Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Thomas Ray: on 1/10/16 at 15:08pm UTC, wrote Better yet -- read the whole book. It is a masterwork of critical...

Thomas Ray: on 1/10/16 at 12:22pm UTC, wrote Okay, got it. It is just as I said. Under the heading "A Few Inferences...

Akinbo Ojo: on 1/10/16 at 11:31am UTC, wrote Okay. Just to post the link again... if it works, http, not https ...

Thomas Ray: on 1/9/16 at 20:23pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, "What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in...

Akinbo Ojo: on 1/9/16 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Tom, What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in...

Thomas Ray: on 1/7/16 at 17:30pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, Now I understand the source of your confusion, in Dingle's...

Thomas Ray: on 1/7/16 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, "The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of...

Thomas Ray: on 1/7/16 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, "Tom, must you think using only mathematics?" I could, but then I...



FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Classic Article: Black Holes, Paradox Regained [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Roy Johnstone wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 02:40 GMT
This sounds exactly like what Antony Valentini has been working on for some time now, where current quantum field theory, is only describing a "non-equilibrium" state which has relaxed out of a more fundamental theoretic, *non-local* description.

The only difference is that Valentini is approaching it from a pilot wave (Bohmian mechanics) basis. Valentini has proposed that there could be signatures of non-equilibrium states in the CMB and/or detectable n-e relic particles. As is the case in the article, this more fundamental state of non-locality would exist only in the very early universe or perhaps black holes.

I wonder if Steve is familiar with Valentini's work?

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Roy,

Thank you for highlighting that parallel between Giddings and Valentini's work -- I hadn't thought of it! It might also be worth revisiting what Valentini has been doing, on the site.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 01:30 GMT
Hi Zeeya,

What would be great is if we could get Valentini to provide a summary and update of his current work on the site! Any chance do you think?

I personally think that all research into pilot wave or so called "hidden variable" theories has been criminally under resourced and misrepresented! This is why it is still under-developed compared to traditional, "acceptable" research in quantum theory. Then, because of this, people dismiss these ontological theories as being too incomplete, not able to fully describe the world. Well, no wonder!! People also tend to criticise them from the standpoint of the tradition interpretation of QT, not on their own terms!

Pilot wave type theories really aren't just another interpratation of QT, they are a different class of theories.

Love to hear from Mr V. !!

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Hi Roy, It's a good idea -- I'll ask him.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 00:57 GMT
General relativity is a geometric theory of spacetime, which means that quantum gravity means quantizing spacetime itself. It is not entirely clear what this means. A number of questions have to answered, and currently there are obstacles in our current theories which do not permit us to address these issues well. Standard quantum field theory is local, but the fundamental physical observables of quantum gravity, which means diffeomorphism-invariant, are necessarily nonlocal. Quantum mechanics is nonlocal, but the wave function is defined by the action of field operators that act on a Fock space so as to define an amplitude locally. In a related manner quantum field theory takes causality as a fundamental postulate, but in quantum gravity the spacetime geometry, and thus the light cones and the causal structure, are subject to quantum fluctuations. This has the curious meaning that a quantum field is propagating on spacetime, but where spacetime is the quantum field.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 30, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
"If faster-than-light signaling was allowed, you could, for instance, send a message back in time to persuade someone to kill your own grandfather before he met your grandmother - and thus you wouldn't exist to send the signal."

This is both wrong and a red herring. Neither Einstein's relativity nor Newton's emission theory predicts anything like that. If faster-than-light signaling is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 9, 2013 @ 07:25 GMT
By considering the correspondence between Hawking radiation and black holes quasi-normal odes, I found a time-dependent Schrodinger equation for the evolution of the black hole evaporation. Information comes out as the states of the correspondent Schroedinger wave-function can be written in terms of a unitary pure evolution matrix instead of a density matrix. Thus, they result to be pure states instead of mixed ones, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1899.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 9, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT
I find interesting:

"One proposal being studied describes black holes and their environments as a network of Hilbert spaces (a Hilbert space for any quantum mechanical system defines all possible states that the system can be in). In the conventional picture of a black hole, locality prevents the Hilbert space of the interior of the black hole from influencing the Hilbert space of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
I just noticed that the first sentence in my first comment post is incorrect. It should read that current quantum field theory describes an equilibrium state which has evolved out of a non equilibrium state.

Zeeya, any luck with Antony Valentini yet?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Please visit the FQXi web site

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Quantum mechanics and gravitational field theory has already been unified and tested proving that space-time and wave functions are the same phenomena.

report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
I reckon that blackholes aint that black.these are points in spacetime that spacetime fabric uses as synthensis points of matter into energy.or energy into matter-These are reconversion proccess,probably leading to a cyclic process.The blackholes can be regarded as machines.Machines that compute,they are computers in that they regulate stars in the galaxies.stars that can no longer orbit the Super massive blackholes fall into them,resynthensised and later pop out into existence in another part of the galaxy . their region of operation lies within the shwarzchild radius,and they have a fixed entropy bound by the berkenstein hawking radiation limit.Informatiom in a singularity is likely to obey the principle of conservation of energy-Energy/mass cannot be created but can only be converted from one form to another.May a photon may pop into a blackhole and emerge as a Graviton.Chan paton factors in string /M-theory also kind OF IN A SENSE,WHEn applied to loop quantum gravity display,the garviton to be the unseen superpartner to the photon.Maybe the photon is the Fermio-bosonic bearer of both EM force,and Gravity.instantenously

report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 02:45 GMT
Title –

DIGITAL STRING THEORY DELETES QUARK STARS - EXPLAINS BLACK HOLES

Author – Rodney Bartlett

Abstract –

"Eminent Princeton physicist Ed Witten famously conjectured that the true ground state of matter (in the sense of the lowest energy per particle) consists of a mixture of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, with enough electrons thrown...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
For a minute, let's focus on the article's references to gravitational waves - the following paragraph shows that the Newtonian theory of gravity may have things back-to-front (in physics, nothing is dogma and everything needs to be questioned - even the work of the great Isaac Newton).

If the Sun's gravity can keep something as distant and massive as Jupiter in orbit and prevent it from...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
The black hole information paradox is the object of my Essay for the 2013 FQXi ESSAY CONTEST "It from Bit or Bit from It", which recently won the community rating. I propose a natural solution by improving my analysis on the correspondence between Hawking radiation and black hole quasi-normal modes which obtained an honorable mention in the 2012 Gravity Research Foundation Essay Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 28, 2014 @ 11:50 GMT
[/link:http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.de/2014/01/
redaction-from-hawking.html]?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 28, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT


??


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 28, 2014 @ 12:59 GMT
Thanks for the news, Eckard. I think Hawking is right -- no firewalls. Further though, I think that Hawking radiation is a compelling bit of evidence that we live (or at least, measure physical events) on the 3-sphere manifold, for this reason:

That physical singularities are extinguished in finite time comports with the mathematical proof (Perelman) that Ricci flow with surgery continues the flow for infinite time on the half open interval [0,1). What this means, is that the singularity never reaches the endpoint in more than finite time, which implies that the manifold is simply connected.

In physical terms, imagine that the observer applies "surgery" to the singularity by sending a test particle to the black hole event horizon; to the observer, the test particle appears frozen as it sends back information of its state, because the time intervals between pulses are longer and longer. The image dims, and never disappears. Information is conserved for infinite time because no information is lost in any finite time interval.

Maybe Hawking is right that the event horizon is itself a superfluous concept. I hope so, because it is a step closer to reconciling general relativity with quantum rules. (See my post of 9 April 3013 in this article forum.)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 28, 2014 @ 13:45 GMT
Eckard,

You've got a really good eye for important results -- Hawking's short paper, I predict, will be a game-changer.

" ... black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field. It will also mean that the CFT on the boundary of anti deSitter space will be dual to the whole anti deSitter space, and not merely the region outside the horizon."

Same thing I said in my 9 April 2013 (not 3013! LOL) post:

"If it seems paradoxical that simply connected space adjoining multiply connected space is not itself multiply connected -- that's because it *is* a paradox. Either the interior quantum configuration space maps nonlocally to the exterior space -- or the exterior space outside the event horizon is simply connected, not multiply conected, and all the space inside and outside the black hole horizon is simply connected."

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Elto Desukane wrote on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 04:13 GMT
Some people do not appreciate Hawking changing his mind. Kind of sad.

January 27, 2014

Stephen Hawking’s Blunder on Black Holes Shows Danger of Listening to Scientists, Says Bachmann

Posted by Andy Borowitz

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport
/2014/01/stephen-hawkings-blunder-on-black-holes-shows-dange
r-of-listening-to-scientists-says-bachmann.html

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 06:26 GMT
Wow. This reaction is *serious* and in some ways very understandable:

“Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you,” said Rep. Bachmann. “If black holes don’t exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don’t either, like climate change and evolution.”

Rep. Bachmann added that all the students who were forced to learn about black holes in college should now sue Dr. Hawking for a full refund. “Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,” she said.

It only goes to show how important it is for the science community to really have a light bulb moment about quantum mechanics being at odds with general relativity. For me the answer is easy. It's general relativity which is flat wrong. Newton's idea of gravity working equally in all directions without a mechanism being required is flat wrong. Einstein never changed this ludicrous premise. A particle model of a graviton, a spinning Archimedes screw, is the ONLY model to bridge the gap between a theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. It's easy AND common sense! Gravity then becomes directional, like the other forces. Baryonic gravity of everyday matter then becomes an average radiation of gravitons equally in all directions, which is why his simple equation is so effective.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 11:32 GMT
Science must be saved from scientists themselves so a very understandable reaction from politicians. This is to be expected when scientific criticism is stifled and opposing views are systematically shut out without bothering to discredit them on merit. See this effort aimed at avoiding this kind of future embarrassment of science by politicians. How should humanity steer the future? Look up to politicians, not scientists the way things are going.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 15:16 GMT
Akinbo,

Thank you so much for the link to 95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003).

Here's a taster of what the research project have to say:

[quote]The public in Germany has been cheated since 1922 and is cheated by the influential scientific community until today. Academic physics exert strong pressure on newspapers, journals, publishers and congresses not to accept any criticism of special relativity for publishing. Critical papers are suppressed, critical persons are excluded from any participation in the scientific dialogue.[end quote]

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Here is the interesting article that may shed a light on the information paradox.

Suppose you store information of a book in the z-directional spin states of stream of electrons. Then later, in order to extract the information, but by mistake, you measure their spin states in x-direction. So you mess up the information stored in the stream of electrons. But conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics does not insist this measurement destroys the information, because the wave function of an isolated system evolves smoothly by unitary process of Schrodinger equation. In other words, the information is not destroyed becasue the wave function of an isolated system never collapse.

This article shows that the wave function of an isolated system should be able to collapse without external observer. It means that, if the collapse of wave function is fundamental, the quantum information of an isolated system can be destroyed by ordinary quantum process.

attachments: isolawave.pdf

report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 16:48 GMT
They used Quantum field theory explains how all known particles interact with the fundamental forces (except gravity, that is). The information could go to the exception, into a gravity field. Perhaps, we need to reconsider what gravity is or, rather, how it functions. This is more than combining QM and GR. This is forming a completely new model that can correspond to both QM and GR with appropriate, but different, approximations. STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics develop this idea a little. There is a long way to go.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 18:58 GMT
It gets a little confusing commenting on an article by one person, Anil Ananthaswamy, about what another person, Steve Giddings, says about gravity force and black holes and what Giddings says about what even other people say.

Giddings wrote even more on Edge.org,

"Naive modifications of locality—as often proposed by physicists "on the fringe," generically lead to disastrous...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 3, 2016 @ 17:26 GMT
Retiring Einstein's Spacetime

https://edge.org/response-detail/26744

Steve Giddings, Theoretical Physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "For the 2014 Edge Question, I wrote that apparently our fundamental concept of spacetime is ready for retirement, and it needs to be replaced by a more basic quantum structure. There are multiple reasons for this."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

Can special relativity's spacetime be retired without retiring at least one of Einstein's 1905 postulates? Einsteinians?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 3, 2016 @ 19:00 GMT
"Can special relativity's spacetime be retired without retiring at least one of Einstein's 1905 postulates? Einsteinians?"

First of all, it's boring and misguided to hear you repeat, "the speed of light postulate is false," because there is no such thing as a false postulate.

Second, while general relativity does substitute one of the postulates (5th) of Euclidean geometry -- with one from two choices of non-Euclidean geometry -- there is no inconsistency with special relativity.

Third, special relativity is mathematically complete, "contained entirely within its postulates." There's no reason to doubt this -- the law of least action is sufficient to the case.

Now do some real work:

Drop the postulate and explain the theory of optics without it.

'nuff said.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 09:37 GMT
Hi Tom and happy new year...

Yes, by definition "there is no such thing as a false postulate". From various sources, we can quote and say: A postulate is an assumption. A postulate or axiom is laid down as self-evident or taken for granted. It is a proposition or prerequisite assumed without proof. So you are correct in your statement.

Where there is problem is where such postulate leads to absurdity. To quote one:

Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion does the special theory require to work more slowly? Do you have an answer to this?

As Dingle put it, "failing an answer the theory clearly becomes untenable, for, as Professor J. L. Synge has said after long consideration, either the theory or the conception that a regularly running clock cannot work both faster and slower than another must be abandoned". This is pretty obvious.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I doubt though that this is the best forum topic under which the matter can be discussed in detail.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 10:40 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

and me I have not a happy new year :)

happy new year Akinbo and be the force with you

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 11:40 GMT
"there is no such thing as a false postulate"

I suspect only Tom and Akinbo believe in this. For the rest of the world the potential falsehood of any physical postulate is something obvious:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-
Science/dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 13:19 GMT
There will be no more discourse with you, Pentcho, until you explain the theory of optics without the speed of light postulate.

Smolin is wrong and he knows it. Two postulates are necessary because relative motion is always referred to -- i.e., relative to -- absolute motion.

There is no such thing as a "false postulate". Every mathematician in the world knows this.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 14:24 GMT
A theory of optics without the speed of light postulate:

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/ta
gungen/OWR_2006_10.pdf

Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 17:07 GMT
Still groping around for clue?

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 18:25 GMT
Steve Giddings rejects Einstein's absurd spacetime but so do, more or less explicitly, many other Einsteinians (even though they continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate):

http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/205

"If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 18:55 GMT
Does Giddings ever get around to explaining the 'strong force' as anything other then a mysterious 'force' that counteracts the known repulsion parameters of like sign electrostatic charge? Now they find 'pentaquarks' so the quants probably need to invent another spin characteristic (I imagine they're pretty much all out of Charm) and to prevent any chance of a causality from showing its ugly face, it should be sufficiently ambiguous - how about "empathy"? like between an Up quark and a Down quark? they already had three quarks and now five so they'd need another additive plus=minus arbitrary value. Problem solved. jrc

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 20:00 GMT
Addendum;

If a Down quark has more empathy for an Up quark, like Browns fans have empathy for Jimmy Haslam where Haslam has NONE for working folk, that empathy has to be conserved in the cumulative spin that quants put on a particle. What ever they need it to be...a whole value or a half value. That's how the subatomic realm is governed by spin.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 4, 2016 @ 22:03 GMT
Desperate Einsteinians (like Steve Giddings):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900


New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It's+likely+that+time
s+are+changing%3A+a+century+ago,+mathematician...-a018533115
9

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 00:56 GMT
Steve Giddings does present himself as desperate here:

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857

Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

And John Cox, please give moral lessons to somebody else, not to me.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 03:13 GMT
That's your desperation, Gidding's creative curiousity.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 10:40 GMT
Lee Smolin's creative curiosity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-r
eborn-farewell-reality-review

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-
Lee-Smolin/9780547511726

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 5, 2016 @ 16:50 GMT
Petr Horava's creative curiosity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200
-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 11:55 GMT
Tom,

On your challenge...

"I'll issue you the same challenge as Pentcho. Try explaining refraction without a constant finite speed of light -- then extrapolate that result from Newtonian physics to relativity at the speed of light limit".

The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction. It is change of speed that causes refraction for all waves, sound waves included. Unless, you wish as a disciple want to play Judas, this is what the 'messiah' said and I quote:

"… A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.

Are you going to play the role of Judas Iscariot?

Regards,

Akinbo

*Please don't feel pain when you explain your view. In any case the pains inflicted are reciprocal, frustrating but enjoyable in a sense.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 7, 2016 @ 15:42 GMT
Akinbo,

"The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction."

The whole world knows the opposite. The finite speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The light ray curvature in the presence of a strong gravity field, moreover, is curvilinear, a linear representation of constant curvature.

"… A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.]

You must not have the same edition as my 1961 printing. I can't locate the reference -- you can be sure, however, that this applies to general relativity. Please don't get into the Pentcho Valev habit of spurious quotation and citation.

I have no idea what you mean by the Judas thing -- it doesn't belong in this discussion.

It's painful anytime to explain physics to an otherwise learned person -- knowing that you are capable of filling in the gaps in your education for yourself.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 19:34 GMT
Tom,

What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in speed right?

That is why Einstein made the above quote, which may be an inconvenient truth to reference. See it here on p.89, Relativity; the special and general theory.

Then saying that it applies to general relativity is amusing. Were all the so called confirmatory experiments and the deduced postulates obtained from a gravitationally free environment? Or has the earth's gravity ceased to exist? Was the effect of earth's gravity taken into consideration and corrected for? The answer is No.

In the same quote, where Einstein pointed out that the velocity of light varies with position. Does not tell you then that atop Mount Everest and down in the valley, (different positions in the gravitational field), that the velocity of light in both positions will have different values?

So what causes the bending of light for a light beam grazing the sun's surface is the changes in its speed as it encounters the sun's gravity.

Why, I say Judas is just a humorous way of saying not to betray Einstein, especially in those aspects where he makes his point clearly.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jan. 9, 2016 @ 20:23 GMT
Akinbo,

"What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in speed right?"

What makes the change in speed? Change in medium, right?

The link doesn't work. But as I said, I have the book. I have read it more than once. That passage is more than likely referring to curvilinear constant motion.

I don't regard Einstein as Jesus, so I don't get the joke.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'P' and 'R':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.