread was started by "north" and it speculated about what we should observe if a star a million light years away is eclipsed. It was generally agreed that there would be time delay in our observations because of the finite and measurable speed of light. I didn’t join the discussion until after the first fifty posts and the "instant" nature of light that "north" mentioned in the opening page wasn’t expanded upon until some time later. The long and scattered nature of this thread makes it extremely difficult for latecomers to gain a feel for what is being discussed so the questions people were asking were often repeats of topics that had just been covered. We need a fresh and better start.
    Viv Pope replies (to Bob Angstrom and ‘Coldcreation’)
    I take your point about the ‘long and scattered nature of this thread’. I just chanced upon it while it was in full flow. This was in response to a report that I had died. I was surprised and delighted to find Bob’s ‘apologist’s’ account of my thesis regarding the proper-time instantaneity of light, which it seemed to me was ‘right down the middle’. So I felt I should support it, which, of course, I now have – I hope!

    Anyway, apologies to ‘North’ for misidentifying the source of this particular thread. So now, as the ‘new boy on the block’ – whilst being an ‘old boy’ regarding the intricacies of the Internet – I am challenged seriously to consider making a ‘fresh and better start’ in the name of POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis). But just how to go about it is my problem. The Synthesis is now so large that just to dump it as it is on any kind of forum would be like trying to fill a cigarette lighter from a petrol bowser. Also, there is no slogan-like encapsulation of it that can be presented, except of course for this foundational issue of the ‘speed of light’ that ‘North’ has introduced, which is the ‘Jesus pin’ of the whole POAMS departure. Besides, the Synthesis involves academic Maths and Science within the context of academic Philosophy, a subject which our divisive Modern Education has virtually alienated from the training of physicists. My worry, then, is that this mention of the dreaded and unpopular ‘Philosophy’ may create an out-of-sympathy reaction from those just interested in popular science. I wouldn’t want this reaction to compromise the BAUT programme.

    Also, any attempt to separate the various bits of the thesis to fit prepared slots would be to dismember it. For instance, to separate its Physics from its Philosophy would produce a conceptually decapitated and truncated pair of idea-systems which might be of no use to anyone. Besides, switching to and fro between the two relevant threads, the light-issue and POAMS would be like trying to ride two horses at the same time – not impossible, perhaps, but decidedly hazardous. Another problem is that unlike some other subjects, Philosophy is not something that can be speed-read in the manner now considered obligatory for quick assimilation in our modern commerce-driven society. If ‘brevity is the soul of wit’, it is not always conducive towards deep thought.’

    Anyway, with these drawbacks in mind, after some consultation with others I will try to implement this suggestion of starting a POAMS thread, as soon as possible. I am thankful for the suggestion and will be even more thankful for any useful advice. Whether you will be thankful for my compliance in this is another matter!

    PS. Please note that the ‘Tantalising Two-Slit Experiment’ is now accessible at the click of a button in the ‘Seminal Publications’ section of the POAMS website (thanks to ‘Rich-D).

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    [QUOTE=Fortis;904700]
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    For an EM wave propagating through a vacuum what are the motions that you refer to? (This notion is not consistent with Maxwellian EM where the oscillation is in terms of electric and magnetic fields.)
    Viv Pope replies
    Dear 'Fortis'
    My point was that all real waves are of the type I described. The Maxwellian electromagnetic wave is a theoretical (i.e., unreal) wave propagating theoretically as alternate theoretical electric and magnetic fields in vacuo. However, the whole essence of the POAMS ATM is to prove the redundancy of these theoretical conceptions and replace them with more empirical (i.e., more realistic) ones, which it does, rather spectacularly some advocates say. (See the website www.poams.org and, in particular, the books listed on that site.) This subject is something I will address in the forthcoming POAMS thread, if that gets under way.
    Besides, the old EM-wave concept does not explain the results of the two-slit experiment (see previous posting by Rich -D) hence is not consistent with quantum physics and therefore begs replacement in that context.


  6. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Len Moran View Post
    Your point was entirely and absolutely clear, you would only accept the PVLAS result if the experiment was on a galactic scale such that there would be no conceivable influence of the magnet on the optics. I don't know how this could ever be achieved, therefore in this sense the PVLAS experiment could never refute POAMS.

    However what I would say is, instead of thinking in such unworkable terms, could the effects you rightly choose to challenge be isolated and quantified? For example, PVLAS have stated that by removing the mirrors in the cavity the observed rotation disappears. (The mirrors form part of a Fabry-Perot optical resonator which makes up the vacuum interaction region.) Removing the mirrors dramatically reduces the sensitivity of the apparatus to measure optical rotation since the resonator depends on the mirrors to function as such. On this basis PVLAS claim that whatever interaction is going on, it is occurring within the vacuum chamber. However, your point regarding a residual magnetic field is valid here because, despite the mirrors being away from the interaction region and the magnet, it is possible that they could still be affected by any residual field. So what I would say to PVLAS is, find out what this residual level is and then correlate this with the known rotation that occurs within a similar dielectric material, since the mirrors themselves are described as a "pair of dielectric, multilayer mirrors".

    If the level of rotation expected within the mirrors can be calculated based upon known dielectric and magnetic properties, then this can be taken into account in assessing the observed results.

    Perhaps PVLAS have done this, I don't know because so far I have found nothing in the papers to suggest that they have, but it doesn't stop anyone, including POAMS, asking them the question.

    I agree that the experiment is couched in standard Physics, and I stated that I would not expect you to comment on such entities as photons, fields etc. The way I suggested to look at the experiment is in terms of a change occurring when a magnetic field is applied to a vacuum with a laser passing through it. You say there is no justification to accept the result because of the impossibility to clearly define and separate residual influences. All I am trying to say is that I think this is too much of a black and white approach to take, it should be possible to go some way towards isolating these influences, based upon accepted experimental evidence outside of the current experiment in the way that I have illustrated. And so on for any other potential anomalies with the experiment.

    I don't know whether the PVLAS experiment would ever refute POAMS, but without properly examining the areas of contention we may never know.

    Just one point regarding the proposal to create a new thread for POAMS. I think care would be needed to keep a focus on the main idea of POAMS, otherwise there would be a real possibility of the thread becoming quite scattered, far more so than has occurred on this thread. If the moderators decided to split the new thread because of this, I feel it would be detrimental to POAMS.
    Viv Pope replies
    No, Len, you wouldn't need to go to the ends of the cosmos for that experiment. A mile or a even few hundred yards or so would do, just so long as the magnet was far enough away from the source and sink. I imagine, for instance, a shaft of light from a laser – or a star, why not – directed through the centre of a vacuum tube that is enclosed within a supermagnet. If that shaft was then affected in the way you suggest, then that would ensure that the measured effect was on the light not on the source or the sink. In that case, it would be a knockdown of POAMS. But I wouldn't bet on that nor, I'm sure, would any of my POAMS colleagues.

    Thanks for your view on splitting the new thread. That is one of my worries too.
    Last edited by VivPope; 2007-Jan-17 at 06:17 PM.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    [QUOTE=VivPope;905284]
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post

    Viv Pope replies
    Dear 'Fortis'
    My point was that all real waves are of the type I described.

    That is an assertion, but there is no physical principle that states that all waves must involve a physical spatial displacement of something.
    The Maxwellian electromagnetic wave is a theoretical (i.e., unreal) wave propagating theoretically as alternate theoretical electric and magnetic fields in vacuo. However, the whole essence of the POAMS ATM is to prove the redundancy of these theoretical conceptions and replace them with more empirical (i.e., more realistic) ones, which it does, rather spectacularly some advocates say. (See the website www.poams.org and, in particular, the books listed on that site.) This subject is something I will address in the forthcoming POAMS thread, if that gets under way.
    I may be missing something in your reasoning here. In your earlier post explaining why we should junk the mainstream model you said
    2. Any concept of a ‘wave’ whose sequential elements travel at the same speed as the wave (e.g., ‘photons’) is untenable.
    It now appears that you are assuming that all waves propagate through the physical displacement of something. This is clearly an ATM assumption, and hence there appears to be some circularity in your argument (at least as regards point 2) as to why light does not propagate.
    Besides, the old EM-wave concept does not explain the results of the two-slit experiment (see previous posting by Rich -D) hence is not consistent with quantum physics and therefore begs replacement in that context.
    Quite true, (though it does a good job in the classical limit) but QED appears to work fine and its predictions have been verified to an astonishing degree.
    Last edited by Fortis; 2007-Jan-16 at 05:10 PM. Reason: to clarify what I meant by displacement

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    [QUOTE=Fortis;905429]
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    That is an assertion, but there is no physical principle that states that all waves must involve a physical spatial displacement of something.

    I may be missing something in your reasoning here. In your earlier post explaining why we should junk the mainstream model you said

    It now appears that you are assuming that all waves propagate through the physical displacement of something. This is clearly an ATM assumption, and hence there appears to be some circularity in your argument (at least as regards point 2) as to why light does not propagate.

    Quite true, (though it does a good job in the classical limit) but QED appears to work fine and its predictions have been verified to an astonishing degree.
    Viv Pope replies:
    Dear Fortis
    You say ‘there is no physical principle stating that all waves must involve a physical spatial displacement of something’. Can you give just one example of a real wave that does not involve a 'physical spatial displacement of something'?

    Also, can you give an example of a real wave whose motion-elements travel at the same speed as the wave?

    Can you explain, in strict formal-logic terms, how my ‘ATM assumption appears to be circular' in my argument re. point 2, as to why light does not propagate?

    You say ‘QED appears to work fine and its predictions have been verified to an astonishing degree.’ But so does POAMS, see ‘The Tantalizing Two-Slit Experiment’ (ref. Rich-D’s posting about that). Can I ask you nicely: Which side are you on, the ATM, or the FTM (For The Mainstream) as your comments seem to suggest.
    Last edited by VivPope; 2007-Jan-17 at 06:19 PM.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    [QUOTE=VivPope;906378]
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post

    Viv Pope replies:
    Dear Fortis
    You say ‘there is no physical principle stating that all waves must involve a physical spatial displacement of something’. Can you give just one example of a real wave that does not involve a 'physical spatial displacement of something'?
    I would say an EM wave, something nice and classical like an RF one, but I imagine that you would disallow that one.

    Can you demonstrate that all waves must involve a physical displacement?
    Also, can you give an example of a real wave whose motion-elements travel at the same speed as the wave?
    No, but that isn't a problem as the EM wave in a vacuum (if it exists) is not considered to have "motion-elements".
    Can you explain, in strict formal-logic terms, how my ‘ATM assumption appears to be circular' in my argument re. point 2, as to why light does not propagate?
    Thinking about it, it isn't strictly circular. However, you start off with the assumption that all "real" waves involve spatial displacements. You then reason (not unreasonably ) that a wave made up of physical displacements cannot propagate faster than the speed of the "motion-elements". If we apply this to light then the motion-elements must move at speeds in excess of c, which makes no sense. Therefore light, whatever it may be, is not a "real" wave. What isn't explicit is that the initial assumption is an ATM one, and hence the ATM conclusion is a result of using an ATM assumption.
    You say ‘QED appears to work fine and its predictions have been verified to an astonishing degree.’ But so does POAMS, see ‘The Tantalizing Two-Slit Experiment’ (ref. Rich-D’s posting about that). Can I ask you nicely: Which side are you on, the ATM, or the FTM (For The Mainstream) as your comments seem to suggest.
    I'm usually an FTM kind of a guy. Not to say that I would rule out POAMS. Just that I would want a very good reason to drop a model that worked extremely well.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    [QUOTE=Fortis;906538]
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    I would say an EM wave, something nice and classical like an RF one, but I imagine that you would disallow that one.

    Can you demonstrate that all waves must involve a physical displacement?

    No, but that isn't a problem as the EM wave in a vacuum (if it exists) is not considered to have "motion-elements".

    Thinking about it, it isn't strictly circular. However, you start off with the assumption that all "real" waves involve spatial displacements. You then reason (not unreasonably ) that a wave made up of physical displacements cannot propagate faster than the speed of the "motion-elements". If we apply this to light then the motion-elements must move at speeds in excess of c, which makes no sense. Therefore light, whatever it may be, is not a "real" wave. What isn't explicit is that the initial assumption is an ATM one, and hence the ATM conclusion is a result of using an ATM assumption.

    I'm usually an FTM kind of a guy. Not to say that I would rule out POAMS. Just that I would want a very good reason to drop a model that worked extremely well.
    Viv Pope replies
    Thanks, again, for these very stimulating responses.

    First, you say: ‘An EM wave is ‘something nice and classical like an RF one, but I imagine that you would disallow that one’. My answer is, yes, because that ‘RF one’ is not a real wave in the stipulated sense but is purely theoretical.

    Next, you ask me whether I can demonstrate that all waves must involve a physical displacement. Again, the answer is, yes, by default. Since there are no samples that can be pointed out of real waves that do not involve a physical displacement, then that is sufficient affirmation, surely, of the initial ATM proposition.

    You say that ‘the EM wave in a vacuum (if it exists) is not considered to have "motion-elements".’ Well, yes. If it is true that all real waves have (localised) motion elements, then, logically, anything that does not have motion elements (such as your postulated ‘EM wave’) is not a real wave. Point made!

    Yes, I do ‘start off with the assumption that all "real" waves involve spatial displacements’. However, I do not reason that ‘a wave made up of physical displacements cannot propagate faster than the speed of the "motion-elements".’ The speed of propagation of a wave depends, not on the speed of its motion elements but on the character of the medium. For instance, the speed at which you shake the end of a rope may be much greater than the speed of the wave along it, which depends on the tightness or slackness of the rope. In short, the speed of the wave is independent of the speed of the wave elements.

    As for the speed of the wave-elements of a light-wave being faster than c, it has to be recalled that in POAMS, c (in vacuo) is not a speed; nor is it a wave in any sense, so there is no sensible question of whether anything can go faster than it. This is the central point that POAMS makes, namely that what is c in relative time is instantaneous in proper time. Leave that out of the equation and of course you get nonsense.

    Yes, my argument is, as you say, ‘that light, whatever it may be, is not a "real" wave’. That ATM assumption is perfectly explicit. The result of using that ATM assumption to assert that same ATM assumption is not a ‘circular argument’ but a pure tautology. So, the correct ‘result’ of using that ATM assumption is the whole implicational structure of POAMS which follows logically from that plain and simple proposition.

    So I was right, then, that, as you say, you are 'an FTM kind of a guy'. But I’m glad you would not rule out POAMS just summarily. However, you say you ‘would want a very good reason to drop a model that worked extremely well’. But, surely, it’s no use having a slum of models that all ‘work equally well’! The big trick in science is to determine which of those models works best, and how else can this be done other than by logical elimination (called scientific dialectic). To make a fair assessment, then, as to whether your FTM QED model or the POAMS ATM model is the better for the progress of physics, you would have to familiarise yourself with both to the same extent. You surely wouldn’t want to be like the lady who said: ‘Why travel in planes and spaceships when God gives us trains to travel in’!
    Last edited by VivPope; 2007-Jan-18 at 02:57 PM. Reason: to add a 'smiley' (usuccessful)

  11. #281
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    First, you say: ‘An EM wave is ‘something nice and classical like an RF one, but I imagine that you would disallow that one’. My answer is, yes, because that ‘RF one’ is not a real wave in the stipulated sense but is purely theoretical.
    I'll get back to the rest of the post later (as I'm in the process of recovering from a nasty cold with residual sinusitis... )

    Anyway, what do you mean by the term "real wave" and a "theoretical wave"? I feel that I may be missing some specific bit of POAMS nomenclature here.
    Last edited by Fortis; 2007-Jan-18 at 03:06 PM. Reason: to fix the quote tags

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,094
    We are unable to travel at the speed of light so how do we know ? Light travels at different speeds within a vacum, gas, atmoshere, so how can you be sure that a source of light is relative to our calculations ? Who's to say say that were wrong or right ? What ever light source reaches us, who's to say for certainty what it has past through to get to us ?

    Can you honestly say that you know ?

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    I'll get back to the rest of the post later (as I'm in the process of recovering from a nasty cold with residual sinusitis... )

    Anyway, what do you mean by the term "real wave" and a "theoretical wave"? I feel that I may be missing some specific bit of POAMS nomenclature here.

    Viv Pope replies
    Dear Fortis,
    Don't you geat a sense of dejá vu, here? We did this already!

    Sorry about your cold.

    Best wishes,
    Vivpope

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Clayden View Post
    We are unable to travel at the speed of light so how do we know ? Light travels at different speeds within a vacum, gas, atmoshere, so how can you be sure that a source of light is relative to our calculations ? Who's to say say that were wrong or right ? What ever light source reaches us, who's to say for certainty what it has past through to get to us ?

    Can you honestly say that you know ?
    Viv Pope replies
    You are asking how we can know for certain, when the light reaches us, what it has passed through to get to us. The short answer is that we don’t. We simply have no idea of what happens to light en route in the vacuum from source to sink. But that is precisely the point POAMS makes. Some say that what happens to light in the vacuum, although it cannot be known to us, is known to God. Our POAMS paraphrase of that is: What light does in the vacuum, God knows!

    This has already been spelled out in these postings. Doesn’t anyone read these before making these naive 'shoot from the hip' comments?

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldcreation View Post
    Viv Pope, you should check with a moderator, but I'm sure all of the relevant posts in this thread could be moved to your new thread.

    I have not engaged in anymore questions, you may have noticed, for fear of deviating from the original OP.

    I look forward to the discussion of your interesting views, there, whenever you're ready.

    CC
    [B]Viv Pope replies[/B
    Notice of a new POAMS thread for BAUT

    The New World Synthesis of Viv Pope et al.
    Post 1
    This new ATM thread for the BAUT (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today) forum is a spin-off from an earlier thread started by a senior member of the group writing under the pseudonym ‘North’. The reason for this spin-off is what became, as Bob Angstrom described it, ‘the long and scattered nature’ of that thread. That thread was entitled ‘The speed of light is infinite’, and what happened was that it became impossible to contain that issue within the narrow channel of simple, almost coin-tossing yea’s and nay’s in answer to the question. Eventually, the full implicational structure of the positive answer to that question began to emerge. This was mainly in the name of POAMS (the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis) as described on the website www.poams.org. POAMS is the acronym of a group of heretical academics from departments of Philosophy, Maths, Physics and Electronic Engineering, who have published books on the subject of ‘Instantaneous Action at a Distance’ (IAAAD). This overflow of the subject from its original narrow channel into the philosophical floodplain introduces a whole new paradigm of modern physics which includes maths, relativity, quantum theory, gravitation theory, electronic theory, etc. within the context of a neo-Machian science-philosophy called Normal Realism (for a full description of this type this title on Google Search. (Go on, guys, it won't eat you! )
    ]

  16. #286
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    [FONT="Times New Roman"]
    Viv Pope replies
    Dear Fortis,
    Don't you geat a sense of dejá vu, here? We did this already!
    I didn't think we had. Going back over the posts, the best that I could find was
    "The Maxwellian electromagnetic wave is a theoretical (i.e., unreal) wave propagating theoretically as alternate theoretical electric and magnetic fields in vacuo. However, the whole essence of the POAMS ATM is to prove the redundancy of these theoretical conceptions and replace them with more empirical (i.e., more realistic) ones, which it does, rather spectacularly some advocates say."
    (My bold.)

    So for you "theoretical" is the opposite of "real", but I cannot determine what you mean by the word "real" in this case. After all, we can measure the EM field tensor at a point in space, which would make it look pretty real to me.
    Sorry about your cold.

    Best wishes,
    Vivpope
    Thanks. Also all the best.

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Going back over the posts, the best that I could find was for you "theoretical" is the opposite of "real", but I cannot determine what you mean by the word "real" in this case. After all, we can measure the EM field tensor at a point in space, which would make it look pretty real to me.
    Hope you don't mind me adding a comment here Fortis. The EM wave is real when you detect it, you can resolve an electric field and a magnetic field, and you can observe it as a wave on an Oscilloscope if you wish, (RF I mean here obviously). You can transmitt an EM signal as a wave, you can look at the carrier before you feed it into a dipole. But what POAMS says is that those observations are macroscopic at the source and sink (wherever you decide to place a sink (i.e. detector). Between these points however, there is no travelling electric and magnetic wave, it is just our convenient representation based upon what we see as a macroscopic source and sink. POAMS asserts that what happens in between is a microscopic interaction of instantaneous quantum events. Each single event is irreducable and contains no information about the source and sink. Collectively however, the quanta project statistically the magnetic and electric wave that can be seen at a detector and source.

    So when you ask what is the "real" wave, it is only macroscopically real at the source and detector. In between, it is purely a theoretical artifact that serves as a useful model, nothing more. There is no real wave in vacuum.

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    I didn't think we had. Going back over the posts, the best that I could find was
    "The Maxwellian electromagnetic wave is a theoretical (i.e., unreal) wave propagating theoretically as alternate theoretical electric and magnetic fields in vacuo. However, the whole essence of the POAMS ATM is to prove the redundancy of these theoretical conceptions and replace them with more empirical (i.e., more realistic) ones, which it does, rather spectacularly some advocates say."
    (My bold.)

    So for you "theoretical" is the opposite of "real", but I cannot determine what you mean by the word "real" in this case. After all, we can measure the EM field tensor at a point in space, which would make it look pretty real to me.

    Thanks. Also all the best.
    Viv Pope replies:
    Okay, so what I mean by real is in accordance with the philosophy of Normal Realism, which is the basis of the POAMS approach to Modern Physics. If you key-in ‘Normal Realism’ on Google Search, you will see what I mean.

    Briefly, according to Normal Realism, ‘real’ means anything that can be actually observed, either in sensation or instrumentation, couched in ordinary commonsense language, as opposed to the ususl scientific jargon. According to that criterion, a sound wave is real, a water-wave is real, a gust of wind through a cornfield, or felt on the cheek … all these things are real because the elements of the wave (the up and down movements of floating objects in water, the swaying of the corn in the field, etc., etc.) are ordinarily observable and describable. These are all real because we can observe those elements of the wave that give it the motion, and we can observe or detect the medium through which it travels, as well as the process of its propagation. By this criterion, a wave which is without a detectable medium (i.e., in vacuo) cannot be real. No-one knows or can ever know what happens to light in a vacuum. As Len Moran and I discussed it (see previous posts), anything you place between a source and a receiver to detect the alleged ‘wave’, such as your RF receiver, say,) is a medium, and whatever happens in vacuo between the source and that mediator is absolutely inscrutable. And if you fill those intermediate spaces with detectors, then that space is no longer a vacuum but a (continuous) medium.

    So there's no getting away from it: the existence of a wave in vacuo is impossible to ascertain, either practically or logically. So, according to the radical empiricism agenda of POAMS, an ‘EM’ wave’ in vacuo does not exist. Nor, in POAMS. need it exist, since the consequences of dispensing with it altogether are so eminently non-trivial.

    Please note that these POAMS consequences are now explained on the new ATM thread mentioned in my previous e-mail.

    I hope that helps.

    PS,
    I have just now spotted Len Moran’s interjection: ‘So when you ask what is the "real" wave, it is only macroscopically real at the source and detector. In between, it is purely a theoretical artifact that serves as a useful model, nothing more. There is no real wave in vacuum.'
    That is exactly right, Len. It’s just that in POAMS that ‘purely theoretical artefact’ is not only logically unnecessary, it is also a gross over-interpretation of the empirical facts, as anyone who fully understands POAMS knows. (Plese note the new ATM thread; ‘The New World Synthesis’ , which explains this.)

  19. #289
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    N. V. (Viv) Pope at the PIRT (the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory) conference, August 2006.

    Light Travelling in vacuo is a Myth

    Ten logical arguments to prove that the constant c is not a velocity

    1. The undeniable fact that c has the dimensions of distance divided by time explains all that is known about the times taken for communications over distance. But the fact that all velocities are distances divided by time by no means entails that all distances divided by time are velocities, which would be as absurd as saying that because all bachelors are men, all men are bachelors.
    2. Herman Bondi says: ‘Any attempt to measure the velocity of light is…not an attempt at measuring the velocity of light but an attempt at ascertaining the length of the standard metre in Paris in terms of time-units.’ Also, it has been proved that all the practical consequences of Einstein’s Theory, both Special and General, can be deduced much more simply by adopting Bondi’s interpretation of c as a pure ‘conversion factor’ for interconverting measures in metres into time-measures in seconds.
    3. For light to be seen, photographed or detected in any possible way, it has to shine on something. In a vacuum there is, by definition, nothing on which it can shine. So, logically, light cannot be seen, photographed or in any other way be detected in the vacuum of space, which signifies a reduction to absurdity of experiments claiming to have photographed ‘light travelling in vacuo’.
    4. To be seen or otherwise detected travelling in a vacuum, light would have to give off light. And that secondary light would have to give off light; and that tertiary light would also have to give off light … and so on, ad infinitum, in a logical regress to absurdity.
    5. If c is interpreted as a ‘velocity in the vacuum of space’ (as Einstein’s Second Postulate states), then in a vacuum to what can that ’velocity’ possibly be referred, constant or otherwise? So the concept of light as having a ‘velocity in space’ is just another absurdity.
    6. Light is quantised in units of Planck’s constant h. These quanta have been interpreted as ‘flying photons’, claimed to have been photographed ‘in flight’ by Nils Abramson. However, since the ‘photon’ is defined as a single, irreducible light-quantum, it has no energy to spare in manifesting itself anywhere between its point of emission and point of absorption. A quantum interaction between a pair of atoms therefore has to be instantly consummated, with there being no sensible question either as to where it is or what it does between its source and sink. There are simply no parameters to describe that ‘motion’. Any attempt to photograph or otherwise detect it absorbs its whole packet of energy at that point, so that there can be no question of how it exists or travels when undetected, that is, in vacuo.
    7. In order to conform to the law of conservation of energy, the alleged ‘photon’ cannot just hang around unconsummated in limbo, waiting to be absorbed. As Tom Phipps (Jr.) put it, ‘the ‘photon’ sure don’t have a holding pattern!’ So, what is a ‘photon’ when it is supposed to be travelling, say, between galaxies or, as it might be, en route to nowhere? The whole concept is meaningless.
    8. Can light be scattered by light, as some experimenters have claimed? If a powerful laser-beam is shone across the path of another, do their ‘photons’ collide or their ‘waves’ interfere? In a simple experiment devised and carried out at Brunel university, in 1980, two powerful lasers were beamed across each other’s paths and also shone head-on at each other. No blocking or interference whatever was detected. If any such interference were to take place, then that light would suffer dispersion. Considering the amount of light that is allegedly ‘criss-crossing’ around, it would be amazing if visual acuity were possible over the length of a single metre. All the light that is allegedly shooting around in all directions would present as much a barrier to vision as the densest fog that can be imagined. The fact, then, that there are photographs of the farthest galaxies that display awesome clarity negates the validity of any such experimentalist claim.
    9. All velocities, properly so called, obey the rule of the composition of velocities, according to which the velocity of an object is different relative to differently moving observers. But c is, eminently, the same for all relatively moving observers, as Einstein’s Relativity requires and as experiment confirms. Therefore, logically, c cannot be a velocity.
    10. For a velocity to be a velocity it has to be the velocity of something that is physically identifiable. In physics both ancient and modern, there is nothing that can be physically identified as light travelling in vacuo, especially in view of Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle, which makes the ‘track’ of an alleged ‘photon’ absolutely indeterminate. If we think of what ‘travels in vacuo’ as ‘waves’, then what can possibly ‘wave’ in a vacuum? And if we think of what ‘travels’ as ‘photons’, then if those ‘photons’ travel at the ‘speed of light’, then their mass has to be relativistically infinite at that ‘speed’. The mass of a single photon would be as great as that of the whole universe. To escape this consequence by assuming that the ‘stationary mass’ of the photon is zero – as some physicists have claimed – then how can that ‘zero mass’ be conceived as a ‘particle’? And, anyway, when is a photon ever regarded as stationary, since its alleged ‘velocity’ is c in all observational frames, bar none? QED

    See websites www.poams.org www.vivpope.co.uk www.nrig.org www.vivpope.org .

  20. #290
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,135
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    Viv Pope replies:
    Okay, so what I mean by real is in accordance with the philosophy of Normal Realism, which is the basis of the POAMS approach to Modern Physics. If you key-in ‘Normal Realism’ on Google Search, you will see what I mean.

    Briefly, according to Normal Realism, ‘real’ means anything that can be actually observed, either in sensation or instrumentation, couched in ordinary commonsense language, as opposed to the ususl scientific jargon. According to that criterion, a sound wave is real, a water-wave is real, a gust of wind through a cornfield, or felt on the cheek … all these things are real because the elements of the wave (the up and down movements of floating objects in water, the swaying of the corn in the field, etc., etc.) are ordinarily observable and describable. These are all real because we can observe those elements of the wave that give it the motion, and we can observe or detect the medium through which it travels, as well as the process of its propagation. By this criterion, a wave which is without a detectable medium (i.e., in vacuo) cannot be real. No-one knows or can ever know what happens to light in a vacuum. As Len Moran and I discussed it (see previous posts), anything you place between a source and a receiver to detect the alleged ‘wave’, such as your RF receiver, say,) is a medium, and whatever happens in vacuo between the source and that mediator is absolutely inscrutable. And if you fill those intermediate spaces with detectors, then that space is no longer a vacuum but a (continuous) medium.

    So there's no getting away from it: the existence of a wave in vacuo is impossible to ascertain, either practically or logically. So, according to the radical empiricism agenda of POAMS, an ‘EM’ wave’ in vacuo does not exist. Nor, in POAMS. need it exist, since the consequences of dispensing with it altogether are so eminently non-trivial.

    Please note that these POAMS consequences are now explained on the new ATM thread mentioned in my previous e-mail.

    I hope that helps.

    PS,
    I have just now spotted Len Moran’s interjection: ‘So when you ask what is the "real" wave, it is only macroscopically real at the source and detector. In between, it is purely a theoretical artifact that serves as a useful model, nothing more. There is no real wave in vacuum.'
    That is exactly right, Len. It’s just that in POAMS that ‘purely theoretical artefact’ is not only logically unnecessary, it is also a gross over-interpretation of the empirical facts, as anyone who fully understands POAMS knows. (Plese note the new ATM thread; ‘The New World Synthesis’ , which explains this.)
    I'll continue the discussion on the POAMS thread, but I'd just like to ask if you also consider the neutrino or electron to be real?

  21. #291
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    I'll continue the discussion on the POAMS thread, but I'd just like to ask if you also consider the neutrino or electron to be real?

    Viv Pope replies:
    Good question, Fortis!

    Now I wonder if you can follow my drift here. Suppose one were to ask whether a centaur is real. What would be the answer to that? As I understand it, when the ancient Greeks saw the Scythian warriors mounted on horseback this was a new phenomenon for them. Thinking that man and horse was a single entity, they had to identify it in some way. This they did with the word ‘centaur’, which they thought of as a creature half man and half horse.

    Was that creature real? Well, something was there, all too real and substantial for the Greeks at that time. But was it really a centaur? Looking back on it, the answer now would have to be no. What was really there, we would now say, was a man mounted on a horse.

    So now to the question of whether an electron is real. Again, something is really there. But is it really an electron? POAMS says no. What is really there, so far as POAMS is concerned, is something that manifests itself in interactions as a mass, of 9.109 × 10^-31 kilogram. This is like the ‘horse’ part of the ‘centaur’, and the ‘charge’ (1.602 × 10^-19 coulomb) classically associated with it is like the rider, whose resence on the horse is no more than incidental.

    The question, then, of what is real in this case has to be answered by distinguishing the ‘charge’ from the 'mass' of the so-called ‘electron’ and then deciding what to call those separate quantities. In POAMS the mass is the primary reality and the charge not only incidental but entirely illusory – the charge in coulombs being cashed-out instead as a spin kinetic energy in joules, as ascribed by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck. So, what is real in the POAMS formalism, is not the classical ‘electron’, which is like the mythical ‘centaur’, but simply a mass with spin in an orbital angular momentum equation. In every respect the vector orientations of the angular momenta apply to these spinning masses in the same way that Fleming’s rules apply in classical
    ‘electrodynamics’. In this sense, POAMS is more realistic in its interpretations of physical phenomena than is conventional physics with its over-elaborated, hence uneconomical or redundant concepts of 'photons', 'electrons', neutrinos', ‘tachyons’ and the like.

    Perhaps this gives some clue, then, as to what POAMS is about. So far as we are concerned there are a number of conventional physics concepts that fail this test of linguistic/logical analysis, hence are conserved only at the cost of causing confusion.

    Thanks for your question which gives me the opportunity of clarifying, for this ATM thread, the particular way in which POAMS swims against the mainstream

  22. #292
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by VivPope View Post
    The question, then, of what is real in this case has to be answered by distinguishing the ‘charge’ from the 'mass' of the so-called ‘electron’ and then deciding what to call those separate quantities. In POAMS the mass is the primary reality and the charge not only incidental but entirely illusory – the charge in coulombs being cashed-out instead as a spin kinetic energy in joules, as ascribed by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck.
    but how does this explain an arc between two bodies and the light given off? static electricity, by friction.

  23. #293
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4
    I know this may be a bit off the wall, but something to consider is that in space there are many crazy, hypothetical things going on that may alter the time it takes for light to reach us, such as this:

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormholes

    Wormholes and faster-than-light travel

    In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is essentially a "shortcut" through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat. If the wormhole is traversable, matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat. While there is no observational evidence for wormholes, spacetimes containing wormholes are known to be valid solutions in general relativity.

    Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. You can walk slowly while reaching your destination more quickly because the length of your path is shorter.

    Just a thought

  24. #294
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by north View Post
    but how does this explain an arc between two bodies and the light given off? static electricity, by friction.
    Viv Pope replies:
    The answer is, by ionisation in the ordinary way, except that the language used to describe (and conceive) it is different (see ‘The POAMS Methodology on the New ATM POAMS thread). The masses that are separated in this process are not ‘electrons’ and ‘protons’ possessed of a mysterious static something called ‘charge’. They are simply plain mass particles with dynamic spin angular momentum. This gets rid of the hidden static, attractive and repulsive vacuum field-forces and puts that spin angular momentum in its place. The formula for the overall angular momentum of the paired particles then explains those attractions an repulsions simply in terms of the amounts and orientations of the angular momenta of the respective particles.
    Here is an extract from the POAMS book The Eye of the Beholder (op.cit.), pp. 16-18, which may help everyone here:

    Why, then, did Newton’s apple fall to earth in the way it did? It was because it did not have sufficient angular momentum to orbit the earth in the way the moon and other satellites do. Take away the moon’s angular momentum with respect to the earth and the two bodies would automatically collapse together. This would not be by some invisible ‘force of gravitational attraction’, as our traditional textbooks describe it, but simply by a loss of the angular momentum which normally keeps bodies apart. By that same token, Newton’s apple fell because with the angular momentum it possessed due to the earth’s rotation at Woolsthorpe, its natural force-free orbit would have been 289/290ths of the distance from the ground under his feet to the earth’s centre.[10] The only force it makes sense to speak of, therefore, is not the traditional invisible ‘force’ acting in vacuo but the real, sensible and measurable force that is exerted by whatever it is that prevents the object from orbiting freely. In the
    case of Newton’s apple this restraining object was the twig on which the apple hung before falling.

    None of this conflicts with what, in commonsense contexts, we feel as the force that makes us fall and which we measure on a weighing-scale or weighbridge as the ‘force of gravity’. What it dispenses with is the theoretical notion of a ‘gravitational field’ surrounding all bits of matter and pervading space. Indeed, it makes redundant all the other sorts of ‘field’ conceptions such as ‘electric fields’, ‘magnetic fields’ and so on, which have been constructed on the same theoretical (Newtonian) lines. For instance, converting the so-called ‘charge’ on an electron, in units of coulombs (1,602 x 10^-19 C) into a mechanical spin kinetic energy in joules (2.18 x 10^-18 J), and taking the electron’s mass (9.109 x 10^-31 kg) as no more than just a pure mass, gives an angular momentum figure for that mass, of mvr = h/2(=1.054 x 10^-34 kg m^2/s). These are precisely the parameters which Niels Bohr deduced for the electron in the hydrogen atom on the basis of classical ‘electrodynamical’ theory. In any event, the measurable force required to remove the ‘electron’ from its lowest, or ground-level orbit around the nucleus would be in the immensely larger order of 10^39 times the force required for a pair of non-spinning masses equivalent to those of the so-called ‘electron’ and ‘proton’. For these much tighter orbits the ‘gravitational constant’, which is normally 6.726 x 10^-11 Nm^3/kg s for macrophysical bodies in ordinary astronomical and engineering situations, is hugely increased to 1.5 x 10^29 m3/kg s for these particles with their far greater proportion of spin to orbital angular momentum. This is much more than would be possible for macrophysical bodies. Such macroscopic bodies would disintegrate long before such spin energies could be reached, which is why, at the macrolevel, these spin-effects cannot normally be detected. In this way, by eplacing ‘gravity’ with angular momentum, the notorious problem of seeking the ‘unified field’ is solved automatically. This is by getting rid of these ‘field’ concepts altogether, along with all the theoretical paraphernalia that goes with them. Nor are these logical consequences to be judged trivial, or ‘merely academic’. On the basis of this angular momentum synthesis it is predicted that a steel ball, of mass 2.5 kg and radius 5 cm, rotating at 2000 revolutions per second (it is just possible to spin such a ball at such a speed without disintegration) would increase or decrease in weight by one hundredth of a gram, depending on the direction of its spin with regard to that of the earth .
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [7] For spinning bodies G varies in the manner described in ‘An Angular
    Momentum Synthesis of “Gravitational” and “Electrostatic” Forces’, A.D.
    Osborne and N.V. Pope, Galilean Electrodynamics, 14, Special Issue 1, Spring,2003, pp.9-19; see also Seminal Publications, www.poams.org

    8 This equation is for simple circular motion. For elliptical orbits and orbits in
    general, see FN above.


    I hope this helps to answer your question.

Similar Threads

  1. Infinite Universe = Infinite Speed?
    By kenianbei in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-02, 03:03 AM
  2. What is the wavelength of light as it receeds near the speed of light?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-23, 08:31 PM
  3. Speed of Light, Speed of Source Question
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-17, 06:29 PM
  4. Can there be a speed faster than the speed of light???
    By someguy44 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-14, 12:43 AM
  5. Infinite Light?
    By ChromeStar in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-May-01, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •