Speed of c = Causality { Einstein Explanation }

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 19
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,192
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Got to time stamp 18:40 to begin --the gist of it--   to understand in clear, intuitive way, why photons do not have mass, yet they do have mass, if they travel even minutely less than the speed-of-radiation.

This Brilliant vid, explains the above in three, clearly and intuitive ways, mass { rest }, speed-of-radiation { c = motion }, speed of Causality { C }. If you have the time just go to the time stamp. We presume photons move at speed-of-Causality, because that is simpler, than the alternative reality that--- Einstein, Feynman and others believes exists---, as it is more complex, so why bother, if not necessary to deal with more complexity of space-time.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,942
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Got to time stamp 18:40 to begin --the gist of it--   to understand in clear, intuitive way, why photons do not have mass, yet they do have mass, if they travel even minutely less than the speed-of-radiation.

This Brilliant vid, explains the above in three, clearly and intuitive ways, mass { rest }, speed-of-radiation { c = motion }, speed of Causality { C }. If you have the time just go to the time stamp. We presume photons move at speed-of-Causality, because that is simpler, than the alternative reality that--- Einstein, Feynman and others believes exists---, as it is more complex, so why bother, if not necessary to deal with more complexity of space-time.
First, according to the theory of relativity, which is the subject matter of the video, the speed of light in a vacuum (C) is equal to the speed of causality, in relativity, they are one and the same.

The guy just asserts that there is an alternative reality where Photons can travel at different speeds and therefore can have mass, and later on he asserts that Einstein and Feynman and others believe such a reality exists.  That is simply wrong, fundamental to Einstein's theory is the constant speed of light in a vacuum, and the photon is "defined" as a massless particle, Einstein and Feynman believed these fundamental principles.  They did not believe in an alternative reality in which this is not true.

This guy's speculation that if photons were to travel at different speeds, then they could have mass according to Einstein's theory isn't supported by Einstein's theory because it doesn't allow for photons to travel at different speeds. He seems to be stating that "theoretically" within the theory of relativity this could be true, but no, within the theory of relativity it is not theoretically possible for photons to travel at anything but C, nor is it theoretically possible for a photon to have mass. Those principles are fundamental to the theory of relativity.it doesn't allow any exceptions to these principles.

He states that an alternative reality in which these things were not true would introduce paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, which is true, and according to theory, this is why it is not true.  "Theoretically" has no meaning aside from according to the theory, so there is no theoretical situation where photons travel at something other than C or has mass.  



ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,192
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Barney
@Sidewalker
"Theoretically" has no meaning aside from according to the theory, so there is no theoretical situation where photons travel at something other than C or has mass.
Apologizes for tagging Barney, as he shown not interest in this topic, as of yet.

Except in some circumstances, not involving there being in a vacuum.  That *aside for the moment*, I just like the simple and clarifying approach, as to why he arrived at that  --and apparently Einstien and Feynman if not also others---  to keep the abstractions simple { photon has infinite energy }, vs, rather then photon with finite energy of  mass { unnecessary complexity arises }.

I would argue **there is no true vacuum** of Universe, as all space is composed of various kinds fields, that,  of mass --if not others--- that the photon cannot escape interfering  with in Universe.  Photons  { EM field } do go slower when interfreing with other fields. Ex Higgs field as mentioned. And HIggs specifically involves the mass of fermions, if not some or all bosonic forces.

I am also bias --suspicious--  about any experiments or maths that suggets fermionic matter or bosonic forces have infinite energy.

You recall how Feynman or others invented re-normalization because they could no deal with resultants that stated ' infinite energy '.

As aside, you or others may have noted I used my personal labeling version of  ' re-normalization ' in some of Cosmic Pi-Time maths { simple stuff } around here over last few years.  Nothing to do with infinite energy issues.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,942
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Light travels slower in denser mediums like water or glass compared to a vacuum, because of interactions with the particles within the medium (the refractive index of that medium) but that doesn't impart mass to the particle.

I agree with your bias against infinite energies, Aristotle showed that actualinfinities is are logically inconceivable.  If they did exist, we could not confirm itthrough observation because there would be no way to measure them.  If an actual infinity were to exist there isno way for us to know it. 

Consequently, when science produces mathematical infinities, they represent places where the mathematical formulas break down rather than being in any way referential to reality. 

There aresupposedly infinite densities at the center of black holes, along with infinitecurvature of space-time, but a black hole is unobservable beyond the event horizon, so any observation impossible, and it is logically inconceivable, so I think the black hole just represents the limitation of knowledge or understanding in the theory of relativity.    
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,192
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Light travels slower in denser mediums like water or glass compared to a vacuum, because of interactions with the particles within the medium (the refractive index of that medium) but that doesn't impart mass to the particle.

In vid, dude --a student of Brillants info study project on the subject--   says that even fi photon travels slightly/minutely slower than speed-of-EMRadiation, then it will have a mass.  Yes,  im trusting his interpretation of the info after being a student of the Brillants study documentation he says eh went through.

I agree with your bias against infinite energies, Aristotle showed that actualinfinities is are logically inconceivable.  If they did exist, we could not confirm itthrough observation because there would be no way to measure them.  If an actual infinity were to exist there isno way for us to know it.
Glad we agree on that, tho Fuller believed in a macro-finite Universe, he was open to feasiblity of micro-ininfinite --ergo eternally--  subdiviision of the macro-universe ergo, mutilication { expansion of universe } via subdivision.  OF course he was quite old by the info regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy and Higgs field came along, and does not mention them in any of his books
 
Consequently, when science produces mathematical infinities, they represent places where the mathematical formulas break down rather than being in any way referential to reality. 

Ergo, re-normalzation  so they can sense-ably deal with the math resultants.  Again, I do similar thing with Cosmic Pi-Time 66.4

There are supposedly infinite densities at the center of black holes, along with infinitecurvature of space-time, but a black hole is unobservable beyond the event horizon, so any observation impossible, and it is logically inconceivable, so I think the black hole just represents the limitation of knowledge or understanding in the theory of relativity.

Yes, R Penrose receive nobel prize in 2018 or so for his 1963{?} single page paper proving Einsteins math on black holes was correct, however, Ive posted a vid by L Susskind around here a few times where via the string AdS/CFT theory shows ---and leads him to believe--  there is not singularity in black holes.

I never believed in black hole singularities from day I first began to learn about of them back in 80's.

Roy Kerr of of rotating black hole fame says all black holes are rotating, but he his math does not speak to whether there is a singularity or not, so he doesnt say what he believes about that.



Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,049
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
What did Nikola Tesla think of Einstein's theory of relativity?

Tesla said the following on the theory of relativity in a 1935 New York Times interview: "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,958
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
While it's not possible to know for certain if Nikola Tesla had autism, he did exhibit many characteristics that are similar to those of people on the autism spectrum: 

  • Obsessions: Tesla was obsessed with electricity and the number three. He also had a limited diet and strict routines, such as eating dinner at exactly 8:10 PM and curling his toes 100 times each night.
  • Sensory sensitivity: Tesla was extremely sensitive to light and sound. 
  • Social difficulties: Tesla was socially inept and had difficulty with social interactions. 
  • Visualizations: Tesla had an extraordinary ability to visualize complex systems. 
  • Phobias: Tesla suffered from many phobias.

  • Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Visualizations: Tesla had an extraordinary ability to visualize complex systems.

    Tesla criticized certain aspects of relativity theory and expressed skepticism about the concept of curved spacetime. He believed that the theories of electromagnetism he had developed, such as his own theory of gravitation, were more accurate and had a deeper understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe.J
    FLRW
    FLRW's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 6,958
    3
    4
    8
    FLRW's avatar
    FLRW
    3
    4
    8

    Based on current scientific understanding, Nikola Tesla was likely wrong about Albert Einstein's theories; Tesla publicly criticized Einstein's theory of relativity, claiming it was incorrect, but the scientific community widely accepts Einstein's work as accurate and groundbreaking.
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Based on current scientific understanding, Nikola Tesla was likely wrong about Albert Einstein's theories; Tesla publicly criticized Einstein's theory of relativity, claiming it was incorrect, but the scientific community widely accepts Einstein's work as accurate and groundbreaking.

    Nikola Tesla was one of the greatest inventors and scientists of the 20th century. Born in Croatia in 1856, Tesla is renowned for his significant contributions in the fields of electricity and magnetism, as well as his innovations in many other scientific domains.

    One of Tesla's earliest significant achievements was his invention of the alternating current (AC) motor, which allowed him to transmit electrical power over long distances more efficiently and reliably than the direct current (DC) systems of the time. Thanks to this invention, Tesla was able to contribute to the construction of many of the world's first power plants.

    However, Tesla's work went beyond just electricity. He was also a pioneer of electrical engineering and was one of the first to develop the concept of wireless transmission. In 1891, Tesla built a laboratory in Colorado Springs, where he experimented with high-voltage electrical discharges. Here, he recorded some of the earliest observations of radio waves, demonstrating that wireless transmission of energy was possible.

    In conclusion, Nikola Tesla was a giant of science, an inventor, and an innovator who made significant contributions to our understanding of electricity and magnetism. His legacy continues to influence the world of science and engineering, and his work was a significant milestone in human history.
    FLRW
    FLRW's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 6,958
    3
    4
    8
    FLRW's avatar
    FLRW
    3
    4
    8
    -->
    @Shila
    Nikola Tesla was stupid for thinking free energy was possible. Tesla’s idea was the wireless distribution of electrical energy which would be PAID FOR by consumers ! His ideas were based on unsound, non-scientific principles however, meaning it would never have worked for a number of practical reasons and his backers realized it was dead in the water and closed it down.
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Nikola Tesla was stupid for thinking free energy was possible. Tesla’s idea was the wireless distribution of electrical energy which would be PAID FOR by consumers ! His ideas were based on unsound, non-scientific principles however, meaning it would never have worked for a number of practical reasons and his backers realized it was dead in the water and closed it down.
    Free or low cost of energy is still the goal. Tesla was right.
    Sidewalker
    Sidewalker's avatar
    Debates: 8
    Posts: 2,942
    3
    2
    5
    Sidewalker's avatar
    Sidewalker
    3
    2
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Based on current scientific understanding, Nikola Tesla was likely wrong about Albert Einstein's theories; Tesla publicly criticized Einstein's theory of relativity, claiming it was incorrect, but the scientific community widely accepts Einstein's work as accurate and groundbreaking.
    The real rub was that Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist and Tesla was an inventor.  They had completely different approaches to science, Einstein worked with abstract mathematics, Tesla with experimentation only.  

    In 1905 nobody believed the measurements that speed of light was constant no matter what your frame of reference, but Einstein accepted it, made it a principle of nature, and worked out the implications mathematically, the result was the Special Theory of Relativity. Tesla believed he had experimentally measured energy traveling around the world at one and a half times the speed of light, he also thought he has measured cosmic rays traveling fifty times the speed of light, so he rejected the very basis upon which Einsteins theory was built.

    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    The real rub was that Einstein was a Theoretical Physicist and Tesla was an inventor.  They had completely different approaches to science, Einstein worked with abstract mathematics, Tesla with experimentation only. 

    While both Tesla and Einstein were brilliant innovators in their respective fields, their areas of focus and the nature of their contributions were different. Tesla's work had more immediate practical applications in technology and engineering, while Einstein's theories were more theoretical but fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.
    FLRW
    FLRW's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 6,958
    3
    4
    8
    FLRW's avatar
    FLRW
    3
    4
    8
    -->
    @Shila

    Tru-dat!
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Tru-dat!
    You cannot compete with the pole in front of you. Give up!
    FLRW
    FLRW's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 6,958
    3
    4
    8
    FLRW's avatar
    FLRW
    3
    4
    8
    -->
    @Shila

    Thanks for thinking that my pole is great!
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,192
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Sidewalker
    This excerpt from B Fullers Synergetics

    266.07 ....."  Size depends on frequency, and frequency is cyclic. Angle, as only a fraction of a circle, is inherently subcyclic and subsize. But angle expresses a direction: This is where geometry enters into conceptuality.

    An angle  __or a noise__  has direction in respect to the head-to-heel axis or other system initiators. "....

    >> Cause { Causality of three nodal events that define and angle V =  1, 2 , 3 terminal nodal events aka points } >>>>

    >>>>>> Effect { a noise V at minimal tho never less than v^v^, tho never less than 6 terminal end point nodal end points ergo a tetrahedrons 4 vertexes plus 2 more events }  >>>>>>>>

    >>>>>>>>>>>> Resultant { variable circumstances  }
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >> Motion { Causality-frequency-time } >>>>>>>>

    >>>>>>>> a Noise { V effect ^ } >>>>>>

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variable circumstances { peoples/animals attention distracted that lead to other variable circumstantial cause, effect, resultants }

    Circles enclose a 2D area  ex O or as (  )

    Spirals define a cyclic forward, or inward, or outward direction/motion and exists in a 3D,  tube like  in its nature ======

    A 3D tube can loop around to meet itself as a 3D torus (   )(   ) is side-wise view, or as a birds-eye-view (   ()    )

    What my space-time torus expresses, is that there exists internal body of time { invaginating v resultant ^ } in respect to the outer and inner ultra-micro surface spiral of cyclic events { geodesics of space } that, from a side-wise view, may create the perception { falsely } visually presented as a 2D sine-wave.

    Yes, the internal body of reality-as-time, has sine-wave trajectories, and even the shortest trajectory can appear as straight, tho it is a geodesic, that is likened as that of  truncated geodesic, because it is so short.

    I.e. all trajectories are spatially curved geodesics, however, some are long enough to be more pronounced/presented as a curved geodesic of space and others not.
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 5,049
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @FLRW
    Thanks for thinking that my pole is great!
    Use it as an aspirational goal.