AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Light going through matters will "slow" down it, but the speed remains constant.
Take this one as an example:
Einstein vs. Bohr
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Light going through matters will "slow" down it, but the speed remains constant.
Take this one as an example:
Are you siding with Bohr? QM is not that visual.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I do not know what you mean.
c is constant in both models. GR and QM.
In fact the speed of light is probably one of the clues that unify both.
Quarks are just the elementary particles which make up protons and neutrons.
The discovery of quarks did not change the amount of protons and neutrons in the universe in the slightest way. Quarks are protons and neutrons in an atomic sense.
C is the speed of light in a vacuum, and that is invariant. C is a law of nature.
Matter will cause photons to travel slower. If my memory is correct, the speed of light in water is about 75 percent what it is in a vacuum.
I personally have never heard that the discovery of quarks fundamentally changed our understanding of C or of general relativity. Unless I missed something.
I've read through several article that theorize that the speed of light is not a constant but none of them show how the random energy of quarks causes C to vary. I'm tired of reading now so I'll find it later.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
The speed of light does not alter. That is how both models work.
If it does alter, that would be a fundamental discovery deserving of a Nobel Prize.
I just read the damn thing a few months ago so I know it's out there. There are other reasons why general relativity needs to be modified.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I know you did. So did I. There are plenty of articles out there that state that GR needs to be modified.
The central issue is the speed of light. The speed of light, c, is constant everywhere. If it is discovered not to be true, that person will win a Nobel Prize.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
For what it's worth:
It wasn’t until 1962 that a semiconductor engineer at Texas Instruments named Thomas Hartman wrote a paper that explicitly embraced the shocking implications of the math.
Hartman found that a barrier seemed to act as a shortcut. When a particle tunnels, the trip takes less time than if the barrier weren’t there. Even more astonishing, he calculated that thickening a barrier hardly increases the time it takes for a particle to tunnel across it. This means that with a sufficiently thick barrier, particles could hop from one side to the other faster than light traveling the same distance through empty space.
In short, quantum tunneling seemed to allow faster-than-light travel, a supposed physical impossibility.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-tunnel-shows-particles-can-break-the-speed-of-light-20201020/
What we get from those researches is that space, time and the speed of light are common factors.
That's it. At least THREE things unifying it.
C is the average speed of light. It travels at a slightly different speed in every direction. The new theories show that light is not a wave -- I think? OK now I gotta find it.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
It might explain the particle/wave problem.
Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
By Jesse Emspak - Live Science Contributor April 27, 2013
The charges of all these particles are important to their model, because all of them have charges. A quantity called impedance depends on the sum of those charges. The impedance in turn depends on the permittivity of the vacuum, or how much it resists electric fields, as well as its permeability, or how well it supports magnetic fields. Light waves are made up of both an electric and magnetic wave, so changing those quantities (permittivity and permeability) will change the measured speed of light.
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
------------------------------------------------
The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin spells it out. Smolin would chat with us regular folk when I first arrived in Cyberia. He is one of the whistleblowers on politics in physics. Self-funded physicists like Einstein are allowed to think outside the box.
Sounds like an interesting hypothesis, but I do not know if this is a verified and widely accepted theory. At this time, I believe C is still widely considered a universal constant as a practical matter.
Speaking of the 1927 Solvay conference, I do not think this much brainpower has ever been assembled in one location in human history. Geek factor was totally off the map.
Albert Einstein
Marie Curie
Niels Bohr
Max Planck
Erwin Schrödinger
Paul Dirac
Werner Heisenberg
Wolfgang Pauli
Albert Einstein
Marie Curie
Niels Bohr
Max Planck
Erwin Schrödinger
Paul Dirac
Werner Heisenberg
Wolfgang Pauli
Changes are going to be made to general relativity. Lasting as long as it did speaks volumes. There are too many gaps that need to be filled. Spacetime doesn't hold up in 21st century physics. String theory proves that. Physicists can only account for about 5% of the weight of the known multiverse. The first step is accepting the fact that there are millions of universes.
Right, I mentioned a few dozen posts ago that the conventional wisdom is that general relativity will untimely need to be replaced with a quantum theory of gravity. I think part of it might depend on experimentally verifying that gravitons exist.
Encyclopedia Britannica still reports that speed of light in a vacuum, C, is still considered a universal constant. So whatever your 2013 article was hypothesizing either has not been experimentally verified and gained wide acceptance, or it describes an esoteric property of light which does not fundamentally change the status of C as a universal constant.
General relativity/spacetime is a work of art. Physicists know it's flawed but they won't give it up piecemeal. What if Russia or China quantizes gravity? Even worse if a self-funded group comes up with a theory of everything. If the pentagon can't use it for a better way to kill people, it won't get funded. Politics is destroying science.
BidenPresident
Verified User
False. Relativity theory is widely accepted by virtually all physicists.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
It may seem counterintuitive but despite the medium seemly slowing down a light beam, it's speed still doesn't alter.