| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2004 10:59:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
mobydikc@gmail.com wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Err, *both* theories say that *observable* photons travel only at
c.
So, where is the problem?
Can you provide a cite that supports "QED says observable photons
only
travel at c"?
No, not at once. Can *you* provide a cite that supports "QED says
observable photons don't travel always at c"? Remember, *you* made a
claim first. It is *your* responsibility to support it.
From Feynman:
<quote>
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at
speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes
for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution
from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long
distances. However, when the distances are short...these other
posibilities become vitally important and must be considered.
</quote>
He doesn't make the distinction here between real or virtual, which is
why I asked if you had something else to look at.
Science is the culture of doubt, some would say, where these type
of
oddities are viewed as clutter in need of some tidying up. If you
turn
your back on these hints in our theory, and using ad-hoc excuses
manage
to pretend that everything is just peachy, you're not helping the
culture of doubt.
Hint: there are no such hints in the theories.
Wow. Ok, dude.
In the face of a kludge, not only do you deny that a better solution
may be worth pursuing, you deny that we may find clues to the
inadequacies of our conjectured knowledge in conjectured knowledge.
I do hope that you are merely disagreeing with everything I say because
you don't like me. The alternative would be that you actually believe
some of what you say.
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
05 Sep 2004 10:09:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Err, *both* theories say that *observable* photons travel only at
c.
So, where is the problem?
Can you provide a cite that supports "QED says observable photons
only
travel at c"?
No, not at once. Can *you* provide a cite that supports "QED says
observable photons don't travel always at c"? Remember, *you* made a
claim first. It is *your* responsibility to support it.
From Feynman:
<quote>
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at
speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes
for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution
from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long
distances. However, when the distances are short...these other
posibilities become vitally important and must be considered.
</quote>
He doesn't make the distinction here between real or virtual, which is
why I asked if you had something else to look at.
He does not make this distinction because for anyone who reads this
and knows what he is talking about, it is clear that he *means*
virtual photons!
Tell me, if Feynman *really* thought that *real* photons are able
to travel at speeds > c - then why did he not immediately see that this
contradicts SR?
Science is the culture of doubt, some would say, where these type
of
oddities are viewed as clutter in need of some tidying up. If you
turn
your back on these hints in our theory, and using ad-hoc excuses
manage
to pretend that everything is just peachy, you're not helping the
culture of doubt.
Hint: there are no such hints in the theories.
Wow. Ok, dude.
In the face of a kludge,
There is no kludge here. Only your misunderstandings.
not only do you deny that a better solution
may be worth pursuing, you deny that we may find clues to the
inadequacies of our conjectured knowledge in conjectured knowledge.
There are no inadequacies here. Only your misunderstandings.
I do hope that you are merely disagreeing with everything I say because
you don't like me. The alternative would be that you actually believe
some of what you say.
Well, indeed I believe in what I say. The scary thing is that apparently
*you* *also* believe in the nonsense you spout.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
05 Sep 2004 05:22:55 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chfa7c$bla$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
mobydikc@gmail.com wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
No, not at once. Can *you* provide a cite that supports "QED says
observable photons don't travel always at c"? Remember, *you* made a
claim first. It is *your* responsibility to support it.
From Feynman:
<quote>
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at
speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes
for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution
from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long
distances. However, when the distances are short...these other
posibilities become vitally important and must be considered.
</quote>
He doesn't make the distinction here between real or virtual, which is
why I asked if you had something else to look at.
He does not make this distinction because for anyone who reads this
and knows what he is talking about, it is clear that he *means*
virtual photons!
So would you mind providing a cite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
06 Sep 2004 03:14:43 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chfa7c$bla$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
mobydikc@gmail.com wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
No, not at once. Can *you* provide a cite that supports "QED says
observable photons don't travel always at c"? Remember, *you* made a
claim first. It is *your* responsibility to support it.
From Feynman:
<quote>
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at
speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes
for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution
from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long
distances. However, when the distances are short...these other
posibilities become vitally important and must be considered.
</quote>
He doesn't make the distinction here between real or virtual, which is
why I asked if you had something else to look at.
He does not make this distinction because for anyone who reads this
and knows what he is talking about, it is clear that he *means*
virtual photons!
So would you mind providing a cite?
No one bothers to state the obvious. Open a textbook on Quantum
Electrodynamics and look at the equations for yourself.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
07 Sep 2004 10:20:22 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chh69j$p7l$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Mike Helland wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chfa7c$bla$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
mobydikc@gmail.com wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
No, not at once. Can *you* provide a cite that supports "QED says
observable photons don't travel always at c"? Remember, *you* made a
claim first. It is *your* responsibility to support it.
From Feynman:
<quote>
It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at
speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. The amplitudes
for these possibilities are very small compared to the contribution
from speed c; in fact, they cancel out when light travels over long
distances. However, when the distances are short...these other
posibilities become vitally important and must be considered.
</quote>
He doesn't make the distinction here between real or virtual, which is
why I asked if you had something else to look at.
He does not make this distinction because for anyone who reads this
and knows what he is talking about, it is clear that he *means*
virtual photons!
So would you mind providing a cite?
No one bothers to state the obvious. Open a textbook on Quantum
Electrodynamics and look at the equations for yourself.
In QED virtual photons are the photons that don't appear in the inital
or final states of the system. They are these things that are never
observed but we need to factor in their role to get the right results
out of the theory.
To get the right results you also need to take into consideration that
photons may move slower or faster than c.
This applies to all photons as far as I know.
Quantum electrodynamics and special relativity do have an
incompatibility. SR says the speed of light is constant. QED says
thats not true.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/music/
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
08 Sep 2004 02:51:56 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
[snip]
In QED virtual photons are the photons that don't appear in the inital
or final states of the system.
It's right that they do not appear in the initial or final states - but
that is not the *definition* of "virtual photon".
They are these things that are never
observed but we need to factor in their role to get the right results
out of the theory.
Right.
To get the right results you also need to take into consideration that
photons may move slower or faster than c.
We merely need to take into consideration that the magnitude of their
four-momentum has not to be zero. If one considers that to mean that
they move at another velocity than c, or that they have a rest mass,
is interpretation.
This applies to all photons as far as I know.
Well, what is the basis for thsi knowledge of yours?
Quantum electrodynamics and special relativity do have an
incompatibility. SR says the speed of light is constant. QED says
thats not true.
*sigh* Wrong.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
13 Sep 2004 04:07:19 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chmdmr$ok2$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
To get the right results you also need to take into consideration that
photons may move slower or faster than c.
We merely need to take into consideration that the magnitude of their
four-momentum has not to be zero. If one considers that to mean that
they move at another velocity than c, or that they have a rest mass,
is interpretation.
This applies to all photons as far as I know.
Well, what is the basis for thsi knowledge of yours?
Books by Feynman.
I asked for clarification in sci.physics.research. So far, no one
backed up your position that only virtual photons travel at speed
differently than c.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Hans.de.Vries.1cds07%40physicsforums.com
Quantum electrodynamics and special relativity do have an
incompatibility. SR says the speed of light is constant. QED says
thats not true.
*sigh* Wrong.
Then cite Feynman clarifying his arguments.
I said QED claims the speed of light may be different than c.
You said I was wrong, and I asked for you to support that with a cite.
Instead, you challenged me to provide the cite. So I quoted Feynman.
Yet you are refusing to believe that QED contradicts the basic
postulates of relativity.
You have two options: provide a cite that supports your position OR
change your position.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Carroll on general relativity, poll questions |
13 Sep 2004 05:15:53 PM |
|
|
On 13 Sep 2004 14:07:19 -0700, (Mike Helland)
wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chmdmr$ok2$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
To get the right results you also need to take into consideration that
photons may move slower or faster than c.
We merely need to take into consideration that the magnitude of their
four-momentum has not to be zero. If one considers that to mean that
they move at another velocity than c, or that they have a rest mass,
is interpretation.
This applies to all photons as far as I know.
Well, what is the basis for thsi knowledge of yours?
Books by Feynman.
[snip]
I suggest finishing undergraduate physics first.
You are confused, and you don't have the background in math or physics
to properly understand what you are trying to argue about.
Bjoern has the background, I do not [yet], hense I do not argue fine
points of quantum anything with him. You should ask yourself why I
might do that
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
