Traveling light and gravity.

[William Gaatjes]

I take it you're new to Highly Technical?
This is William we're talking about. If he can't find pseudo-science, he makes it up himself. He doesn't even begin to critique an idea before posting it. And he has shown time and time again that he can't get a handle on the accepted explanations for observed phenomena.

William is not going to learn anything. He is going to go from silly idea to silly idea because he lacks the ability to properly critique them and lacks the ability to understand an idea with multiple related parts which form a cohesive whole. (And those two things are likely related. To critique an idea you need to hold its component parts, then you add a known good and check for contradiction. Rinse and repeat until you've covered all the angles. I believe William's storage space for ideas he's actively processing may be much smaller than a normal person's, leading him to be unable to add the check bit. Limited active storage would also leave him unable to grasp our massively interconnected scientific theories in their entireties.)

As an analogy:

2+6+3+8+1+3+9+6+4
Normal person: 42.
William would come up with: "I have an idea: Considering 2+6, 8! Oh, but 6+3, 9! But considering 3 in relation to 8, 11! Looking at 1, I think 8 is related, so let's consider the implications of 9! 1 works with 3, so 4! 9 and 3 are obviously related, therefore 12 is the answer. I have a 6 and 9, so I would like you to consider my theory of 15. We have 6 and 4, so science is obviously wrong about 42 -- they haven't considered 10!"

William is smart. He can add things up all day. But smarts aren't enough to properly theorize -- you have to have perspective.
It gets annoying after a while to endlessly throw check bits at him when you know it's not gonna change things. He'll probably keep trucking 'till the day he dies, but it's a journey to nowhere, and there's no helping him get off that path when it's the only one he can process.
And it's doubly annoying because you can't just leave things like, "Maybe gravity is due to the universe expanding," lying around unattended. So that's just more work for the rest of us.

Your lack of proper examples and lack of arguments are i am sad to say obvious.

 

[DominionSeraph]

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060828065238AA2gIcK

consider that the closer you are to a massive object, the slower you age relative to something that's farther away from the object. this is factual. they have to recalibrate the clocks on the GPS every day because the difference in time distortion would equate to the satellites being off by 6 miles a day. so, let's say you have a point a. there is a 100 mile radius around point a where time flows at a rate 1/2 that of the flow rate of time outside of the radius. that is to say, if you went inside this 100 mile radius, you would age 1 year for every 2 years you would age on earth. this would be caused by an arbitrary source of gravity that causes the space-time within the radius to compress in a way that would cause time inside the radius to appear to move at half speed relative to the flow of time outside of the radius. since time is compressed by a relative factor of 2:1, space would also be compressed by a relative factor of 2:1. thus, the 100 mile radius would appear to be a 50 mile radius to an outside observer. since the speed of light is constant, light emitting from the center point would be moving at 1c relative to space-time within the radius, but outside of the radius it would appear to be moving at .5c due to the distortion. correct me if i'm wrong.

Damn, I'm gonna have to read up on GR again.

Your lack of proper examples and lack of arguments are i am sad to say obvious.

Here's 500 examples: http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=318757

 

[William Gaatjes]

i'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking. are you asking if the oscillation of an atom would be affected significantly by the difference of gravity between sea level and the ionosphere? i don't know. gravity is weak compared to the other forces. the electromagnetic force between the atoms that compose your feet and the atoms that compose the ground that you stand on is enough to offset the effect of the entire gravity of the earth. otherwise, you'd fall right through the ground!

Gravity is indeed weak. But it seems to affect atomic decay. As such i am wondering what it would mean when thinking of the uncertainty principle when applied to an electron. Is gravity another part of this as well since gravity seems to affecting the change of things. I deliberately write change of things and not time directly. Since time in my opinion is a quantification of a series changes, changes in direction, changes in speed, changes in position, etcetera. Gravity would also affect the electron around a nucleus and as such the position and speed in the current models. The effect is small, but it is there and perhaps pretty large because i do not know the speed of oscillating of an elektron.

i don't think that idea holds water, although it is interesting. if the expansion of the universe was the direct cause of gravity, then we would be torn apart from this constant distortion. personally, i believe that it has something to do with a multiverse. like, if there is a given number of universes, then gravity would be the force that permeates throughout them, which would explain why it is so weak.

I do not think either that the idea is simple or correct. But it sure is food for the brain. Because look at this fictional scenario anyway again:

Gravity is a reaction force of the force that is actually expanding the universe. We are experiencing this expansion and that is why we experience gravity as a reaction force. But the rate of expansion is everywhere different because the expansion increases when the mass increases. This because gravity is stronger as a result. Now this could mean that in 100 % empty space there is nothing to expand because there is no mass( forgetting the virtual particle world for a second) But near a black hole the expansion increases to an enormous level because we experience gravity to a enormous level. Now if we would combine this with the distortion of space/time what would we get if you try to visualize this in your mind ? I see increases in wavelengths again when looking at particles as waves ... This would fit with gravitational redshift. The decrease of the wavelength to a point that it gets to big. But what happens then at the black hole ? That is where my brain refuses to give the answer. The trick i think is to see everything in reverse in this thought experiment.

 

[William Gaatjes]

f4phantom2500.

I forgot to clarify something in the thought experiment.
Your space time fits with it.
Because the increased expansion can be seen as increased acceleration when coming closer to a black hole. The reaction force gravity becomes stronger. But because of the increased expansion, the what you call space-time(3D version) stretches. If we would see space time as a medium for oscillating waves, when this space-time stretches, the wavelength increases. And this can be seen with slower clocks in stronger gravity and as slower oscillations in stronger gravity. The gravitational redshift. It is it seems what the space-time may really be, the space-time would not be able to keep up with the expansion and thus stretches out. If this was not a thought experiment, some new laws of nature could be found .

 

[KIAman]

As an analogy:

2+6+3+8+1+3+9+6+4
Normal person: 42.
William would come up with: "I have an idea: Considering 2+6, 8! Oh, but 6+3, 9! But considering 3 in relation to 8, 11! Looking at 1, I think 8 is related, so let's consider the implications of 9! 1 works with 3, so 4! 9 and 3 are obviously related, therefore 12 is the answer. I have a 6 and 9, so I would like you to consider my theory of 15. We have 6 and 4, so science is obviously wrong about 42 -- they haven't considered 10!"

HAHAHAHAHA, that is some funny stuff.

Buy anyways, the theory of gravity due to uniform expansion of the reality can be proven wrong by one phenomenal, the black hole.

 

[William Gaatjes]

HAHAHAHAHA, that is some funny stuff.

Buy anyways, the theory of gravity due to uniform expansion of the reality can be proven wrong by one phenomenal, the black hole.

I must be crazy defending a thought experiment but i do it anyway . If you would have read about the thought experiment, that is exactly what it is implying, non uniform expansion of the universe. Where the gravity is stronger, the expansion goes at an accelerated rate.

EDIT :

Forgot to mention that you can even apply this idea to the big bang. More mass, faster expansion and on the inflation theory.

Only one draw back in the thought experiment, current measurements and models seem to state that the universe has experienced accelerated expansion. But then again it is just a thought experiment :hmm:.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I must be crazy defending a thought experiment but i do it anyway . If you would have read about the thought experiment, that is exactly what it is implying, non uniform expansion of the universe. Where the gravity is stronger, the expansion goes at an accelerated rate.

EDIT :

Forgot to mention that you can even apply this idea to the big bang. More mass, faster expansion and on the inflation theory.

Only one draw back in the thought experiment, current measurements and models seem to state that the universe has experienced accelerated expansion. But then again it is just a thought experiment :hmm:.

Since i am on the role with my thought experiment i had the idea to extend it a bit further : but i made an error in my thought experiment statement from the post of myself i have quoted.
"Forgot to mention that you can even apply this idea to the big bang. More mass, faster expansion and on the inflation theory. "

It should read :

Forgot to mention that you can even apply this idea to the big bang. More concentrated mass, thus accelerating expansion , fits the inflation theory.

I even have another thought to add. The infamous aether. It exist but under another name : Space-time. The matter waves move on this space-time.

Because of the faster accelerating expansion where a black hole is, the gravity as a counter reaction is so much stronger. But it is the accelerated expansion that stretches the space-time. And because of the localized space-time stretching, The wavelength of everything will get larger larger. And at a certain point, the wavelength of the photon or matter is so large, that it no longer can have interaction with objects in our universe. The energy is not gone or lost. It just seems invisible. Now does that not sound like dark energy or dark matter ?

Another thing to add :The black hole itself for an outsider, will appear very small because of this space-time (aether) stretching. While in reality the black hole is relatively huge.

Afcourse, i have not been around a black hole. It is just a thought experiment. :hmm:

 

[KIAman]

I must be crazy defending a thought experiment but i do it anyway . If you would have read about the thought experiment, that is exactly what it is implying, non uniform expansion of the universe. Where the gravity is stronger, the expansion goes at an accelerated rate.

That still doesn't explain why black holes has physically smaller dimensions than normal matter. If the space inside the black hole was accelerating fast enough to capture light, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the black hole would be dimensionally huge? I mean, what forces are strong enough to keep the black hole physically a singularity while the acceleration of its internal space is faster than light?

 

[William Gaatjes]

That still doesn't explain why black holes has physically smaller dimensions than normal matter. If the space inside the black hole was accelerating fast enough to capture light, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the black hole would be dimensionally huge? I mean, what forces are strong enough to keep the black hole physically a singularity while the acceleration of its internal space is faster than light?

Good question.

I have not fully thought of that yet .

But i will try but probably make a mistake because i have not thought this trough.

When you get beyond a certain point of concentrating mass and getting a more what looks like a focusing effect on the center of mass, something strange happens. A violation. At that point the gravity starts to compress the mass more increasing the acceleration, this acceleration causes stronger gravity as an reaction force. Thus again increasing the acceleration , resulting in stronger gravity up to a point of equilibrium. And poor space-time has to accept it. It will then look like the classical vertical horn. But try to envision this effect in 3D. You will be very happy when you visualize it. Especially with the added expansion acceleration. You will get an awareness of dimensions. Releasing yourself from te standard x,y,z + time constraints. Works best while elusive dreaming in the morning. Half awake , half a sleep.

It is the accelerated expansion that causes the gravity to increase. But the gravity makes the mass more concentrated. Because of this, the center of mass gets more focused. Thus collapsing and getting physically smaller. It is because of this action = reaction = action = reaction >> acceleration is gravity = acceleration = gravity that gravity can over power the normally way more stronger nuclear forces. Mass itself is not enough, it is the center of mass that must appear more dense and reach a threshold. Maybe unknowingly that is why i never was afraid of that certain fairytale that CERN might create black holes. It is not going to happen and never will. Gravity is a force but not the force of the nuclei, it can affect the nuclei though. But that is my opinion. :hmm:


EDIT:

Forgot one thing, if i remember correctly, we both agree on 1 thing. Time is a human construct. The trick is to never involve time with any thought experiment. Because as soon as time is being incorporated in it, you are bound by x,y,z + time. or 4D.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Something else. An alternative view on "particles"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BTcmuGdLCU


And here you can see the origin from my avatar :


The waves of an electron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7V8at8k4Cs&feature=related

The movie shows an electron bobbing on a light wave just after leaving an atom.

It was produced by the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University in Sweden, in a study directed by atomic physics boffins Professor Anne L'Huillier and Assistant Professor Johan Mauritsson.

Electrons have previously been impossible to photograph successfully because of their extremely high velocities. Good images of electrons couldn't be taken even with very short light pulses because the flashes were too weak to fully illuminate subatomic particles.

The Swedish team of seven scientists used extremely brief pulses of intense laser light and repeated exposures of an identically predictable event to capture a sequence of composite images, greatly slowed down in order to be viewable.

The laser flashes they used are called attosecond pulses. "It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10^-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe," said Mauritsson.

The film shows the electron's energy distribution.

And for the last part, An animated model where all these waves show the same orbitals of electrons around a nuclei. Or 3D standing waves in a sphere. For what i have read, this fits what Louis de Broglie described. But he was ridiculed : "Particles are point particles not waves".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQkciLCmnPk&feature=related

 

[William Gaatjes]

The shapiro delay :

Also: gravitational time delay. In general relativity, not only are light rays deflected, in addition gravity can lead to light taking more time in its travels through space than in classical physics. This is called Shapiro effect of Shapiro delay. It has been measured numerous times for light signals in the solar system, for instance for radar waves sent from Earth to Venus and reflected back. These radar signals took measurably longer when their path led them closely by the massive sun.

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/






http://www.einstein-online.info/dictionary?search_letter=s&set_language=en

 

[firewolfsm]

Because the speed of light cannot change, a gravity well cannot decrease the energy of a photon, thus, there is no wavelength shift of light.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Because the speed of light cannot change, a gravity well cannot decrease the energy of a photon, thus, there is no wavelength shift of light.

Lene Hau has done an experiment where she slowed the speed of light to 17 meters per second.

http://www.physicscentral.org/explore/people/hau.cfm

In 1999, after years of practice, Lene Hau learned how to bicycle at the speed of light. She's not a racer; she's a physicist at Harvard University. She didn't achieve this amazing feat by cycling faster; instead, she slowed light down - to an incredible 60 kilometers (37 miles) an hour. And just this year, she did something even more amazing - she stopped light dead in its tracks.



Lene Hau
Light travels at the “speed of light” - 300 million meters (186,000 miles) per second - only in a vacuum. Whenever light travels through a substance, its speed is slowed. For example, in water, light travels at only 225 million meters (140,000 miles) per second.”

Lene Hau (pronounced LEE-nuh HOW) always knew this, but she never expected to break the slow-speed record for light. She grew up in Denmark, and got a Ph.D. at the University of Århus, studying the physics of solids. After she graduated, she received a Carlsberg Foundation fellowship - an award given by the Danish brewery Carlsberg for study abroad. She visited several physics programs around the U.S., and was interested in the Rowland Institute of Science in Boston. “It was a fantastic research place,” she said. Soon after she arrived, she launched a new research project: the search for
a new state of matter called the Bose-Einstein Condensate.

It is very possible i have subjects mixed up.

Perhaps i am confused with the speed of light and the wave length. Could you clarify this please ?

 

[Harabec]

I suggest researching the topic you're posting about. Even Wiki can help explain what they meant by "slowing down light".

 

[William Gaatjes]

I suggest researching the topic you're posting about. Even Wiki can help explain what they meant by "slowing down light".

I Did look up the slow down of light ( not at wikipedia by the way). The light itself may only be traveling at the speed Einstein theorized in vacuum. When ever this light is absorbed by an atom, it will be retransmitted later on but with a time delay. This is where the decrease in the eventual speed of light comes from. When you measure the time, light needs to travel between 2 points and you change the material between these 2 points, you get different outcomes. Thus the slowdown of light is determined by the material and the density of the material between the 2 points. Some people suggest this is caused primary by refraction.

Thus my first post would mean that the light will not slow down when coming from a bigger(heavier) mass but would have an gravitational redshift when moving from a clean surface directly into the vacuum of space. More gravitational redshift when compared to the smaller (less heavy)mass. But would not be slowed down. In this case i was wrong yes. The gravitational pull will only cause redshift and will not cause a timedelay.

In reality this light would encounter all kinds of material and would be slowed down with the bigger mass when seen as a star when compared to the smaller mass seen as a star. I assume this is correct because the bigger star would eject more material away and thus this expelled material would form a sphere around the star while having a larger diameter when compared with the smaller star. Thus, increasing the chance the photons will encounter atoms and will be absorbed and after a very short time re-emitted. Thus i think when using stars as mass examples. Light from a bigger star will take a longer time to travel. But the delay will (depending on the star) be small when compared with the overall distance.

There is one question puzzling me. If i shoot of a photon, and it is absorbed and re-emitted by any atom, does it keep the same wavelength ? I would think the wavelength emitted must match the spectrum of what the atom is capable off. At least that is what i know. But what happens when a photon with a different wavelength is absorbed by an atom whose spectral signature is not compatible ?

It is getting more difficult to think because my neighbour has his weekly and only on sunday in the afternoon "share time with my sandingmachine" while he is usually home during weekdays and i am working(I had some free days and sickness during the week and never heard that damn predictable modulation of humming) .



http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm
I hope this qoute is true :

Yes, light "slows down" all the time through different materials other than vacuum. Light's speed in air is nearly the same as its speed in vacuum, so we just consider its speed through air to be the same as its speed in vacuum, c (around 3e8 m/s).

Light is an electromagnetic wave, and the materials through which it travels make up a transmission line. This transmission line is very similar to the ones which carry network signals from computer to computer or TV signals from cable companies to cable customers. In fact, the broadcast of TV signals is very much the emission of low-frequency light through a transmission line extending through the air from the antenna to your TV.

Every transmission line has capacitive and inductive effects. You may have heard of electrical permittivity, which is in many ways a measure of the capacitance of a material, and electrical permeability, which is in many ways a measure of the inductance of a material. Every material has these two characteristics, and they are what governs the speed of the wave (and the speed of light).

From a circuits point of view, you can picture a transmission line like a number of inductors put end-to-end with capacitors connecting each point between each inductor to the return wire of the transmission line. A signal propagates by charging each inductor up, discharging each into the next capacitor, and taking that capacitor's charge and discharging into the next inductor.

A more physical example might be an ice tray. If you take an ice tray and tilt it at an angle and start to fill up the empty cube nearest to the top, the water should gradually fill up that cube, start to leak into the next, and eventually do this to the next one down.

There are a number of other ways to visualize this -- perhaps a slinky-like effect down a transmission line. But in each it is obvious that it is going to take time for the energy put in at one end of the line to hit the other end of the line, and by changing things like the size of each capacitor and inductor (or perhaps the size of each ice cube), you change how fast the wave can propagate down the entire line.

In fact, there are relationships between the "characteristic impedance" of a material and these two characteristics as well as the velocity of propagation of a material and these two characteristics. These relationships (for a very good reason) mirror the relationships we see between the inductance per unit length and the capacitance per unit length of man-made transmission lines and their own characteristic impedance and velocity of propagation.

In materials like glass, the electrical permittivity is greater (2.554 times greater is a number that comes to my mind) than that of air. As a consequence, each little "capacitor" takes more time to charge, and the light that travels through the glass takes a longer time to move from one point to another. You can actually see this happening with "refraction." Whenever you see light bending when entering a material like glass or water, this is a result of the light slowing down as it enters.

For example, imagine sliding on a piece of rectangular plastic (perhaps a cafeteria tray) on a flat piece of ice that makes a large rectangle like a rectangular skating rink. Imagine that that ice butts up to pavement which is easy to walk on all sides. Now imagine being flung toward one of these ice-pavement interfaces at some angle that is not perpendicular to the interface. What is going to happen? I think you'll find that once a portion of the tray hits the pavement, it is going to slow down much quicker than the rest of the tray and cause you to swing around so that the tray's propagation is much more perpendicular to the interface. That is, while you may have expected to come out very close to the side of the ice rink, you may find yourself facing away from the ice rink heading off at a much different angle.

This is what happens when light moves from air (like ice) into glass (like pavement) at an angle. You can picture the "front" of the light like a wall (this is due to the tangential and perpendicular components of the wave, but I don't want to get into that much detail) which is being moved toward the interface. As the side of the wall nearest to the glass hits the glass, it slows down and the rest of the wall in the air keeps going. This causes the air side to swing in toward the glass. Eventually the entire wall will be inside the glass, but will be headed at a very different angle. The interest thing is that if the glass is a flat thick slab, when the "wall" hits the other side of the slab and hits air again, it will bend back to its original angle; however, if you drew a line from its new path toward its old path, you'd find that they are parallel yet not the same path.

You also observe this in a pool. The light is slower through the water, which causes it to bend, and causes you to see things at angles which they are not.

This also happens on the road. You may often notice that the road seems to "reflect" light far ahead on hot days. This has to do with the permittivity of the air just above the road (very warm air) and the permittivity above that air (cool air). This involves a more complicated explanation, so I won't get into it, but I provide it here as something for you to think about.

And that brings me into another topic of interest -- reflection. You see reflection of light all the time -- now you known a little bit about why it happens. Reflection is caused by differences in permittivities and permeabilities from interface to interface. This is a very in-depth topic that I won't get too far into. It involves reflection coefficients, transmission coefficients, things like standing wave ratios, and a number of other things to help characterize what happens when waves travel from one medium to another.

The interesting thing about this though that you may not have thought of (or, if you're a stereo enthusiast, perhaps you have) is the idea that since light is an EM wave as well as any signal on any man-made transmission line, and light suffers from reflection going from one set of permittivities and permeabilities (which make up characteristic impedances) to another set, signals on our own man-made transmission lines also have these sort of reflections. In fact, one thing that antennas do is help to make a man-made transmission-line's characteristic impedance the same as mother nature's transmission line so that the energy in space can be brought inside a man-made transmission line to be processed. And once on this transmission-line, the impedance has to be carefully taken care of. For example, in an FM di-pole antenna, there is a T junction at a particular spot that not only helps to eliminate changes in impedance from the legs of the T to the body of the T, but also helps to only pick up FM signals.

Anyway, this is a more complicated topic. However, if you've ever noticed that your speakers are rated with a certain impedance (4 ohms or 8 ohms, for example), and that perhaps your receiver also has a way of changing the type of speakers it expects to drive, and perhaps you've noticed your speaker cable has a certain impedance as well . . . Well, all of this has to do with reflection and maximizing power output at the speakers, and these same principles that govern how the data from your receiver hits your speakers also govern how light hits glass.

Though, I suppose technically nature governs all natural interactions whether electromagnetic or not, so of course the same thing governs both. It's just a very close relationship between those two.

So, yes, light is slowed down when traveling through different materials which have different characteristics which affect how it is transmitted through them.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I Did look up the slow down of light ( not at wikipedia by the way). The light itself may only be traveling at the speed Einstein theorized in vacuum. When ever this light is absorbed by an atom, it will be retransmitted later on but with a time delay. This is where the decrease in the eventual speed of light comes from. When you measure the time, light needs to travel between 2 points and you change the material between these 2 points, you get different outcomes. Thus the slowdown of light is determined by the material and the density of the material between the 2 points. Some people suggest this is caused primary by refraction.

Thus my first post would mean that the light will not slow down when coming from a bigger(heavier) mass but would have an gravitational redshift when moving from a clean surface directly into the vacuum of space. More gravitational redshift when compared to the smaller (less heavy)mass. But would not be slowed down. In this case i was wrong yes. The gravitational pull will only cause redshift and will not cause a timedelay.

Forgot to mention something, if there is between these 2 points or near the shortest path(straight line) a large mass, then the light or electromagnetic wave will be deflected because of the local distortion of the space-time. With the Shapiro delay experiment, this seems to be the case. The electromagnetic wave is bend 2 times and this to me would seem like refraction too. The refraction causes the electromagnetic wave to slow down, when compared to similar electromagnetic waves flying through space much further away. It is not really slowing down, it just needs longer to travel, because for the electromagnetic wave the path is bend and thus longer then a straight line.
What can also be the case that since gravity is always pulling, more matter can be found near that mass and then the chance of refraction increases as well. Adding another delay.

if i understand correctly and i am right, this is what gravitational lenses are all about. That would be fun, because i just thought this up. It may already exist as an explanation or not because i could be wrong, but either way i learn something new. :hmm: