bangstrom

I dropped my joint and forgot what I was going to say.

Arthur Eddington famously photographed stars appearing near the sun from the surface of the Earth during a total solar eclipse in 1919.

When an object is accelerated to relativistic speeds, the rest mass remains unchanged but the relativistic mass is said to increase. The rest mass is its local mass but relativistic mass is how it appears to a remote observer. Accelerating an object to relativistic speeds requires more energy than predicted by Newtonian physics, and if the speeding object collides with another, more energy is released than predicted by Newtonian physics. To a remote observer, it would appear as if the object had gained in mass as it was accelerated but the gain in mass is only apparent relative to a stationary observer. The accelerating object does not actually gain in mass so locally its rest mass remains unchanged and it will not turn into a black hole..

I have never read that Einstein was the first to “figure out the speed of light” so this is not a common impression. Roemer was the first to arrive at a reliable measurement and it was verified numerous times by various methods before Einstein. However, Einstein was the first to equate the speed of light with Maxwell’s constant c which was not considered to be the speed of light but a dimensional constant resulting from the combined effects of the dielectric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of a vacuum. These were also previously measured values. This means that a vacuum is not pure nothingness but it has measurable properties that give “empty” space properties similar to what we think of as density and elasticity. Olaus Roemer discovered that the timing of the motions of Jupiter’s moon Io came early by one second every time Jupiter came 300,000 km closer to the Earth and they came late by one second every time Jupiter was 300,000 km farther from the Earth so he discovered that there was a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in a constant ratio of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. He could have interpreted this as a conversion factor for converting between units of distance and units of time but he was looking for the speed of light so he called it a speed. As described in Special Relativity, time slows and distances appear shorter when an object moves at relativistic speeds. If you could travel with a beam of light, your clock would stop and you could travel to any point in space in no time at all by your "frozen" perception of time. So, for light, there is neither time nor distance and light can go anywhere in an instant by its local "proper" time and nothing can travel faster than instant. The very distant galaxies are a possible exception to the rule that nothing can travel faster than light. The galaxies appear to be moving away from us and, in theory, the most distant galaxies should be receding faster than c because the expansion of space acts as a tailwind blowing them away. Relativity always works both ways so an observer on one of those most distant galaxies would say they are standing still while our galaxy is receding faster than c. If there is an error in the text books it is in calling c a speed rather than a dimensional constant. This would be an error started by Roemer and continued by Einstein. C works as a universal conversion factor for converting between units of distance and time and it is nothing like a speed except that they are both values given in units of distance divided by time. C is the same for all observers independent of their individual velocities so this should be our first clue that c is a dimensional constant rather than a speed.

I have no objection to QM and non-local entanglement is now a widely accepted part of QM. As Carver Mead explained, quantum entanglement offers a simpler and more elegant explanation for the exchange of light energy than photon theory. I am saying photons are conceptual with neither logic nor experimental evidence to support the view that they are real.

From Einstein’s 1954 letter to Michael Besso: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken...” I see no problem with questioning the existence of photons especially since their origin was based on philosophical ruminations made prior to the existence of solid experimental results that we now have. Yes, I am familiar with Einstein’s photoelectric effect. I am not expecting anyone to accept my “crank” point of view but it is based on my understanding of those far better informed than myself such as the article below by Carver Mead. Here Mead contrasts the classical view of the photon with the current, evidence based understanding of light quanta and how they are exchanged. And Mead is far from alone with these views. http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead - The Nature of Light - What are Photons..pdf Some of Mead’s main observations are: 3. Every element of matter is coupled to all other matter on its light cone by time-symmetric interactions. 4. Matter interacts directly with other matter. The time-symmetric nature of these interactions make them effectively instantaneous 11. The “photon” transaction can be viewed as a brief entanglement of the quantum states of the two participating atoms.

Does this mean we won't celebrate Easter next year?

Photons are described by some as quanta of energy -and nothing more- because energy is never found separate from matter. That is, light energy has never been observed to exist between a signal and receiver. Milo Wolff explained the problem with our assumption that photons exist. “When an energy exchange occurs between, say, two molecules one wonders what is traveling between them. If we don’t know, we say it is a “photon.” Giving it a name doesn’t add any knowledge, but it allows us to feel better and we can pretend we know what travels.” The photon particle is described as having magical properties with its ability to pick up a quantum of energy from one particle and accelerate it instantly to speed c and then carry that energy through space at a constant speed c relative to all observers until it encounters some barrier where it transfers its energy to an accepting particle. That may describe the end result of light related events as we observe them but the phantasmagoria of what transpires between a signal and sink is neither logical nor supported by direct observation so we need to be a bit agnostic about the existence of photons as ballistic particles before we try to explain our observations as the results of photon interactions. Just because we have a photon explanation for an event does not imply that photons exist.

I am undecided about the reality of time. The ratio of space to time "c" is the same for all observers which makes time dilation and length contractions illusions apparent only those outside one's inertial reference frame. My working definitions are that "space" keeps everything from happening at the same place and "time" keeps everything from happening at once.

I have long been impressed with Milo Wolff’s Wave Structure of Matter theory and Jeff Yee’s EWT greatly expands upon Wolff’s earlier works. I like the way Yee has combined the dimensions of space and time into a single dimension of spacetime for a three dimensional universe. This makes more sense than treating space and time as separate dimensions. My criticism is not critical to most of Yee’s theory but I was disappointed to see that Yee treats photons as real particles while Wolff was skeptical of their existence. Wolff wrote favorably of Hugo Tetrode’s (1922) understanding of photons as being strictly imaginary. Modern versions of Tetrode’s theory can be found clearly in the writings of N. “Viv” Pope or diplomatically evasive in John Cramer’s TIQM, or updated in articles by A. F. Kracklauer where Kracklauer refers to photons as “folklore” rather than real. My understanding Tetrode’s theory and the modern versions is that transverse waves makeup the spacetime around us (the ether) and ether waves are not energy bearing waves. However, if two remote atoms randomly establish a two-way, wave-like connection via these ether waves, they will resonate together across whatever distance may separate them, an electron in one atom can drop to a lower energy level triggering an electron in the paired (entangled) atom to simultaneously rise to a higher energy level and we have an energy exchange commonly known as “light”. All the changes take place within the atoms themselves. There is no need for light energy to travel from one atom to another by traveling through the space between as either a particle or a wave. You could say light energy “quantum tunnels” from one entangled electron to another. The interaction appears wave-like because it is predetermined and mediated by ether waves and there is an observable time interval between the emission and absorption of light because every distance of space includes an amount of time equal to one second of time for every 300,000 km of space. The value of c is a ratio giving us the amount of time found in every distance of space and it is not a speed. Some refer to c as the ‘speed of creation’ or the ‘operating speed’ of the universe but it is not the speed of light energy through space. For light, emission and absorption are simultaneous events. We can never separate space from time and this is one reason why I favor Yee’s combination of space and time into a single dimension. There is a c related measure of time in every one of the three x,y, z dimensions of space.

Also, in special relativity, relativistic speeds do not directly add or subtract. All observed velocities are subject to Lorentz contraction so there is no point in space where an observer could measure the combined velocities of colliding wave fronts to be greater than c.

It is my understanding that light bends because the light beam is slowed more in one direction than another. The term "accelerated" in this case means to be slowed rather than sped up. In physics, the term "accelerated" means a change in velocity. It could mean that an object is caused to either go faster or slower. What evidence indicates that light goes faster when passing through a solenoid?

(This is the first part of a work in progress that explores the Wheeler Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment) The quote below is false and unfortunately contains two common misinterpretations of the quantum eraser experiment. “Which-path information destroys interference pattern"..."the act of observing which-slit causes the object to behave as a particle"... "by erasing the which-slit information, the object returns to behaving as a wave" Below is a video showing how “marking” the two light paths in a double slit experiment with polarizing films destroys the familiar interference pattern. The explanation is that having knowledge of which-path (left or right) the photons took through the slits destroys the interference pattern even if we only have the ability of obtain that knowledge at a future time. https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=home+experiment+quantum+eraser+experiment&fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asb%2Crgn%3Atop&ei=UTF-8#id=1&vid=0e2094e2c615986a3d91004bbf995aba&action=view I give the author of the video credit for recognizing that the the pattern he got with the polarizing films was a diffraction pattern and not a pattern characteristic of light as a particle. A diffraction pattern is also an example of light acting as a wave. Light beams fan-out as they pass the edge of an opaque object. This is known as diffraction. When light passes through a narrow slit, diffracting waves from one side of the slit interfere with those from the other side. The author also correctly recognized that the complex interference pattern he got without the polarizers was a two slit interference pattern on top of a diffraction pattern. His amateur analysis of the experiment was more accurate than many explanations from highly “creditable” sources. Having which-path information does not cause light to behave as a particle. Light is always a wave. The correct explanation for why orthogonal polarized light does not interfere was given by Fresnel and Argo two centuries ago and it has nothing to do with which-path information. Which-path information was a modern corruption. A simple test of the which-way hypothesis is to repeat the experiment as described in the video above except using circular polarizing films rather than linear polarizers. The two beams from the double slit can be “marked” with circularly polarized light giving us which-path information, but it is my experience in doing so, that having circular which-way information does not destroy interference. Method: Ordinary clear cellophane tape “Scotch” tape is an excellent quarter wave circular polarizing film. Unlike linear polarizers, circular polarizers become orthogonal at 45 degrees rather than 180. I tried different ways of mounting the films but applying the clear tape to opposite halves of a microscope slide was the easiest. The proper mounting can be tested by observing the films through a polarizing film or a pair of polarized sunglasses while holding the films against the light of a flat screen monitor. One side of the films should be dark while the other is light and the light and dark should switch sides as the film is rotated. I used a red laser for my experiment rather than green because that is what I had. A just-for-fun demonstration can be done by applying several layers of clear tape at different angles to a glass surface and looking at the glass through a pair of polarized glasses against the white light of a flat screen monitor. You should see a kaleidoscope of colors. I have read about many experiments with light but I have never found an experiment like the one I described that used circularly polarized light with the double slit to see what would happen. Certainly someone must have tried this before. I would be interested in knowing if anyone knows of such an experiment. Perhaps, no one has tried because which-path theory claims it is impossible? I would also be interested in hearing if anyone has repeated my experiment or what I did to get the “wrong” result.

Adding more Hydrogen to the sun could keep it going longer but it would be easier to find a new star. Helium is the only element that is abundant on the sun but not on the Earth.

You need a solar sized celestial body to create a solar sized flare. That is the answer to your original question.

It is possible to scale it up or down. An electrical spark several times larger than the Earth heating an atmosphere more massive than anything on Earth is a solar flare.

It takes massive amounts of heat, mass, and magnetism to create a solar flare. Lightning and nuclear explosions are Earth sized solar flares. Plasma is a state of matter in its hottest form. Cooler states of matter are: gas, liquid, solid, and Bose-Einstein condensate at near zero degrees Kelvin.

Correction: I meant leakage through the insulators.

Both the bathtub and the washing machine serve as tiny “grounds” on their own since they can accumulate an electrical charge on their surfaces. Both can also attract or emit electrons to the air so they are “grounded” to the air to complete the circuit just enough to keep the LED lit. There may also be some leakage through the conductors. Mitko Gorgiev has demonstrated that you don’t need the ground for a “ground” and that an “open” circuit can carry a current.

A continuous electrical current would keep the process going but it takes more electrical energy to split the water molecules than you could gain with combustion.

Is this in reference to the "sciencechatforum.com"? That is where I get the same message.

C slows in a gravitational field relative to an outside observer but locally c is a ratio that remains the same. Gravity is a space/time energy gradient where increasing gravity amounts to a region of shorter space and slower time. The expansion of space would make c slower if time did not change with space but expanding space is like the emergence from a BB gravity well where time quickens as space expands so locally c remains the same since c is a constant by definition. In the BB theory, the changes in time that accompany the expansion of space are corrected for mathematically by the use of "co-moving coordinates." Co-moving coordinates assume that the universe is expanding like bits of ejecta from a grand, cosmic explosion where distant galactic redshifts can give us accurate readings for galactic recessional velocities that we can use to calculate the size and age of the universe. Anomalies such as the Guth's "inflation period" and accelerated expansion are telling us that the universe is not expanding like the typical explosion so the use of co-moving coordinate may not be valid.

The ER bridge and EPR entangled set appear equivalent to me but language purists may differ. However, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect was not quite "predicted" by the trio. The EPR effect was a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of action at a distance but it was invalidated the experiments of Bell and Aspect shortly after Einstein's death so Einstein's prediction was the opposite of what it is now taken to be.

Yes, the transition from a gravitationally dense state to a less dense state would suggest that time was slower in the distant past and this would appear as an acceleration of space. I don't know but I suspect this is part of the calculations for the rate of expansion. An acceleration of time would necessarily accompany an expansion of space if c is to remain a constant.

A quantum is a single unit of something and not necessarily the smallest possible unit of the same measure.