There is no matter, only fields.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You apparently don't know the definition of c, so see the first line of the wiki entry:

I did, and know not more than before, ...was is suppose to teach me something I apparently don't know ??
It didn't at all !!

and than you agree the C speed is not constant at all... how comes ??

So... what about all the mathematical equations using C ??
Do they use different C for all the different mediums radiation propagates or do they use C as a constant, that in vacuum ?

originally posted by: Bandu
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You apparently don't know the definition of c, so see the first line of the wiki entry:

I did, and know not more than before, ...was is suppose to teach me something I apparently don't know ??
It didn't at all !!

and than you agree the C speed is not constant at all... how comes ??

You have some difficulties with reading comprehension or some cognitive limitations if you interpret my post ""The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant" as me agreeing that the c speed is not constant. c as defined as the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant as far as all tests so far have shown, though we keep testing it to see if anybody can find any changes, but so far nobody has. It's usually written as lowercase c by the way.

So... what about all the mathematical equations using C ??
Do they use different C for all the different mediums radiation propagates or do they use C as a constant, that in vacuum ?

I already gave you an example of the refractive index of water being calculated using the constant c, speed of light in a vacuum, as part of the calculation so I don't know how to be more clear than that. c is still the constant speed of light in a vacuum even in that calculation, re-read my previous post or maybe you lack the cognitive skills to understand it, in which case there's not much point in further discussion.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

dude! you are getting rude !

I have read all your comments on this thread and I think you are on some god trip somehow... everybody is stupid and you know all but nobody else do. Check your altitude...

In Algebra, a constant is a number on its own, or sometimes a letter such as a, b or c to stand for a fixed number.

This you say is the speed of light, yes ??

And than then you tell me this speed is not constant and you change it to v if you need to, like C = V but V is less then C
"the refractive index of water is 1.333 which is c/v where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and v is the speed of light in water"

Sure you can calculate a number with this ... apple divided by orange is something.

Is the speed of light a constant ? some fix number that does not change ? as the definition requires it to be ? NO!
The so called constant is different in different medium.
This is not a constant. A constant is unchangeable, this speed is different depending where it propagates through.

I think your out of the box thinking impede you from understand what I say.

Speed of light is not only dependent on the medium it propagates through, right ?
Also gravity field is slowing it down... no, wait, you think gravity is slowing down the time not the speed of light, this is constant to you.. as long as it propagates in vacuum, that's why speed of light is constant but time is not..

There is no time as a physical something. Time is a term for counting, it is time keeping by counting events.

Your NIST "time dilation" experiments you talk about is the prove that gravity and velocity changes the speed of electric and magnetic propagation speed and it's interactions, which influences the vibrations of atoms which influences the counting in the time keeping machines.. NO ?? ...in which case there's not much point in further discussion.

a reply to: Bandu
Your confusion seems to be that you think c represents the speed of light in any situation. That is incorrect.
c represents the speed of light in a vacuum.
So the speed of light being different in any other material doesn't affect that constant speed in a vacuum.
This is why I focused on the definition of c, which your above post shows you still don't understand how it's defined.

When they show an atom in its proportions on a visible scale, there's 5% substance and 95% empty space. Well not empty but ethereal activity (poor word choice but I'm lazy at the moment) like radiation and such. You can measure it but you can't poke it with your finger.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Structured photons slow down in vacuum -physicsworld.com

There are many ways of defining the speed of light: phase velocity, peak velocity, information velocity – definitions abound. Padgett and colleagues stick to the group velocity, which is a measure of how fast the envelope of an electromagnetic wave moves. When a beam of light passes through a mask, some of its constituent rays will continue to propagate at a slight angle to the beam’s axis. These rays have to travel farther, therefore the group velocity of the entire envelope falls – and this is what the researchers observed.

Sounds like time dilation being measured with a quantum clock or by using lasers. The Cassiopeia clip on time dilation stands out to me. So what next light speed dilution. It's interesting..

In your opinion is the light really slowed or the brakes put on so to speak or could it be an illusion. I presume they accounted for time taken interacting with the masks. 20 wavelengths over 1 metre in difference.

Really they are measuring a beam or grouping of photons. Not individually like an electron could be in the double slit.

On that, the double slit.

Time reversal symmetry can be looked at here.

Take a box of electrons, each numbered from 1 to 1000. Fire then in sequence. The double slit shows that the same electrons (if they could reverse) in time, should be mapped and thus return in sequence.

Like a wave guide.

Did they ever stop to think that quantum mechanically it was already being observed and measured before the recording or measuring device was added. Or what would happen with a second device, one for each slit or 3 phase. Each slit and an overview. Perhaps measuring and collapsing the wave function can be explained by reverse time symmetry. I can't do it justice with my limited knowledge. If only I could retain more of what I read..

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand.. I think. It's the measured speed and time that the light takes to get from point a to b. The measured can vary depending on factors previously discussed.

Regarding your footer image..

Reminds me of my recent thread. Along with lacking fundamentals, there are factors I hadn't considered. I still feel and think there is something to it. It feels like a discovery of sorts or maybe I hope it's that way. Not for any other reason than my love of science and my intrigue of how the universe works.

To answer for stickman, it may imply that everything is interconnected on a scale we still can't imagine properly yet and also that everything is in motion, always.

Makes me think about a truly resting mass. If it's even possible, taking into account all the factors responsible for motion and expansion.

The grand filaments of galaxies theorised and conceptulised could be signs of a contractive force or better yet something at odds with expansion or indeed complimenting it... Gravity.

If it is strings and I'm not a fan of string theory, the little Ive read. The same strings are still connected that were at the big bang and over expansion they simply stretch.

Some key things on a path to a deeper understanding, I believe.

Time dilation
Length contraction
Action at a distance (extra-dimensional connection or conduit perhaps) or strings.
Is the universe an information system.
Theoretical applications of dimensionality. ( Saying this page is 2d could actually be incorrect. It's 1 dimensional but adding a degree factor for X and y. Add time in and it becomes 2 dimensional but only on paper. It doesn't change the present moment. Although, time seems to be tangible so then keeping it as a dimensional reference on paper seems right. So we really live in only 3D of space time. Time and motion could easily be linked that way. Even adding a dimension for depth seems unnecessary if a z co-ordinate is added to the 1D°°° or 2D°°° factoring in time.

What are you thoughts on this relating to theoretical physics work?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Are you an innocent dupe?

I like to hope I'm not. Also I only rented it once (cost of monetary spend on being duped ) , since then I've watched it in Vimeo at no cost. I've watched it many times and yes I agree that not all of it is scientifically credible and yes I see what your saying about psuedo-scientific aspects of it. The film goes about asking all the right questions but as yet not all the answers are available.

It was that film the reignited a love for science and physics. A first heard of the double slit experiment in that film. That may seem crazy as I am aware I can talk like I think I'm an expert at times but really I am just trying to understand. It's so ingrained in me, a want or need to understand how things work. From the components and circuit board in a screen to what happened just before the big bang to a random question, where does sound go. Is it so easily explainable or could that energy dissipate into another dimension outside of out perception. But I'll stop there with that, I don't want to create even more nonence for you to feel like you need to respond on. There are many possible answers but just saying there was nothing is in my opinion untrue. All that energy had to come from somewhere. What force do you think connected all the energy and matter in the universe at one point in time so that after the big bang it remains intact but visibily seperate. I drift back to a final collapse or whimper of the final single super singularity. Even expansion in reverse contracting and eventually folding in in on the singularity or over on itself. All the mass energy compacted and connected. I've already been over this though. It works but not on paper in terms of a solid hypothesis, that's beyond me sadly.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your confusion seems to be that you think c represents the speed of light in any situation. That is incorrect.Text

There is no confusion on my side, though

A constant is a constant or it is not, if one value has to be a constant, it can not change, it has to be the same all the time to be a constant, constant means unchangeable, stable, always the same, it is not a constant if it changes how it does in case of electro magnetic propagation.
What Einstein did, is simple, in the calculation of velocity which is a displacement in distance over time, but time is not a physical thing, time is something we count out of the environment, that however is defined by the propagation of the radiation...
Anyway... Einstein switched a variable to a constant, he called speed of radiation propagation constant and made counting of this displacement a variable, time !
Then he constructed something new, the time-space.
Time space is not a physical thing that can be bend or stretch or whatever.. space-time ( time of space ) is a term for the state of radiation propagation at different counts ( time )

Simple said, you can make space-time if you take snapshots of current configuration of the space at every count, and stuck them together like pages in a book, than you have space-time



BTW: I actually don't care any more at all, this days I seek a nice pleasure and await the end-day

Good luck !

I was thinking that possibly each "particle" is a kind of event horizon of tightly compressed fields where there is a nearly infinitesimal void (hole, vacuum, subspace, whatever) that actual, real space is drawn towards. But because there is literally nothing in the void, there's nowhere for the fields to expand, so they bump up against the void. Like water swirling around a drain, reaching an equilibrium that at first appears to be something solid, but it really isn't.

Thinking in more than three dimensions makes my head hurt.

a reply to: Bandu

It seems that constants may not be what they used to be...

Just as an idea arises in the now, and dissipates: do not supposedly physical objects behave similarly ?

A rock is just a rock, no matter what labels we stick on it.
Did it always exist ?
Will it exist forever ?

Depending on the 'speed' that this is all viewed, is there not a point where 'everything' could be seen as 'fluid' ?
Coming into, and fading from existence ?

So why do some of us believe in this current snapshot of 'reality', as being real and true ?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Thinking in more than three dimensions makes my head hurt.

Try thinking in less dimensions but add xzy degree co-ordinates rather than dimensions think if 1 dimension with multiple ° values.

So on paper, rather than 3D or 4D. It could actually look like 2D°°°/t there may need to be some squaring involved with the degrees over 2D. 1 seems better.

Actually maybe don't, it might make the thought process even more difficult as it complicates the figures. It may be great on paper though

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I was thinking that possibly each "particle" is a kind of event horizon of tightly compressed fields where there is a nearly infinitesimal void (hole, vacuum, subspace, whatever) that actual, real space is drawn towards. But because there is literally nothing in the void, there's nowhere for the fields to expand, so they bump up against the void. Like water swirling around a drain, reaching an equilibrium that at first appears to be something solid, but it really isn't.

P.S. -- The axes in the above (very inaccurate) illustration never connect at an ultimate zero point but rather continue toward each other in negative infinity. Because yeah that makes sense.

Thinking in more than three dimensions makes my head hurt.

Damn quoted myself instead of editing. Oh well.

a reply to: Nothin

So why do some of us believe in this current snapshot of 'reality', as being real and true ?

It is not about believe ( dealing with intuition ), it is about dealing with physical things...

The "current snapshot" is actually the meaning of real true now and how it is.

"How it is" is the real true snapshot of the current existence !

a reply to: Bandu

Sure: it is what it is.
That doesn't mean that there is anything 'real' or 'true' about it.

It's all senses, thoughts, and interpretation, passing though our thick filters.

If one thinks that what we perceive is 'real' or 'true': how is that not a belief ?

This is probably the best vid for the laymen on QFT (quantum field theory) enjoy.

www.youtube.com...

And if your interested in delving a little deeper here is a nice little vid on QCD (quantum chromo dynamics) which is an explanation of the Strong and weak nuclear forces and how these effects occur.

www.youtube.com...

As far as the physics community is concerned QFT is THE best explanation we have currently about what constitutes the subatomic structure of the universe.

originally posted by: moebius
Have been playing Kerbal Space Program a bit again and it made me think about gravity, relativity, fields and particles.

The way Sun "knows" where the Earth is, to pull towards and vice versa, despite being more than 8 light-minutes apart, shows to me clearly that gravity is a property of spacetime (as are other force fields).

But what about matter. GR says that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move". This does not feel right to me. Imho matter is a property of space too (a matter field). And as such the curvature of spacetime is "matter". They are not separate objects.

The fact that we can create/destroy matter(antimatter) is another sign of matter being a property of spacetime. I would go as far as to say that what we call particles are simply disturbances in the spacetime. And these disturbances are observed by us as force fields (gravity, em, etc).

Antimatter annihilations convert the entire mass of the particles involved into energy, following Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2. So there's really nothing "destroyed". Small amounts of matter produce huge amounts of energy.
I think gravity is more an artifact of acceleration. Mass and energy are interchangeable. What state it's in is irrelevant. However, acceleration, which is just velocity over time, is what we observe as gravity.
Hard stuff to wrap ahead around- I mentioned Sean Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry". A very detailed work - still hard to wrap head around it!! Would like to be able to observe from outside this universe - I wonder what it would look like i.e. laws of physics, etc. Maybe we got it all wrong from the git-go. Who knows.

a reply to: Phantom423

Very recent, it may actually be a finite space, positive curvature

m.youtube.com...