I take your critical thread John - Maguherio comments loosely like this in his books for laypeople. Hau has succeeded in stopping light in a BEC and it comes out as a matter wave. I'm uncomfortable with the stuff 'always being at speed'. On the rest I am not sure and probably disagree.
On Jul 27, 9:42 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Light has no acceleration or decelleration. It is always at speed. If > you view light as traveling linearly in a straight line, much as we > travel to traverse distance, this would be like you getting into your > car and going from zero to 60 in no time. You would either travel at > 60 or 0 with no speeds in between. In other words light is at speed > and is in fact defined at speed. > > So light must already be at speed when it is released. It would appear > then that light obtains its speed in place. Spinning objects obtain > speeds in place. A merry go round attains a speed in place. If one of > the carousel horses suddenly flew off the merry go round it would fly > off initially at the speed of its rotation. If it were in free and > empty space it would continue at that speed until or unless it > encountered something that changed it. > > WE could measure the carousel horse's speed because we could see it as > it passes by. If a horse flew off at every revolution of the merry go > round we could also measure the speed by the number of horses > traveling by per unit time. We could say 1 horse per second or two > horses per second etc. Then if a horse was 8 feet long from nose to > tail we could say it's speed is 8 feet per second. 1 horse per second > would be its frequency. 8 feet would be the partial length of one > complete cycle it traveled. It would also be the length between cycles > or what we call wavelength. > > The idea that light travels at a single speed has caused much physical > error. We have the belief that images of objects must travel to our > eyes to be seen. Like sound must travel to our ears to be heard. There > is a great distinction between the two. Sound requires a medium. Light > travels best in a vacuum. Where sound is a vibration on a medium, > light displaces itself to travel. Once the source of the sound ceases > the sound will still travel through the medium independent of its > source. I say that light will cease to travel immediately as soon as > its source ceases to emit. > > We can put this to a test. For example we could conduct an experiment > using a large array of mirrors or perhaps ordered reflection points > inside a molecule or atom where I say the pulse of light will travel > only the distance allowed by its timed duration. Any observer will > fail to detect the light pulse at any greater distance. This may be > true for mechanical detectors of EMR as well, but that is a different > case. > > The measure of the speed of light in free space is independent of the > motion of its source and of the motion of the observer. A consequence > of this is the postulate that all observers will measure lightspeed > the same, regardless of their motion or of the motion of the source. > > While we can say that all observers will measure lightspeed the same, > we cannot say that they will each measure the same frequency and > wavelength, all conditions as above. In fact the motion of the source > and detector is accounted for by the variance in the respective > observers measure of frequency and wavelength. > > Einstein used this or never considered it when he declared that > traveling to an object is identical to an object traveling to you. > Therefore it can be defined either way. This is the basis for his > uniform gravitational field which heralded many expansion of matter > theoiies thereafter. In other words the reason all objects fall at the > same rate is because the planet expands to meet the object at a > specific rate. Combine this with the idea that light speed is measured > the same by all observers and you have a core of the present day > physics intellectual mire. > > Consider the foolishness these notions have spawned. We believe that > if the Sun stopped emitting EMR we would still see the Sun for the > time it took the EMR to get here. I say that we are only measuring the > speed of emission. Because we detect 4 horses per second does not mean > we are viewing the horses being emitted at the Sun 8 minutes after > they were emitted. If the Sun stopped emitting the horses no more > would travel by us. The horses are being displaced by the horses. EMR > is being displaced by EMR. We measure the frequency of emission at the > source or at the destination. Further, the act of local measure > destroys or reflects the arriving light. Stop the displacement and you > stop the motion. > > On the other hand you can aim a burst of energy at the moon and time > its distance of travel to the moon and back and so base your theory on > groundless comparisions. When we send such a signal it must have a > duration to allow it to reach the moon and perhaps the journey back to > the source. > > Lightspeed is a misnomer anyway. Light is a sensory quantity. > Electromagnetic radiation or EMR is the physical quantity. Just > because the speeds are the same does not mean that they are the same > and interchangeable in meaning. The functionality of the Lorentz > transformation equation results from the ceiling on lightspeed and not > from the constancy of lightspeed measure. > > A postulate is an assumed truth. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
