Yep.
So you had multiple sex partners though much of of you is unknown.
Speed of c = Causality { Einstein Explanation }
Posts
Total:
34
96 days later
-->
@ebuc
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 think you are misunderstanding the concept of a field and a photon 'travelling'. A photon is a quantized unit of the electromagnetic field(s). The only field they interact with is the electromagnetic field directly and are not affected directly by the Higgs field hence/if they have no mass. Photons are discrete pertubations in the em field if you will. The em field 'works' at the speed of causality. Ergo the speed at which photons propogate is the speed at which the em field is willing to propogate them which is the speed of causality.
As for photons moving slower when interacting that is only sort of true. Yes they don't 'move' whilst they interact with a charged particle but the interaction itself happens at the speed of causality. Eg. in material you have electromagnetic waves that interact with the material in mind through various mechanisms (e.g. phonons, electrons etc.) to eventually become phase shifted by some amount 'moved backwards' which then makes it look as though they were 'travelling slower' but actually the pertubations in the field (not the field itself) is still moving at the speed of causality but it changes direction a couple of times whilst it interacts with itself and the other fields indirectly through the pertubations made by charged particles. The photon itself is just a quantized element of the em field and so if you truly want to get what a photon actually is study qft.
But intuitively speaking this is the understanding. So how about einstein? The video says if photons could travel slower than the speed of causality then... so if pertubations in a field move slower than at the speed of the causality at which the field works... You see the problem here? The proposition literally does not make sense. Now another way to think about it is this: the lorentz contraction sqrt(1-(u2/c2)) is 0 at the speed of light so all length become contracted to 0, so velocity from the photons perspective is 0, so acc is 0, so if it had a mass then in the photons frame of reference compared to ours you literally cannot make it acc no matter the force, so it cannot have mass (the resisting of acc) other than infinity or 0. But as soon as it moves slower you have non 0 length so non 0 vel so ... it can be affected by a force to make it acc so it has mass. That is what is meant in terms of the einstein expl. I think.
Any qs or objections pls ask or object.
-->
@TechMaster
At 8:10 he states Einstien is saying the rest energy = mC^2
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of a field and a photon 'travelling'. A photon is a quantized unit of the electromagnetic field(s).
I understand some of Q.E.D { read it 15 years ago } as Feynman states, ....forget what people say about EMRadiation being a wave. It only appears to us as a discrete quantum of energy... the photon
Found this 1998 blurb:
.." If the particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m rest c2.
..If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then E = pc "...
The em field 'works' at the speed of causality. Ergo the speed at which photons propogate is the speed at which the em field is willing to propogate them which is the speed of causality.
I would have to watch the vid again, to truly grasp the meaning of causality with EMR-photon as distinct from other kinds of causality.
As for photons moving slower when interacting that is only sort of true.
Well perhaps not Higgs field as it is responsible for existence of mass, that photon doesnt have mass in most respects.
However, in LIGO experiement photon was retarded by contraction of space and time or space-time via gravity.
The photon itself is just a quantized element of the em field and so if you truly want to get what a photon actually is study qft.
I think you know much about this stuff than me.
II watched couple of QFT over a few years. I think it could also be called Q.F. Vibrations { fields } and I ive been using referencingQFT Vibrations more lately with my graviton-darkEon 78 lines-of-relationship { LoR vibrations } and to whatever degree ---and perhaps a distinction-- between my LoRs and the vertexial events at each end of a LoR.
II watched couple of QFT over a few years. I think it could also be called Q.F. Vibrations { fields } and I ive been using referencingQFT Vibrations more lately with my graviton-darkEon 78 lines-of-relationship { LoR vibrations } and to whatever degree ---and perhaps a distinction-- between my LoRs and the vertexial events at each end of a LoR.
Now another way to think about it is this: the lorentz contraction sqrt(1-(u2/c2)) is 0 at the speed of light so all length become contracted to 0, so velocity from the photons perspective is 0, so acc is 0, so if it had a mass then in the photons frame of reference compared to ours you literally cannot make it acc no matter the force, so it cannot have mass (the resisting of acc) other than infinity or 0. But as soon as it moves slower you have non 0 length so non 0 vel so ... it can be affected by a force to make it acc so it has mass. That is what is meant in terms of the einstein expl. I think.
I could ask questions, however, I think your understand this stuff better than me. For most part I think I would direct people to you for corect answers in physics.
The vid made sense to me a --layperson for sure-- so it simple and cool to me. Thx for consideration and effort to explain EMRadition >< photon.
EMR - photon is very strange to me in so many ways. Constant speed irrespective of the speed of observer towards or away from the photon, unless the photon is contracted by Gravity { LIGO experiment proved that }.
In my geometric standard model, I equate the photon with some aspect of the 5-fold icosahedrons 10 great circles ---in case there 3D, horn tori-- tho I cant say what aspect or how to fit it exactly with any of the five, ----not five independent sets-- of the 4-fold cubo-octahedrons { VE }, self definning 4 great circles ---3D, horn tori in my scenarios--.
Except for the fact that with Fullers Jbug model of the Vector Equlibrium { VE } there are two ways the VE will transform into the Euclidean version of the double-sine-wave. The issue for me is why 10 great circles. Seems like too many a simple photon. I dunno. Maybe its actually more complex than I realize.
Here is the above 5-fold link from years ago from Robert Gray putting Synergetics online back in the 90's
Except for the fact that with Fullers Jbug model of the Vector Equlibrium { VE } there are two ways the VE will transform into the Euclidean version of the double-sine-wave. The issue for me is why 10 great circles. Seems like too many a simple photon. I dunno. Maybe its actually more complex than I realize.
Here is the above 5-fold link from years ago from Robert Gray putting Synergetics online back in the 90's
-->
@ebuc
Maybe it’s actually more complex than I realize.
It is like most things are.