| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2005 07:18:46 PM |
| Object: |
What is it about matter that slows light? |
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
I believe that light gets its motion from time and that they share the
same motion so to speak. The constancy of the speed of light applies to
time.
Light accelerates.
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
22 Oct 2005 06:12:12 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
You have been told the answer to this dozens of times. However, you have got
TJ spitting foam over his keys again so I forgive you Nick.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dante Alighieri" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 08:03:58 AM |
|
|
21 Oct 2005 "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
:-)= time.
Time and distance measurement is man made.
Simply to be able to communicate and are relatively modern inventions on this planet.
Therefore, there is no "beginning" or "end" to time.
Therefore, there is no "beginning" or "end" to distance.
The light may not slow down in matter.
It may just bounce around making it travel further.
Like light diffracted by water is not "bent" it merely changes direction.
Different amounts for different frequencies.
Oh, yes, what we call light is just that portion of the radio spectrum that we can "see" with our eyes.
We can't see the fm radio frequencies but we can build a device that can "see" other frequencies.
For TV we convert those to visible frequencies.
Humans have difficulty visualising an infinite universe.
HTH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
01 Nov 2005 05:03:55 PM |
|
|
Humans have difficulty visualising an infinite universe.
Humans have difficulty visualising the truth and nothing but the truth,
and that's exactly why we've got the likes of GW Bush and damn near
WW-III at our disposal.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your photons that never stray unless
reflected and, I'm not even sure if the reflected photon isn't merely a
secondary/recoil clone and/or some other transformation of the first.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
01 Nov 2005 05:42:48 PM |
|
|
Infinite universe?
Nonsense. No infinite quantities.
Infinity aint a quantity but a concept.
The only thing infinite about the universe
is its future!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
02 Nov 2005 01:03:56 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130888568.159642.230510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Infinite universe?
Nonsense. No infinite quantities.
Infinity aint a quantity but a concept.
The only thing infinite about the universe
is its future!
Where is the edge of the universe?
How long will it expand for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
02 Nov 2005 02:55:22 PM |
|
|
Look Its the no Boundary proposal forever!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
02 Nov 2005 04:00:57 PM |
|
|
The theory that photons are slowed going through matter is man's worse
theory. The reason photons take 100,000 years to go from the Sun's core
to break out of its surface is one of the best theories. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
22 Oct 2005 03:43:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful. The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
You could think of virtual particles bouncing around, and clearly a
macroscopic wave peak will go slower if the photons of it are zig-zagging
around instead of moving freely, and it will speed up when the photons
stop zig-zagging around. But in that picture it's easy to overlook that
the photons aren't little billiard balls, but also have a phase with
certain relationships relative to the incident light and to each other.
I believe that light gets its motion from time and that they share the
same motion so to speak. The constancy of the speed of light applies to
time.
I'm not sure whether you said anything sensible.
Light accelerates.
--
"Did you know that most people use ten percent of their brains? I am now
one of them." -- Bart Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 11:28:14 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
What I am saying is that light really does slow down due to atomic
forces. Can you show me where I am wrong?
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
26 Oct 2005 12:14:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1130128094.487504.69270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
Light has a time-varying electric field. Electric fields exert a force on
charged particles.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 11:40:48 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
What I am saying is that light really does slow down due to atomic
forces. Can you show me where I am wrong?
Where did anyone deny the relation of c with
atomic forces? Max Planck did not die on the
cross-product to save lazy students from
the study of electromagnetism. :o)
Sue...
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 12:58:30 AM |
|
|
Never said max planck denied it!!!
Why doesn't science recognise it?
I don't see it being done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 01:17:00 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Never said max planck denied it!!!
Why doesn't science recognise it?
I don't see it being done.
Oh! This doesn't count?
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/coursenotes/index.htm
That's right...
What would a law school know about science?
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
25 Oct 2005 10:41:01 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
Yup. Same way light (radio wavelength) causes electrons in your antenna
to wiggle, producing the current that your amplifier strengthens and
passes to your speakers.
What I am saying is that light really does slow down due to atomic
forces. Can you show me where I am wrong?
Not until you tell me what atomic forces you are referring to. What
holds atoms together is the electromagnetic interaction, as far as I
know.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
25 Oct 2005 11:18:30 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
Yup. Same way light (radio wavelength) causes electrons in your antenna
to wiggle,
Sop which is it PD do the electrons absorb the radio waves or do they
just cause a wiggle? And if they do how? That's all I am asking.
producing the current that your amplifier strengthens and
passes to your speakers.
What I am saying is that light really does slow down due to atomic
forces. Can you show me where I am wrong?
Not until you tell me what atomic forces you are referring to. What
holds atoms together is the electromagnetic interaction, as far as I
know.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
26 Oct 2005 08:25:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
Yup. Same way light (radio wavelength) causes electrons in your antenna
to wiggle,
Sop which is it PD do the electrons absorb the radio waves or do they
just cause a wiggle? And if they do how? That's all I am asking.
Setting an electron in motion means giving it kinetic energy. An
electron that is wiggling has more kinetic energy than one that is not.
It got this energy from the radio wave. Thus, the electrons absorb the
radio wave in order to begin wiggling. How it does this is Coulomb's
law: The energy in a radio wave is carried in an electric (and
magnetic) field. A charged object, like an electron, immersed in an
electric wave, like a radio wave, feels an electric force and moves as
a result of that force, extracting energy from the field as it does so.
producing the current that your amplifier strengthens and
passes to your speakers.
What I am saying is that light really does slow down due to atomic
forces. Can you show me where I am wrong?
Not until you tell me what atomic forces you are referring to. What
holds atoms together is the electromagnetic interaction, as far as I
know.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
26 Oct 2005 02:18:58 AM |
|
|
Hi...
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Great Post
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil, I
think the classical explanation is insightful.
Ok, but I'm hearing a "wave mechanical" interpretation
of the g-field near matter in your post.
The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
In general terms, I read
incident photon + matter => output photon + matter'
gamma + mass => gamma' + mass'.
Sound like QM and GR!
Ken
Baloney Greg. How does light cause matter to wiggle?
Do you even know?
Yup. Same way light (radio wavelength) causes electrons in your antenna
to wiggle,
Sop which is it PD do the electrons absorb the radio waves or do they
just cause a wiggle? And if they do how? That's all I am asking.
Certainly Doctors Hansen and Draper will have
specific points of view on this phenomena,
here's mine...
1) A gas ball like the Sun deflects light.
2) Every particle in the gas ball contributes
to that deflection.
3) Therefore each particle receives a momentum
impulse by deflecting the photon.
4) Each particle is heated by the momentum
impulse => heating.
5) Rate of heat transfer == local photon flux
6) In Interstellar Space, photon flux is constant
7) Local IS photon flux creates ~ 2.7K of heat.
8) GR accounts for the CMBR.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 12:53:01 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1129940326.701829.218410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission then light doesn't really slow down
because there is no light left. The scientists are making a misnomer in
this case.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be the light
interacting with the atomic forces.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up? How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
Didn't you already ask this and get some lengthy replies?
Consistent with my view that virtual particles are the root of all evil,
Oh No Mr. Bill! (not Hobba )
Virtual particles are what salvages QM's phase blindness.
All the mirrors in the world stopped working till
Feynman gave wrist watches to QM's quantitativily
sucessful photons.
I think the classical explanation is insightful. The light causes charges
in the material to wiggle, which takes energy out of the incident
radiation and creates secondary radiation. The phase of the secondary
radiation is such that it destructively interfered with the leading edge
of the light pulse, constructively interferes with later portions, with
the effect of retarding the phase of the combined radiation. When light
leaves matter, it "speeds up" because it stops exciting secondary
radiation that retards the phase.
Ehhhh....???
Better to use the term 'Compton effect' rather than
Compton scattering.
Think of light as a wind blowing the particles, but
the particles also alter the course and speed of
the wind.
You could think of virtual particles bouncing around, and clearly a
macroscopic wave peak will go slower if the photons of it are zig-zagging
around instead of moving freely, and it will speed up when the photons
stop zig-zagging around. But in that picture it's easy to overlook that
the photons aren't little billiard balls, but also have a phase with
certain relationships relative to the incident light and to each other.
Like photons, virtual particles are just an accounting
mechanicism. They don't substitute for the qualitative
picture we have for EM propagation.
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
I believe that light gets its motion from time and that they share the
same motion so to speak. The constancy of the speed of light applies to
time.
I'm not sure whether you said anything sensible.
I am sure he didn't. LOL
Sue...
<<<Light accelerates.>> and EM slackards fall
behind. :o)
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Jackson_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
--
"Did you know that most people use ten percent of their brains? I am now
one of them." -- Bart Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 12:24:12 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission [...]
It isn't.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be [...]
It isn't that, either.
Light slows down in a transparent material due to the interactions with
all the charged particles in the material (electrons and nuclei). Each
photon of a light ray interacts with each and every charged particle in
the material, with interfering phases determined by the usual propagator
and anti-symmetrization over Fermions (c.f. QED). In a material with
constant density of charges, the phases interfere such that the
wavefront slows down.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up?
Because there are no longer any charged particles to interact with the
photons, there is no phase interference to slow the wavefront down.
How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 04:01:32 AM |
|
|
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission [...]
It isn't.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be [...]
It isn't that, either.
Light slows down in a transparent material due to the interactions with
all the charged particles in the material (electrons and nuclei). Each
photon of a light ray interacts with each and every charged particle in
the material, with interfering phases determined by the usual propagator
and anti-symmetrization over Fermions (c.f. QED). In a material with
constant density of charges, the phases interfere such that the
wavefront slows down.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up?
Because there are no longer any charged particles to interact with the
photons, there is no phase interference to slow the wavefront down.
How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
Tom Roberts
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 11:50:51 AM |
|
|
brian a m stuckless wrote:
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission [...]
It isn't.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be [...]
It isn't that, either.
Light slows down in a transparent material due to the interactions with
all the charged particles in the material (electrons and nuclei). Each
photon of a light ray interacts with each and every charged particle in
the material, with interfering phases determined by the usual propagator
and anti-symmetrization over Fermions (c.f. QED). In a material with
constant density of charges, the phases interfere such that the
wavefront slows down.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up?
Because there are no longer any charged particles to interact with the
photons, there is no phase interference to slow the wavefront down.
How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
Tom Roberts
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
Em radiation propagates at c, it never propagates slower than this, and
never faster. The information carried along by it, which isn't the waves
themselves, can however be phase delayed. Read Hansons post. So far you
and a couple of others in the thread are the only ones who are still in
the dark. The secondary radiation produced by the charges in the media
is phase shifted wrt the incident radiation.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
23 Oct 2005 11:55:19 AM |
|
|
RP wrote:
brian a m stuckless wrote:
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission [...]
It isn't.
And if it isn't that atoms absorb and emit then it must be [...]
It isn't that, either.
Light slows down in a transparent material due to the interactions with
all the charged particles in the material (electrons and nuclei). Each
photon of a light ray interacts with each and every charged particle in
the material, with interfering phases determined by the usual propagator
and anti-symmetrization over Fermions (c.f. QED). In a material with
constant density of charges, the phases interfere such that the
wavefront slows down.
If light really does slow down then how does it speed back up?
Because there are no longer any charged particles to interact with the
photons, there is no phase interference to slow the wavefront down.
How does
light accelerate upon exiting a medium?
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
Tom Roberts
So, NOTHiNG ("not ..any THiNG") changes speed with NO force.?!!
So, light "just STOPs being slowed down", buffoon.?!!
Git.!! Get-like OUT of TOWN ..dooOP.!!
Em radiation propagates at c, it never propagates slower than this, and
never faster. The information carried along by it, which isn't the waves
themselves, can however be phase delayed. Read Hansons
Sorry, that should've been *Hansen's* post.
post. So far you
and a couple of others in the thread are the only ones who are still in
the dark. The secondary radiation produced by the charges in the media
is phase shifted wrt the incident radiation.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
26 Oct 2005 06:05:05 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nick wrote:
If it is absorption and reemission [...]
It isn't.
What is it about matter then that slows down light tomy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
31 Oct 2005 09:12:42 AM |
|
|
Nick,
You're asking another one of the mainstream status quo (E-men in black)
such as "Tom Roberts" to actually think, to actually give a tinkers
damn. Good luck.
Personally, I think photons represent a slight bit of mass, and/or
their 2D (quantum string like) energy acting like a zero mass dump
truck hauls a bit of mass. Thus the photon can't just go on it's marry
way regardless of the medium within which it travels without following
the rules of the road.
Since the photon must peacefully and efficiently coexist with atoms,
there has to be a somewhat AI relationship of universal balance between
these two. Atoms can seemingly exist without photons, but photons can
not exist without atoms. An absolute perfect vacuum of not more than
one atom/m3 is unlikely to transfer photons unless that one atom gets
itself extremely large, of which at absolute zero K it may be entirely
possible that a single atom could fill an entire m3.
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 08:24:44 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip]
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
I agree. You forgot to add that those little pink unicorns are
responsible for the "instantenuous" change in speed of the photons.
Nevertheless, I am amused woth the certainty you describe these
conjestures about photons interacting with charged particles. I am sure
you would make an excellent child story writer with many bestsellers
about this ugly big bear chasing little kids around and the magic woman
who transormed the princes to a pig.
hahahahahahah ... shame
Mike
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
24 Oct 2005 10:46:51 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
[snip]
It doesn't. In essence it just stops being slowed down by the medium.
This is not the change in speed of any THING, and there is no "force"
involved.
I agree. You forgot to add that those little pink unicorns are
responsible for the "instantenuous" change in speed of the photons.
Nevertheless, I am amused woth the certainty you describe these
conjestures about photons interacting with charged particles.
You don't think that photons interact "woth" charged particles?
Do you not think that photons exist or do you deny that they interact
with charged particles?
Please explain digital imaging if either one of the above applies
to you.
I am sure
you would make an excellent child story writer with many bestsellers
about this ugly big bear chasing little kids around and the magic woman
who transormed the princes to a pig.
hahahahahahah ... shame
Shame on you. Tom Roberts has forgotten more physics than
you're ever going to understand.
John Anderson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
25 Oct 2005 06:10:34 AM |
|
|
<ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:435DAAAB.2149@attglobal.net...
| Shame on you. Tom Roberts has forgotten more physics than
| you're ever going to understand.
| John Anderson
Roberts never knew any physics, he's a fucking liar.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
SHAME ON ROBERTS
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
25 Oct 2005 09:50:36 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
<ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:435DAAAB.2149@attglobal.net...
| Shame on you. Tom Roberts has forgotten more physics than
| you're ever going to understand.
| John Anderson
Roberts never knew any physics, he's a fucking liar.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
SHAME ON ROBERTS
Androcles.
You are wasting your time Androcles. The word "shame" is not in their
dictionary. I have asked Robesrts in the past to state the GR equations
of motion for a simple spring-mass system:
http://www.physics-talk.com/Gravity-Curvature-vs-Force-6433769.html
Tom Roberts |tjroberts([at]lucent.com| said
|FpJad.7443$5b1.5448([at]newssvr17.news.prodigy.com|...
| Mike wrote:
| | Tom Roberts |tjroberts([at]lucent.com| said
| | |ozcad.6932$HY6.779([at]newssvr16.news.prodigy.com|... .|
| || Note for the case in which your "ceiling" is on earth, m and k are
| || negligible compared to the mass of the earth. That implies that
| || the geometry expressed in Del is constant, and related only to the
| || earth (i.e. neglect sun, moon, ...).
| |
| | You must be kidding. Then what is GR good for?
|
| Describing a major fraction of the phenomena in the world we inhabit,
| with an accuracy better than we can measure.
|
|
| || Given those assumptions, GR is accurately approximated by
Newtonian
| || mechanics, which greatly simplifies the problem, and turns it into
| || an elementary mechanics problem.
| |
| | Given that you cannot solve the problem in 4-D spacetime, you call
| | Newton for help.
|
| Yes -- the math of GR is complicated, and there are many situations
for
| which Newton's equations are more than adequate and A LOT more
solveable.
|
|
| | GR's intention was to get
| | away from Newtonian mechanics.
|
| How silly. GR is a physical theory, and its "intention" is to
describe
| the world we inhabit, or as large a fraction of it as possible, and
as
| accurately as possible. Just because another theory happens to work
| equally well in a subset of the world does not detract from GR.
|
|
| Tom Roberts tjroberts([at]lucent.com
Fine, you admit you can't solve the problem and you better use a
Newtonian approximation. That's really silly though. You can talk
about singularities, black holes, dark matter, but you can't solve a
simple pendelum problem.
What you really said is that we are fortunate Newton came before
Einstein. We are also fortunate that Newtonian mechanics can solve
simple problems that in GR are impossible to model let alone solve.
But after all this, you claim GR is a physical theory, bla bla bla...
You make me laugh hard. Occam's razor cuts GR dry.
Mike
That's as far as Roberts goes.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it about matter that slows light? |
25 Oct 2005 10:14:04 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1130251836.715626.222360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > <ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:435DAAAB.2149@attglobal.net...
| > | Shame on you. Tom Roberts has forgotten more physics than
| > | you're ever going to understand.
| >
| > | John Anderson
| >
| > Roberts never knew any physics, he's a fucking liar.
| > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
| > From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by
this
| > author
| > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
| > Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
| > Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
| >
| >
| > "Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
| > some:
| > the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
| > holes
| >
| > SHAME ON ROBERTS
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| You are wasting your time Androcles.
Yeah, I know. I had a spare moment between coffee breaks and thought
I'd rub it in. Roberts won't give me the right ascension and declination
of the accretion disk near the black hole he's OBSERVED and it is an
ideal perch for a bright green flying elephant to feed her hatchlings
from.
I don't know how I'm ever going to prove bright green flying elephants
lay eggs in black holes if I can't get the data.
I've got this black hole, but no accretion disk:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html
Mind you, it doesn't look all that black to me, but what do I know?
The word "shame" is not in their
| dictionary. I have asked Robesrts in the past to state the GR
equations
| of motion for a simple spring-mass system:
|
| http://www.physics-talk.com/Gravity-Curvature-vs-Force-6433769.html
|
| Tom Roberts |tjroberts([at]lucent.com| said
||FpJad.7443$5b1.5448([at]newssvr17.news.prodigy.com|...
|| Mike wrote:
|| | Tom Roberts |tjroberts([at]lucent.com| said
|| | |ozcad.6932$HY6.779([at]newssvr16.news.prodigy.com|... .|
|| || Note for the case in which your "ceiling" is on earth, m and k are
|| || negligible compared to the mass of the earth. That implies that
|| || the geometry expressed in Del is constant, and related only to the
|| || earth (i.e. neglect sun, moon, ...).
|| |
|| | You must be kidding. Then what is GR good for?
||
|| Describing a major fraction of the phenomena in the world we inhabit,
|
|| with an accuracy better than we can measure.
||
||
|| || Given those assumptions, GR is accurately approximated by
| Newtonian
|| || mechanics, which greatly simplifies the problem, and turns it into
|| || an elementary mechanics problem.
|| |
|| | Given that you cannot solve the problem in 4-D spacetime, you call
|| | Newton for help.
||
|| Yes -- the math of GR is complicated, and there are many situations
| for
|| which Newton's equations are more than adequate and A LOT more
| solveable.
||
||
|| | GR's intention was to get
|| | away from Newtonian mechanics.
||
|| How silly. GR is a physical theory, and its "intention" is to
| describe
|| the world we inhabit, or as large a fraction of it as possible, and
| as
|| accurately as possible. Just because another theory happens to work
|| equally well in a subset of the world does not detract from GR.
||
||
|| Tom Roberts tjroberts([at]lucent.com
|
| Fine, you admit you can't solve the problem and you better use a
| Newtonian approximation. That's really silly though. You can talk
| about singularities, black holes, dark matter, but you can't solve a
| simple pendelum problem.
|
| What you really said is that we are fortunate Newton came before
| Einstein. We are also fortunate that Newtonian mechanics can solve
| simple problems that in GR are impossible to model let alone solve.
|
| But after all this, you claim GR is a physical theory, bla bla bla...
|
| You make me laugh hard. Occam's razor cuts GR dry.
|
| Mike
|
|
|
| That's as far as Roberts goes.
Yeah, I know. Cuckoo math from a Swiss cuckoo clock patent clerk,
sweet-coated in patented Swiss milk chocolate and full of holes
like patented Swiss cheese. Roberts swallows the whole hole, black
as they are.
Androcles.
| Mike
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
