Quantum Entanglement - Speeed of light

Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
The above article clearly shows that action at a distance in Quantum Entanglement happens instantly. This is now well established.
The issue then becomes "Is this a violation of Relativity i.e. The Speed of Light ?

In a different thread regarding apples I have tried to show how The speed of light can be still 300,000km/sec (ish) but different when compared between frames having different expansion rates (each can still be measured as C within its own framework). So over the history of the universe the speed of light can have changed BUT always have remained at 300,000km/sec (ish) in the framework applying at that historical time. Not standard science, just my proposal to resolve some issues.


I can see no such similar side stepping logic for Entanglement. Perhaps then the situation should be viewed head on: Although separated by light years entangled particles are in the same place and not separated by distance. This suggests to me that 'distance' is not real in some way. What do you think?

Maybe something along the lines of -
Light has no 'time experience' ( I believe I have this right, otherwise correct me please). Similarly Time alone has no distance. What do you think; nonsense maybe?

Bear in mind that time runs at right-angles to space and ticks away, however if the ticks stopped? Probably nonsense but I cannot push it further :)
Ah yes I can after-all ... it would mean the Quantum world is devoid of time (?) but I would like to hear your views if possible
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
498
70
1,780
I can't make too much of your thinking. It's hard for me to believe that if we are expanding at such rates, why can't we measure it locally? It's hard to believe in selective expansion, mated with space-time.

I believe that the structures that light builds, are the largest and oldest physical structures that there is. Only light has the oldest time. The longest duration.

Anyhow, you've had no comments and I would like to ask a question about entanglement. I have only slightly read about it and I don't know the rules of it so far. If we entangle two particles in a lab,(birth local time) and take one and put it in orbit, will the entangled particles have the same time? Does the orbit particle take it's local time with it, to remain entangled? Or does the particle exist in the new time zone, and then still remain entangled?

Do you know of such by chance? Just curious if anyone has explained this?
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
Anyhow, you've had no comments and I would like to ask a question about entanglement. I have only slightly read about it and I don't know the rules of it so far. If we entangle two particles in a lab,(birth local time) and take one and put it in orbit, will the entangled particles have the same time? Does the orbit particle take it's local time with it, to remain entangled? Or does the particle exist in the new time zone, and then still remain entangled?
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
An Ace question! The answer is that the experiment cannot be done. The theoretical reason is that entanglement is easily upset/undone. Vibration, noise, or circumstance collapses the entanglement. That's the theory anyway. Having said that Quantum Mechanics is difficult to explain (by anyone). It does not make any sense so far as anyone can express it to date.
It occurs to me though that the theoretical "any distance apart" statement we often read is in practice a bit iffy for the same reasons as your example; the match in gravitation between two widely different circumstances is unlikely. However I get the impression that entanglement is not an absolute but varies in strength so there is some tolerance.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
The above article clearly shows that action at a distance in Quantum Entanglement happens instantly. This is now well established.
The issue then becomes "Is this a violation of Relativity i.e. The Speed of Light ?

In a different thread regarding apples I have tried to show how The speed of light can be still 300,000km/sec (ish) but different when compared between frames having different expansion rates (each can still be measured as C within its own framework). So over the history of the universe the speed of light can have changed BUT always have remained at 300,000km/sec (ish) in the framework applying at that historical time. Not standard science, just my proposal to resolve some issues.


I can see no such similar side stepping logic for Entanglement. Perhaps then the situation should be viewed head on: Although separated by light years entangled particles are in the same place and not separated by distance. This suggests to me that 'distance' is not real in some way. What do you think?

Maybe something along the lines of -
Light has no 'time experience' ( I believe I have this right, otherwise correct me please). Similarly Time alone has no distance. What do you think; nonsense maybe?

Bear in mind that time runs at right-angles to space and ticks away, however if the ticks stopped? Probably nonsense but I cannot push it further :)
Ah yes I can after-all ... it would mean the Quantum world is devoid of time (?) but I would like to hear your views if possible
If the galaxy is moving at 351.1111 miles a second, we can divide 361.1111111 miles a second by 186,287 miles a second and you get 0.001938466511888 as the ratio between the distance light travels in a second and the distance the galaxy has moved. If you multiply 0.001938466511888 by 50 feet you get 0.096923325597063 feet and if you multiply that by twelve you get 1.163079907164756 inches. That would be how much a beam of light would bend in fifty feet. During my days in school and at the defense plant the guys had a million of these. And now today everyone goes around talking about the speed of light as C as if that is a real thing. The world would be a massive skew of light. A laser beam is not a beam of light at all. A laser beam excites the atoms in the beam to a point they fluoresce and create light perpendicularly to the beam. A beam of sunlight in a dark dust-free room is invisible. So of course like the filament in a bulb it is going to take time to bring the beam to a level it will fluoresce.

They could easily measure the speed of light by using wires of the same length from each initiating device that senses light to a timing device. It will show zero difference between devices. But there is no grant money for that. Up until 1973, they were still teaching that light was instantaneous in some schools. That is the year by law you could no longer teach such things in a publically-funded school, which included schools that were exempt from taxation.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
Hayseed said "I believe that the structures that light builds, are the largest and oldest physical structures that there is. Only light has the oldest time. The longest duration."

I am wary of your comment about light 'structures' but other than that you say "light has the oldest time". A Reference to the CMB maybe what you are referring to.
The Cosmic Microwave Background. This is light (visible and higher frequency) which has (in standard theory) been stretched by expanding space into longer wavelength radio waves. The original light was at the point where the universe became transparent. An original opaque soup of atomic particles and photons apparently came together as hydrogen and helium when space had expanded enough (cooled) for this to take place. The universe became transparent enabling light to act out as waves - I think I have that right. Check it on Wikipedia.
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
the universe is moving at 351.1111 miles a second, we can divide 361.1111111 miles a second by 186,287 miles a second and you get 0.001938466511888 as the ratio between the distance light travels in a second and the distance the galaxy has moved. If you multiply 0.001938466511888 by 50 feet you get 0.096923325597063 feet and if you multiply that by twelve you get 1.163079907164756 inches. That would be how much a beam of light would bend in fifty feet.
Hi William, The speed of light you refer to is of course its speed in a vacuum.
But I am confused when you say the "speed of the universe". Perhaps you refer to the point at which we cannot see any further(?) All space is expanding (except within galaxies because of gravity resisting the expansion, supposedly :). No part is moving in this scenario. Let me explain. An analogy would be that our universe is on the surface of a balloon: imagine a balloon being blown up. It has dots on it that represent galaxies. As the balloon gets larger the dots all separate. But, none of the dots are travelling across the surface of the balloon but they are all getting further apart. So, looking as far as you can see, then that galaxy will appear to be getting farther away up to the limit of the speed of light. In between galaxies will appear to recede at different speeds depending on how far away they are. This is measured by observing their (special types of stars in other galaxies) red shift i.e how much their light waves have been stretched.

At least this is the standard theory and is different to one of my posts suggesting that the red shift is due to time dilation from frame rotation. (ignore this last sentence it is only an idea of mine, lol)
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Hi William, The speed of light you refer to is of course its speed in a vacuum.
But I am confused when you say the "speed of the universe". Perhaps you refer to the point at which we cannot see any further(?) All space is expanding (except within galaxies because of gravity resisting the expansion, supposedly :). No part is moving in this scenario. Let me explain. An analogy would be that our universe is on the surface of a balloon: imagine a balloon being blown up. It has dots on it that represent galaxies. As the balloon gets larger the dots all separate. But, none of the dots are travelling across the surface of the balloon but they are all getting further apart. So, looking as far as you can see, then that galaxy will appear to be getting farther away up to the limit of the speed of light. In between galaxies will appear to recede at different speeds depending on how far away they are. This is measured by observing their (special types of stars in other galaxies) red shift i.e how much their light waves have been stretched.

At least this is the standard theory and is different to one of my posts suggesting that the red shift is due to time dilation from frame rotation. (ignore this last sentence it is only an idea of mine, lol)
If you actually dissect your ballon theory you will see that the galaxy is moving and therefore has a velocity. That velocity divided by "modern" sciences velocity of light would cause a divergence in a beam of light. But light is an instantaneous communication across the entire universe so you see realtime at any distance with no distortion of a light beam.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Hi William, The speed of light you refer to is of course its speed in a vacuum.
But I am confused when you say the "speed of the universe". Perhaps you refer to the point at which we cannot see any further(?) All space is expanding (except within galaxies because of gravity resisting the expansion, supposedly :). No part is moving in this scenario. Let me explain. An analogy would be that our universe is on the surface of a balloon: imagine a balloon being blown up. It has dots on it that represent galaxies. As the balloon gets larger the dots all separate. But, none of the dots are travelling across the surface of the balloon but they are all getting further apart. So, looking as far as you can see, then that galaxy will appear to be getting farther away up to the limit of the speed of light. In between galaxies will appear to recede at different speeds depending on how far away they are. This is measured by observing their (special types of stars in other galaxies) red shift i.e how much their light waves have been stretched.

At least this is the standard theory and is different to one of my posts suggesting that the red shift is due to time dilation from frame rotation. (ignore this last sentence it is only an idea of mine, lol)
Imagine two tanks on the surface of a giant balloon. They are one mile apart, and the gun on the tank about to fire is precisely aimed at the other tank, but suddenly the balloon starts to expand, that shell will never hit the other tank because it will drop at the rate the balloon is expanding compared to the velocity of the shell.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
The above article clearly shows that action at a distance in Quantum Entanglement happens instantly. This is now well established.
The issue then becomes "Is this a violation of Relativity i.e. The Speed of Light ?

In a different thread regarding apples I have tried to show how The speed of light can be still 300,000km/sec (ish) but different when compared between frames having different expansion rates (each can still be measured as C within its own framework). So over the history of the universe the speed of light can have changed BUT always have remained at 300,000km/sec (ish) in the framework applying at that historical time. Not standard science, just my proposal to resolve some issues.


I can see no such similar side stepping logic for Entanglement. Perhaps then the situation should be viewed head on: Although separated by light years entangled particles are in the same place and not separated by distance. This suggests to me that 'distance' is not real in some way. What do you think?

Maybe something along the lines of -
Light has no 'time experience' ( I believe I have this right, otherwise correct me please). Similarly Time alone has no distance. What do you think; nonsense maybe?

Bear in mind that time runs at right-angles to space and ticks away, however if the ticks stopped? Probably nonsense but I cannot push it further :)
Ah yes I can after-all ... it would mean the Quantum world is devoid of time (?) but I would like to hear your views if possible
Up until 1973, my school was still teaching that light was infinite velocity. And that the particles of electricity that carry light across the universe in the blink of an eye also powered all things that could harness their velocity, like an atomic bomb, made from ordinary products you can find on a farm, can do it. The reason is the power of the bomb is not in the material rather the ambient radiation.

The government openly announced they would hide the secret of the Hiroshima bomb from the citizens of the earth, which requires hiding what is actually powering it. The government paid a lot of money to universities to pull this off. They had to get universities to alter the scientific method as well. They got them to remove the line that stated you must demonstrate your hypothesis for your experiment to your fellow scientists, your peers before doing the experiment. And of course, you cannot demonstrate a force of attraction as none in our universe exist. Although it may appear a vacuum cleaner creates a force of attraction it does not. The entire operation is purely a pressure operation. The pump in the vacuum compresses air in its veins and then ejects that pressurized air into the room, When the now low-pressure veins are exposed to the vacuum canister the pressure in the canister pushed air into the pump, and subsequently the pressure in the room pushes air and dirt near the pickup into the vacuum cleaner. Never is there a force of attraction at work. Magnets work the same way. A flow of particles of electricity is set up between the two magnets with opposing poles facing one another. This negates the repulsive forces that naturally exist around them and they are pushed together into an area of less repulsion. If you run water through a small piece of rubber hose, and then take a two-inch piece of the same hose with the water running move the small hose, to the large hose while holding it parallel and in line with the larger hose, you will see it suddenly is "attracted" to the larger hose. Of course, that is not true, it is being pushed by the pressure now leaving the smaller hose to the larger hose. So there are no forces of attraction but then the neutron particle cannot exist and it does not. Real science was put away after World War Two.

I was actually taken by my uncle to the exhibit at West Point that stated the duplicate of the Hiroshima bomb weighed 886 pounds. My uncle took us because some of his friends had told him that they were going to remove it. I also watched women in shower caps on a PBS television special, building this bomb which is an oil-cased bomb that creates a liquid diode around the ammonium nitrate core that reaches 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit but cannot shatter the oil casing as it would disintegrate metal. It grows like a chewing gum bubble until it unleashes its devastation.

Sincerely.

William McCormick
 
Mar 4, 2020
498
70
1,780
When you blow a balloon up, the dots on it, the dots expand also. But galaxies don't? The EM structures I started 50 yrs ago are now 100 light years in diameter, and still growing at c. Even when it weakens to where you can not measure it, it still grows.

Do you believe the 13 billion old starlight still has an emitter? The emitting mass disappears long before the light from it. That makes light much older than mass.

The expansion rate between Earth and Mars........is the universal expansion rate, which is very slow, and will continue that way forever....if not slower. Gravity decayed very fast at the beginning, causing inflation, but now the rate is slow. Gravity, believe it or not, is not a fundamental property. And the force from it has not been constant.

The distant redshifts you see are from long ago......and a different frequency, not because of velocity, but from a stronger gravity field. Gravity affects all oscillations.

If you want an accurate time keeper, one can not use oscillation for clock tic-rate. One has to use a rotational clock.........then you will measure absolute time, everywhere.

Space is square and very firm.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
The above article clearly shows that action at a distance in Quantum Entanglement happens instantly. This is now well established.
The issue then becomes "Is this a violation of Relativity i.e. The Speed of Light ?

In a different thread regarding apples I have tried to show how The speed of light can be still 300,000km/sec (ish) but different when compared between frames having different expansion rates (each can still be measured as C within its own framework). So over the history of the universe the speed of light can have changed BUT always have remained at 300,000km/sec (ish) in the framework applying at that historical time. Not standard science, just my proposal to resolve some issues.


I can see no such similar side stepping logic for Entanglement. Perhaps then the situation should be viewed head on: Although separated by light years entangled particles are in the same place and not separated by distance. This suggests to me that 'distance' is not real in some way. What do you think?

Maybe something along the lines of -
Light has no 'time experience' ( I believe I have this right, otherwise correct me please). Similarly Time alone has no distance. What do you think; nonsense maybe?

Bear in mind that time runs at right-angles to space and ticks away, however if the ticks stopped? Probably nonsense but I cannot push it further :)
Ah yes I can after-all ... it would mean the Quantum world is devoid of time (?) but I would like to hear your views if possible
Here is a blast from the past so you can see where their rather sick minds were. They used an experiment without the scientific method to push through, forces of cohesion that do not exist in our universe. They then go on to tell you not to worry about it because they are not going to let citizens of earth know the secret of the bomb. If they are not citizens who are they? Benjamin Franklin proposed the atomic bomb in theory so this was nothing new or created by the Manhattan project. The Manhattan project was designed to hide the secret of the atomic bomb. Other countries already had the bomb but were more afraid of their own citizens using it than of being overrun by a neighbor. And in the same breath, they do away with the all-electric universe that built everything we had because they felt bad that Madam Curie who knew nothing about physics killed herself following "modern" sciences fairy tales. Universal scientists already knew what she was working with, and could have told the danger of it, and senselessness of it.

Some thought hiding the bomb was a good idea they just never thought that it would end up hiding all science on earth.
 

Attachments

Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
When you blow a balloon up, the dots on it, the dots expand also. But galaxies don't? The EM structures I started 50 yrs ago are now 100 light years in diameter, and still growing at c. Even when it weakens to where you can not measure it, it still grows.

Do you believe the 13 billion old starlight still has an emitter? The emitting mass disappears long before the light from it. That makes light much older than mass.

The expansion rate between Earth and Mars........is the universal expansion rate, which is very slow, and will continue that way forever....if not slower. Gravity decayed very fast at the beginning, causing inflation, but now the rate is slow. Gravity, believe it or not, is not a fundamental property. And the force from it has not been constant.

The distant redshifts you see are from long ago......and a different frequency, not because of velocity, but from a stronger gravity field. Gravity affects all oscillations.

If you want an accurate time keeper, one can not use oscillation for clock tic-rate. One has to use a rotational clock.........then you will measure absolute time, everywhere.

Space is square and very firm.
It does not matter if the galaxies change in size, the galaxy is moving, and that movement will cause light to bend, and we are just not seeing it. This was comical decades ago, today it is just sad.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Mar 4, 2020
498
70
1,780
Hello William. I have read your posts, but it's beyond me, and I can't put anything together. I don't know how to relate to any of your information.

Pardon me.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
When you blow a balloon up, the dots on it, the dots expand also. But galaxies don't? The EM structures I started 50 yrs ago are now 100 light years in diameter, and still growing at c. Even when it weakens to where you can not measure it, it still grows.

Do you believe the 13 billion old starlight still has an emitter? The emitting mass disappears long before the light from it. That makes light much older than mass.

The expansion rate between Earth and Mars........is the universal expansion rate, which is very slow, and will continue that way forever....if not slower. Gravity decayed very fast at the beginning, causing inflation, but now the rate is slow. Gravity, believe it or not, is not a fundamental property. And the force from it has not been constant.

The distant redshifts you see are from long ago......and a different frequency, not because of velocity, but from a stronger gravity field. Gravity affects all oscillations.

If you want an accurate time keeper, one can not use oscillation for clock tic-rate. One has to use a rotational clock.........then you will measure absolute time, everywhere.

Space is square and very firm.
Space is the definition of nothing. Time is man's incrementation of the movements of the heavenly bodies. Time has no force or laws, it is purely a man-made ruler to increment movements into more useful parcels.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Hello William. I have read your posts, but it's beyond me, and I can't put anything together. I don't know how to relate to any of your information.

Pardon me.
Decades ago we were wondering what people would be like after being put through the openly announced counterintelligence package introduced into schools. At the time it was easy to debunk what they were teaching but today so many people have it memorized as actual fact that, it almost seems to make sense, but not really. If there is something in particular that you are unable to get your head around I can probably help. If you want to go there, some people do not want to go there.
 
Mar 4, 2020
498
70
1,780
I only know of only one dynamic, that can bend or bow light, and not bounce(reflect) it. I have seen it twice. Once in a tank of settled sugar water, and once in the density gradient of Sol's atmosphere.

The so called gravity lens....is a measurement and processing artifact.(error) Not a physical dynamic.

And that error comes from bad math, the improper math description of light.

I do believe that our modern science is very wrong about many things. But I am not sure it's purposeful. I believe it to be pure ignorance, polished off with arrogance.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. But after witnessing the last few years.......it surely IS corrupted.

Maybe after a few more years of this.........I might be on your page.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
I only know of only one dynamic, that can bend or bow light, and not bounce(reflect) it. I have seen it twice. Once in a tank of settled sugar water, and once in the density gradient of Sol's atmosphere.

The so called gravity lens....is a measurement and processing artifact.(error) Not a physical dynamic.

And that error comes from bad math, the improper math description of light.

I do believe that our modern science is very wrong about many things. But I am not sure it's purposeful. I believe it to be pure ignorance, polished off with arrogance.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. But after witnessing the last few years.......it surely IS corrupted.

Maybe after a few more years of this.........I might be on your page.
When you see a mirage in a dessert you are looking at light moving through different density gases which creates actual surfaces for light to refract through. That is why you can seem invisible in a desert because the light from your body when passed through varying density gas is refracted so that you cannot be seen. When they pinned their bad science on Einstein who was not even asked to participate in the experiment of light bending around the moon, he laughed and said maybe it will work out for good. But the truth is that there is a varying density atmosphere around all heavenly bodies and this is what refracts light.
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Hi William, The speed of light you refer to is of course its speed in a vacuum.
But I am confused when you say the "speed of the universe". Perhaps you refer to the point at which we cannot see any further(?) All space is expanding (except within galaxies because of gravity resisting the expansion, supposedly :). No part is moving in this scenario. Let me explain. An analogy would be that our universe is on the surface of a balloon: imagine a balloon being blown up. It has dots on it that represent galaxies. As the balloon gets larger the dots all separate. But, none of the dots are travelling across the surface of the balloon but they are all getting further apart. So, looking as far as you can see, then that galaxy will appear to be getting farther away up to the limit of the speed of light. In between galaxies will appear to recede at different speeds depending on how far away they are. This is measured by observing their (special types of stars in other galaxies) red shift i.e how much their light waves have been stretched.

At least this is the standard theory and is different to one of my posts suggesting that the red shift is due to time dilation from frame rotation. (ignore this last sentence it is only an idea of mine, lol)
I just realized that I said universe I meant galaxy. I apologize I changed it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Jan 27, 2020
319
96
1,780
Ah, light and time, one of my favorite subjects.

If a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk to the store takes eight minutes, and you walk to the store, you age eight minutes. And if the shopkeeper watched you walk to the store, she’d know you aged eight minutes, too. If all we did was adhere to the Newtonian definition of time — with the notion that time was an absolute quantity — this would be true for absolutely anything in the Universe: everyone, everywhere would experience time passing at the same rate in all circumstances. But if this were the case, the speed of light couldn’t be a constant.

Imagine you stand still on the ground, shining a flashlight in one direction at an object one light-second away. Now imagine you’re running towards that same object, shining that same flashlight. The faster you run, the faster you’d expect that light to go: it ought to move at whatever speed light-at-rest moves at plus whatever speed you run at.

If time ran at the same rate for everyone, everywhere and under all conditions, then we’d see the speed of light be arbitrarily fast the faster something moved. And what’s even worse, is if something moved very quickly and then turned on a flashlight in the opposite direction, we’d see that light barely move at all: it’d be almost at rest.

Since light doesn’t do this — or change its speed-in-a-vacuum under any circumstances — we know this naive picture is wrong.

Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years.

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

If there were a valid reference frame in which light was at rest, then that would violate Postulate 2 because the speed of light would be different in various reference frames (i.e. the speed of light would be c in some frames and zero in its rest frame). And if Postulate 2 is discarded, then the entire theory of Special Relativity is discarded, because Special Relativity is derived from these two postulates. Asking the question, "If we just pretend that light has a reference frame, then what would happen?" will only lead to nonsense answers. Once you pretend that, you have thrown out all of Special Relativity, and you are just left with nonsense and increasingly speculative science fiction. In all reference frames that actually exist, light travels through space and time in a normal way just like any other object.

relativistic length_contraction.png
According to Special Relativity, as a frame goes faster, it shortens more in the direction of motion, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that it travels at exactly the speed of light, it contracts down to zero length. In other words, there is no valid reference frame at exactly the speed of light. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

Special Relativity tells us that a moving frame of reference has its spatial dimension shortened in the direction of motion relative to the stationary observer, and has its time dimension slowed down relative to the stationary observer. These effects are known respectively as "length contraction" and "time dilation". Here on earth, we don't notice these effects in everyday life because we are going far too slowly. Length contraction and time dilation only become significant when you are traveling close to the speed of light. The speed of light is very fast (300,000 km/s or 670,000,000 mph), far faster than any speed that a typical human experiences relative to the stationary observer. Note that the key phrase is "relative to the stationary observer". Relative to itself, a reference frame is at rest and experiences neither length contraction nor time dilation. An astronaut on a speeding spaceship does not see his own rulers shortened nor his own clocks running slow. Rather, it is the man on the ground who sees the rulers on the spaceship shortened and the spaceship's clocks running slow. Also note that there's nothing wrong with the clocks and rules. Space itself is shortened and time itself is slowed down for a moving reference frame, relative to the stationary observer. These interesting effects, which have been verified experimentally many times, are all derived from the two basic postulates mentioned above.

The mathematics of Special Relativity tells us that as a reference frame moves at ever higher speeds, its space contracts ever smaller and its time becomes ever slower, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that its speed approaches the speed of light in vacuum, its space shortens completely down to zero width and its time slows down to a dead stop. Some people interpret this mathematical limit to mean that light, which obviously moves at the speed of light, experiences no time because time is frozen. But this interpretation is wrong. This limiting behavior simply tells us that there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light. A reference frame that has exactly zero spatial width and exactly zero time elapsing is simply a reference frame that does not exist. If an entity is zero in every way we try to describe it, how can we possibly say that the entity exists in any meaningful way? We can't. Space and time simply don't exist at and beyond the speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, taking the limit towards c simply reaffirms the two postulates.

Since there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light in vacuum, there is also no way for an object with mass to ever go exactly the speed of light. If it did, then the object with mass, which certainly exists, would be jumping into a reference frame that does not exist, which makes no sense. In reality, an object with mass can go ever faster and get ever closer to the speed of light c, but never exactly reach it. The fastest speed achieved on earth by humans is 99.9999991% of c for a group of protons in the LHC particle accelerator relative to another group of protons. Getting this handful of subatomic particles so close to the speed of light requires more energy from the electric power grid than is consumed by a city. Special Relativity also tells us that the closer an object gets to the speed c, the more energy it takes to get the object one increment faster. As the object gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the amount of energy it needs in order to go faster spikes up rapidly. As a t takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to exactly the speed of light in vacuum.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/?sh=255a586278df

See: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/11/03/why-is-time-frozen-from-lights-perspective/

See: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/the-arrow-of-time/

Gravitational time dilation, also known as gravitational redshift, is a key prediction of the theory of general relativity, which Albert Einstein published a century ago. Gravitational fields slow the passage of time; the closer a clock is to a massive object, the more slowly its hands will move, as seen by an outside observer.

Time dilation also occurs due to motion, as predicted by Einstein's 1905 Theory of Special Relativity. The faster you go, the more slowly clocks tick as seen by an outside observer.

Since both Galileo 5 and 6 satellites both have passive hydrogen-maser clocks, which remain stable to within 1 second every 3 million years. As a result the researchers managed a roughly five-fold improvement in precision over Gravity Probe-A's work, which featured an atomic clock launched to an altitude of about 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers) and compared its ticking to that of a similar instrument here on Earth. The results confirmed the predictions of general relativity, to within .0007 %. The Gravity Probe-A measurement was the gold standard for four decades.

Imagine the block universe, which is supported by Einstein's theory of relativity, as a four-dimensional space-time structure where time is like space, in that every event has its own coordinates, or address, in space-time. Time is tenseless, all points equally "real," so that future and past are no less real and knowable than the present.

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many of us, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.

Is time irreducible, fundamental, an ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality? Or is our subjective sense of flowing time, generated by our brains that evolved for other purposes, an illusion?

Time flows, the present is super special as the only real moment, and the deep nature of reality is one of becoming. The direction of time can also be defined by a class of diametrically opposite processes: those that destroy information and generate disorder.
Hartmann352
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Ah, light and time, one of my favorite subjects.

If a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk to the store takes eight minutes, and you walk to the store, you age eight minutes. And if the shopkeeper watched you walk to the store, she’d know you aged eight minutes, too. If all we did was adhere to the Newtonian definition of time — with the notion that time was an absolute quantity — this would be true for absolutely anything in the Universe: everyone, everywhere would experience time passing at the same rate in all circumstances. But if this were the case, the speed of light couldn’t be a constant.

Imagine you stand still on the ground, shining a flashlight in one direction at an object one light-second away. Now imagine you’re running towards that same object, shining that same flashlight. The faster you run, the faster you’d expect that light to go: it ought to move at whatever speed light-at-rest moves at plus whatever speed you run at.

If time ran at the same rate for everyone, everywhere and under all conditions, then we’d see the speed of light be arbitrarily fast the faster something moved. And what’s even worse, is if something moved very quickly and then turned on a flashlight in the opposite direction, we’d see that light barely move at all: it’d be almost at rest.

Since light doesn’t do this — or change its speed-in-a-vacuum under any circumstances — we know this naive picture is wrong.

Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years.

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

If there were a valid reference frame in which light was at rest, then that would violate Postulate 2 because the speed of light would be different in various reference frames (i.e. the speed of light would be c in some frames and zero in its rest frame). And if Postulate 2 is discarded, then the entire theory of Special Relativity is discarded, because Special Relativity is derived from these two postulates. Asking the question, "If we just pretend that light has a reference frame, then what would happen?" will only lead to nonsense answers. Once you pretend that, you have thrown out all of Special Relativity, and you are just left with nonsense and increasingly speculative science fiction. In all reference frames that actually exist, light travels through space and time in a normal way just like any other object.

View attachment 1674
According to Special Relativity, as a frame goes faster, it shortens more in the direction of motion, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that it travels at exactly the speed of light, it contracts down to zero length. In other words, there is no valid reference frame at exactly the speed of light. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

Special Relativity tells us that a moving frame of reference has its spatial dimension shortened in the direction of motion relative to the stationary observer, and has its time dimension slowed down relative to the stationary observer. These effects are known respectively as "length contraction" and "time dilation". Here on earth, we don't notice these effects in everyday life because we are going far too slowly. Length contraction and time dilation only become significant when you are traveling close to the speed of light. The speed of light is very fast (300,000 km/s or 670,000,000 mph), far faster than any speed that a typical human experiences relative to the stationary observer. Note that the key phrase is "relative to the stationary observer". Relative to itself, a reference frame is at rest and experiences neither length contraction nor time dilation. An astronaut on a speeding spaceship does not see his own rulers shortened nor his own clocks running slow. Rather, it is the man on the ground who sees the rulers on the spaceship shortened and the spaceship's clocks running slow. Also note that there's nothing wrong with the clocks and rules. Space itself is shortened and time itself is slowed down for a moving reference frame, relative to the stationary observer. These interesting effects, which have been verified experimentally many times, are all derived from the two basic postulates mentioned above.

The mathematics of Special Relativity tells us that as a reference frame moves at ever higher speeds, its space contracts ever smaller and its time becomes ever slower, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that its speed approaches the speed of light in vacuum, its space shortens completely down to zero width and its time slows down to a dead stop. Some people interpret this mathematical limit to mean that light, which obviously moves at the speed of light, experiences no time because time is frozen. But this interpretation is wrong. This limiting behavior simply tells us that there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light. A reference frame that has exactly zero spatial width and exactly zero time elapsing is simply a reference frame that does not exist. If an entity is zero in every way we try to describe it, how can we possibly say that the entity exists in any meaningful way? We can't. Space and time simply don't exist at and beyond the speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, taking the limit towards c simply reaffirms the two postulates.

Since there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light in vacuum, there is also no way for an object with mass to ever go exactly the speed of light. If it did, then the object with mass, which certainly exists, would be jumping into a reference frame that does not exist, which makes no sense. In reality, an object with mass can go ever faster and get ever closer to the speed of light c, but never exactly reach it. The fastest speed achieved on earth by humans is 99.9999991% of c for a group of protons in the LHC particle accelerator relative to another group of protons. Getting this handful of subatomic particles so close to the speed of light requires more energy from the electric power grid than is consumed by a city. Special Relativity also tells us that the closer an object gets to the speed c, the more energy it takes to get the object one increment faster. As the object gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the amount of energy it needs in order to go faster spikes up rapidly. As a t takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to exactly the speed of light in vacuum.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/?sh=255a586278df

See: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/11/03/why-is-time-frozen-from-lights-perspective/

See: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/the-arrow-of-time/

Gravitational time dilation, also known as gravitational redshift, is a key prediction of the theory of general relativity, which Albert Einstein published a century ago. Gravitational fields slow the passage of time; the closer a clock is to a massive object, the more slowly its hands will move, as seen by an outside observer.

Time dilation also occurs due to motion, as predicted by Einstein's 1905 Theory of Special Relativity. The faster you go, the more slowly clocks tick as seen by an outside observer.

Since both Galileo 5 and 6 satellites both have passive hydrogen-maser clocks, which remain stable to within 1 second every 3 million years. As a result the researchers managed a roughly five-fold improvement in precision over Gravity Probe-A's work, which featured an atomic clock launched to an altitude of about 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers) and compared its ticking to that of a similar instrument here on Earth. The results confirmed the predictions of general relativity, to within .0007 %. The Gravity Probe-A measurement was the gold standard for four decades.

Imagine the block universe, which is supported by Einstein's theory of relativity, as a four-dimensional space-time structure where time is like space, in that every event has its own coordinates, or address, in space-time. Time is tenseless, all points equally "real," so that future and past are no less real and knowable than the present.

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many of us, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.

Is time irreducible, fundamental, an ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality? Or is our subjective sense of flowing time, generated by our brains that evolved for other purposes, an illusion?

Time flows, the present is super special as the only real moment, and the deep nature of reality is one of becoming. The direction of time can also be defined by a class of diametrically opposite processes: those that destroy information and generate disorder.
Hartmann352
Or the particles that bring us images are moving at infinite velocity. A laser beam is more like an electric wire and how a wire transmits voltage. A laser has to bring the beam up to a point that the atoms in the beam fluoresce and that takes time, so a laser beam would not be a legit way to measure the velocity of light just the velocity of a laser beam. That is why you cannot affect a beam of light by moving at a certain velocity because those particles of light are crossing the universe in the blink of an eye.

And if light, had a set velocity a beam of light would be skewing into a mess of useless information, just from the rotation of our planet. So light is instantaneous I learned this from the people that put us on the moon. The government came out and said they would hide this information from the populous but most didn't really care.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Sep 19, 2020
36
0
550
Ah, light and time, one of my favorite subjects.

If a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk to the store takes eight minutes, and you walk to the store, you age eight minutes. And if the shopkeeper watched you walk to the store, she’d know you aged eight minutes, too. If all we did was adhere to the Newtonian definition of time — with the notion that time was an absolute quantity — this would be true for absolutely anything in the Universe: everyone, everywhere would experience time passing at the same rate in all circumstances. But if this were the case, the speed of light couldn’t be a constant.

Imagine you stand still on the ground, shining a flashlight in one direction at an object one light-second away. Now imagine you’re running towards that same object, shining that same flashlight. The faster you run, the faster you’d expect that light to go: it ought to move at whatever speed light-at-rest moves at plus whatever speed you run at.

If time ran at the same rate for everyone, everywhere and under all conditions, then we’d see the speed of light be arbitrarily fast the faster something moved. And what’s even worse, is if something moved very quickly and then turned on a flashlight in the opposite direction, we’d see that light barely move at all: it’d be almost at rest.

Since light doesn’t do this — or change its speed-in-a-vacuum under any circumstances — we know this naive picture is wrong.

Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years.

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

If there were a valid reference frame in which light was at rest, then that would violate Postulate 2 because the speed of light would be different in various reference frames (i.e. the speed of light would be c in some frames and zero in its rest frame). And if Postulate 2 is discarded, then the entire theory of Special Relativity is discarded, because Special Relativity is derived from these two postulates. Asking the question, "If we just pretend that light has a reference frame, then what would happen?" will only lead to nonsense answers. Once you pretend that, you have thrown out all of Special Relativity, and you are just left with nonsense and increasingly speculative science fiction. In all reference frames that actually exist, light travels through space and time in a normal way just like any other object.

View attachment 1674
According to Special Relativity, as a frame goes faster, it shortens more in the direction of motion, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that it travels at exactly the speed of light, it contracts down to zero length. In other words, there is no valid reference frame at exactly the speed of light. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

Special Relativity tells us that a moving frame of reference has its spatial dimension shortened in the direction of motion relative to the stationary observer, and has its time dimension slowed down relative to the stationary observer. These effects are known respectively as "length contraction" and "time dilation". Here on earth, we don't notice these effects in everyday life because we are going far too slowly. Length contraction and time dilation only become significant when you are traveling close to the speed of light. The speed of light is very fast (300,000 km/s or 670,000,000 mph), far faster than any speed that a typical human experiences relative to the stationary observer. Note that the key phrase is "relative to the stationary observer". Relative to itself, a reference frame is at rest and experiences neither length contraction nor time dilation. An astronaut on a speeding spaceship does not see his own rulers shortened nor his own clocks running slow. Rather, it is the man on the ground who sees the rulers on the spaceship shortened and the spaceship's clocks running slow. Also note that there's nothing wrong with the clocks and rules. Space itself is shortened and time itself is slowed down for a moving reference frame, relative to the stationary observer. These interesting effects, which have been verified experimentally many times, are all derived from the two basic postulates mentioned above.

The mathematics of Special Relativity tells us that as a reference frame moves at ever higher speeds, its space contracts ever smaller and its time becomes ever slower, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that its speed approaches the speed of light in vacuum, its space shortens completely down to zero width and its time slows down to a dead stop. Some people interpret this mathematical limit to mean that light, which obviously moves at the speed of light, experiences no time because time is frozen. But this interpretation is wrong. This limiting behavior simply tells us that there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light. A reference frame that has exactly zero spatial width and exactly zero time elapsing is simply a reference frame that does not exist. If an entity is zero in every way we try to describe it, how can we possibly say that the entity exists in any meaningful way? We can't. Space and time simply don't exist at and beyond the speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, taking the limit towards c simply reaffirms the two postulates.

Since there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light in vacuum, there is also no way for an object with mass to ever go exactly the speed of light. If it did, then the object with mass, which certainly exists, would be jumping into a reference frame that does not exist, which makes no sense. In reality, an object with mass can go ever faster and get ever closer to the speed of light c, but never exactly reach it. The fastest speed achieved on earth by humans is 99.9999991% of c for a group of protons in the LHC particle accelerator relative to another group of protons. Getting this handful of subatomic particles so close to the speed of light requires more energy from the electric power grid than is consumed by a city. Special Relativity also tells us that the closer an object gets to the speed c, the more energy it takes to get the object one increment faster. As the object gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the amount of energy it needs in order to go faster spikes up rapidly. As a t takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to exactly the speed of light in vacuum.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/?sh=255a586278df

See: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/11/03/why-is-time-frozen-from-lights-perspective/

See: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/the-arrow-of-time/

Gravitational time dilation, also known as gravitational redshift, is a key prediction of the theory of general relativity, which Albert Einstein published a century ago. Gravitational fields slow the passage of time; the closer a clock is to a massive object, the more slowly its hands will move, as seen by an outside observer.

Time dilation also occurs due to motion, as predicted by Einstein's 1905 Theory of Special Relativity. The faster you go, the more slowly clocks tick as seen by an outside observer.

Since both Galileo 5 and 6 satellites both have passive hydrogen-maser clocks, which remain stable to within 1 second every 3 million years. As a result the researchers managed a roughly five-fold improvement in precision over Gravity Probe-A's work, which featured an atomic clock launched to an altitude of about 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers) and compared its ticking to that of a similar instrument here on Earth. The results confirmed the predictions of general relativity, to within .0007 %. The Gravity Probe-A measurement was the gold standard for four decades.

Imagine the block universe, which is supported by Einstein's theory of relativity, as a four-dimensional space-time structure where time is like space, in that every event has its own coordinates, or address, in space-time. Time is tenseless, all points equally "real," so that future and past are no less real and knowable than the present.

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many of us, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.

Is time irreducible, fundamental, an ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality? Or is our subjective sense of flowing time, generated by our brains that evolved for other purposes, an illusion?

Time flows, the present is super special as the only real moment, and the deep nature of reality is one of becoming. The direction of time can also be defined by a class of diametrically opposite processes: those that destroy information and generate disorder.
Hartmann352
Most of what Einstein said was in jest. Time is man's creation, not a law or force. Time has no effect on anything because man invented time. It is his incrementing of the perpetual motion universe's movements. He watches one rotation of the earth and calls it day, literally nothing more to time. Space is the definition of nothing. So to effect nothing will get you nothing affected.

They didn't even invite Einstein to one of his proposed experiments the bending of light near the moon. They gave him the Nobel prize for it but he didn't think it was done right. And the reason is that there is a varying density atmosphere around the moon that refracts light into the denser part of the gas. Just like light through a magnifying glass's convex lens refracts into the denser part of the lens.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Dec 31, 2021
2
0
10
Quantum entanglement is void of time. Or at least the center is. Like particles popping in and out of existence. There is a space with particle >void< another space with particle. The void having something to do with something like a Fresnel lens. "Beam me up Scotty" The time machine itself looking somewhat like a Lighthouse top with Fresnel lens.
travelLoop.jpg
 
Jan 27, 2020
319
96
1,780
GrnStarBird:

Einstein called the wavefunction collapse idea "spooky action at a distance" because the wavefunction could collapse everywhere in the universe.

Yet, one of the most sacred laws of physics as explained by Einstein is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

But this speed limit was "broken" in an experiment in which a laser pulse traveled at more than 300 times the speed of light. However, the laws of physics remain intact because Lijun Wang and colleagues at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton in the US are able to explain the results of their experiment in terms of the classical theory of wave propagation.

Special relativity prevents any object with mass travelling at the speed of light, and the principle of causality – the notion that the cause comes before the effect – is used to rule out the possibility of superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by light itself. However, a pulse of light can have more than one speed because it is made up of light of different wavelengths. The individual waves travel at their own phase velocity, while the pulse itself travels with the group velocity. In a vacuum all the phase velocities and the group velocity are the same. In a dispersive medium, however, they are different because the refractive index is a function of wavelength, which means that the different wavelengths travel at different speeds. Wang and colleagues report evidence for a negative group velocity of -310c, where c (=300 million metres per second) is the speed of light in vacuum.

Their experimental set-up is remarkably similar to that used to slow light to a speed of just 17 metres per second last year. It relies on using two lasers and a magnetic field to prepare a gas of caesium atoms in an excited state. This state exhibits strong amplification or gain at two wavelengths, and highly anomalous dispersion – that is, the refractive index changes rapidly with wavelength – in the region between these two peaks.

Wang and colleagues began by using a third continuous-wave laser to confirm that there are two peaks in the gain spectrum and that the refractive index does indeed change rapidly with wavelength in between. Next they send a 3.7-microsecond long laser pulse into the caesium cell, which is 6 centimetres long, and show that, at the correct wavelength, it emerges from the cell 62 nanoseconds sooner than would be expected if it had travelled at the speed of light. 62 nanoseconds might not sound like much, but since it should only take 0.2 nanoseconds for the pulse to pass through the cell, this means that the pulse has been travelling at 310 times the speed of light. Moreover, unlike previous superluminal experiments, the input and output pulse shapes are essentially the same.

The observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity. In
fact, the very existence of the lossless anomalous dispersion region given is a result of the Kramers ± Kronig relation which itself is based on the causality requirements of electromagnetic response . Remarkably, the signal velocity of a light pulse, determined as the velocity at which the half point of the pulse front travels, also exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum, c, in the present experiment. It has also been suggested that the true speed at which information is carried by a light pulse should be determined as the ``frontal'' velocity of a step-function-shaped signal which has been shown not to exceed c.

step function.png
A step function shaped signal - easypointzblogspot

There is no widespread agreement among physicists about the speed at which information is carried by pulses in such experiments. One definition is that it is the speed at which the point of half the maximum intensity on the leading edge of the pulse travels, but this velocity is superluminal in the Princeton experiment. The Wang team intends to analyze this further, including cases in which the pulse contains just a few photons.

The large dephasing rate in graphene offers also offers the feasibility of superluminal propagation of ultrashort light pulses. Additionally, the dynamical behavior of dispersion and absorption of a weak probe field in a closed-type graphene system has been investigated, and it is found that the absorption and dispersion can be dramatically affected by both the relative phase of applied fields and the Rabi frequencies* in such a way that a large transient gain can be achieved and a transient absorption can be completely eliminated.

Graphene, as the thinnest material known in the universe, consists of carbon atoms in a two-dimensional (2D) hexagonal lattice with unusual Dirac-like electronic** excitations. It holds many records related to mechanical, thermal, electrical and optical properties. Besides, its band-gap structure can be tuned by voltage or chemical doping, through which conductivity and transmission are changed. Subsequently, this feature can endow graphene with a capability of operation in both terahertz and optical frequency ranges. In addition to the interest in fundamental research of optoelectronic and condensed matter physics,1,4graphene is gaining attention owing to its various technological applications. Moreover, extant literature has reported investigations concerning the optical properties of graphene. Not only do the investigations provide insights into the underlying nature of graphene’s excited states, but they also open up interesting perspectives for emerging photonic and optoelectronic applications.

Research has shown that magneto-optical properties of the graphene and thin graphite layer lead to multiple absorption peaks and unique selection rules for the allowed transitions. Furthermore, non-equidistant Landau-levels (LLs) and the selection rules make graphene an excellent candidate for LL laser. Moreover, its optical nonlinearity features have been exploited in multi-wave mixing, entangled photons and third harmonic generation. These achievements demonstrate the feasibility of graphene for applications such as chip-scale high-speed optical communications, all-optical signal processing, photonics and optoelectronics.

In the past three decades, controlling group velocity of light has attracted a lot of interest owing to its potential applications, such as tunable optical buffers, optical memory and enhancing the nonlinear effect. Thus, numerous experimental and theoretical works have been devoted to control it in materials such as atomic medium, alexandrite crystal,33optomechanical system34 and superconducting phase quantum circuit system. Slow light can be used in telecommunication applications such as controllable optical delay lines, optical buffers, true time delay methods for synthetic aperture radar, development of spectrometers with enhanced spectral resolution and optical memories. On the other hand, the question of wave velocity has been studied since the advent of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The key issue is whether the speed of light in vacuum, c, is an upper limit to the group velocity. Theoretical works have shown that the group velocity is not limited and a great deal of experiments confirmed that it is possible for optical or electrical wave pulses to travel through absorbing, attenuating or gain materials with group velocities greater than c. Another interesting scenario in light propagation concerns the situation where the group velocity of light can even become negative. It is worth mentioning that the superluminal light propagation does not violate Einstein’s theory of special relativity since the energy and information flow do not exceed c. By using the principle of such propagation, one can improve the speed of information transfer in telecommunication. An ideal condition for practical light propagation is a region in which the light pulse should not attenuate or amplify, primarily due to fact that pulse propagation does not possible in the presence of a large absorption. Besides, gain may add some noise to the system. Moreover, going towards superluminal propagation of shorter pulses is highly desirable; in this context, graphene potentially facilitates superluminal propagation of such pulses because of its large dephasing rate, about 30 ps−1, and high optical nonlinearity.

As mentioned above, considerable attention was paid to optical properties of graphene, however, superluminal light propagation in such system has received scant study to date. Despite the achievement of superluminal light propagation in graphene in only a few studies, it is accompanied by considerable absorption so that the pulse propagation does not possible, resulting in a drawback of practical applications. In this paper, we report a gain-assisted superluminal light propagation in a Landau-quantized graphene and show that the slope of dispersion can change from positive to negative just by adjusting the intensities of the coupling or controlling fields. Additionally, many works have focused on transient properties of probe field absorption, gain and enhancement of dispersion in both atomic and solid-state systems. Despite the importance of the transient behavior, there is a little study on this phenomenon in graphene. In fact, no study has been reported to date on transient optical properties of a closed-type graphene system.

Look at the role of the relative phase of applied fields on the transient optical properties of a graphene monolayer system. Motivated by a recent study on phase sensitivity of optical bistability and multistability in graphene, the transient optical properties of the Landau-quantized graphene monolayer system interacting with three laser fields has been investigated. The effects of both Rabi frequencies and relative phase of applied fields on the probe field absorption and dispersion, again, have been investigated. It is shown that the absorption and dispersion can be dramatically affected by the relative phase and the Rabi frequencies so that the transient absorption can be completely eliminated and a large transient gain can be achieved just by choosing the proper relative phase.

See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12401462_Gain-assisted_superluminal_light_propagation

* Rabi frequencies - is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition in a given light field. It also gives the measure of the fluctuation of population between the levels. It is associated with the strength of the coupling between the light and the transition. Rabi flopping between the levels of a 2-level system illuminated with resonant light, will occur at the Rabi frequency. The Rabi frequency is a semiclassical concept as it is based on a quantum atomic transition and a classical light field.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

See: https://www.formulasearchengine.com/wiki/Rabi_frequency

** Dirac-like electronic properties: the low energy fermionic excitations of a wide range of materials, including high temperature d- wave superconductors, topological insulators, 2, 3 graphene, and bulk semi-metallic systems like Cd,As2,5, behave as massless Dirac particles instead of fermions that obey the Schrödinger Hamiltonian. These materials would display seemingly universal properties that would be a direct consequence of the linear or Dirac spectrum of their quasi-particles, such as a power-law temperature dependence for their fermionic contribution to the heat capacity. Furthermore, the linear electronic dispersion around their Dirac or Weyl nodes and the nature of their electronic wave functions lead to remarkable electrical transport properties such as the observation of Klein tunneling, weak antilocalization, and unconventional Landau levels in graphene.

See: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01793.pdf

A pulse of light or "wave packet" (a cluster made up of many separate interconnected waves of different frequencies) is drastically reconfigured as it passes through the vapor as shown above. Some of the component waves are stretched out, others compressed. Yet at the end of the chamber, they recombine and reinforce one another to form exactly the same shape as the original pulse, it's essentially called 'rephasing.'

The key finding is that the reconstituted pulse re-forms before the original intact pulse could have gotten there by simply traveling though empty space. The peak of the pulse is, in effect, extended forward in time. Consequently, detectors attached to the beginning and end of the vapor chamber show that the peak of the exiting pulse leaves the chamber about 62 billionths of a second before the peak of the initial pulse finishes going in.

That is not the way things usually work. Ordinarily, when sunlight--which, like the pulse in the experiment, is a combination of many different frequencies--passes through a glass prism, the prism disperses the white light’s components. This happens because each frequency moves at a different speed in glass, smearing out the original light beam. Blue is slowed the most, and thus deflected the farthest; red travels fastest and is bent the least. That phenomenon produces the familiar rainbow spectrum.

The experimental work above may result in dramatic improvements in optical transmission rates.
Hartmann352
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
498
70
1,780
Ah, light and time, one of my favorite subjects.

If a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk to the store takes eight minutes, and you walk to the store, you age eight minutes. And if the shopkeeper watched you walk to the store, she’d know you aged eight minutes, too. If all we did was adhere to the Newtonian definition of time — with the notion that time was an absolute quantity — this would be true for absolutely anything in the Universe: everyone, everywhere would experience time passing at the same rate in all circumstances. But if this were the case, the speed of light couldn’t be a constant.

Imagine you stand still on the ground, shining a flashlight in one direction at an object one light-second away. Now imagine you’re running towards that same object, shining that same flashlight. The faster you run, the faster you’d expect that light to go: it ought to move at whatever speed light-at-rest moves at plus whatever speed you run at.

If time ran at the same rate for everyone, everywhere and under all conditions, then we’d see the speed of light be arbitrarily fast the faster something moved. And what’s even worse, is if something moved very quickly and then turned on a flashlight in the opposite direction, we’d see that light barely move at all: it’d be almost at rest.

Since light doesn’t do this — or change its speed-in-a-vacuum under any circumstances — we know this naive picture is wrong.

Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years.

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames.

If there were a valid reference frame in which light was at rest, then that would violate Postulate 2 because the speed of light would be different in various reference frames (i.e. the speed of light would be c in some frames and zero in its rest frame). And if Postulate 2 is discarded, then the entire theory of Special Relativity is discarded, because Special Relativity is derived from these two postulates. Asking the question, "If we just pretend that light has a reference frame, then what would happen?" will only lead to nonsense answers. Once you pretend that, you have thrown out all of Special Relativity, and you are just left with nonsense and increasingly speculative science fiction. In all reference frames that actually exist, light travels through space and time in a normal way just like any other object.

View attachment 1674
According to Special Relativity, as a frame goes faster, it shortens more in the direction of motion, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that it travels at exactly the speed of light, it contracts down to zero length. In other words, there is no valid reference frame at exactly the speed of light. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

Special Relativity tells us that a moving frame of reference has its spatial dimension shortened in the direction of motion relative to the stationary observer, and has its time dimension slowed down relative to the stationary observer. These effects are known respectively as "length contraction" and "time dilation". Here on earth, we don't notice these effects in everyday life because we are going far too slowly. Length contraction and time dilation only become significant when you are traveling close to the speed of light. The speed of light is very fast (300,000 km/s or 670,000,000 mph), far faster than any speed that a typical human experiences relative to the stationary observer. Note that the key phrase is "relative to the stationary observer". Relative to itself, a reference frame is at rest and experiences neither length contraction nor time dilation. An astronaut on a speeding spaceship does not see his own rulers shortened nor his own clocks running slow. Rather, it is the man on the ground who sees the rulers on the spaceship shortened and the spaceship's clocks running slow. Also note that there's nothing wrong with the clocks and rules. Space itself is shortened and time itself is slowed down for a moving reference frame, relative to the stationary observer. These interesting effects, which have been verified experimentally many times, are all derived from the two basic postulates mentioned above.

The mathematics of Special Relativity tells us that as a reference frame moves at ever higher speeds, its space contracts ever smaller and its time becomes ever slower, relative to the stationary observer. In the limit that its speed approaches the speed of light in vacuum, its space shortens completely down to zero width and its time slows down to a dead stop. Some people interpret this mathematical limit to mean that light, which obviously moves at the speed of light, experiences no time because time is frozen. But this interpretation is wrong. This limiting behavior simply tells us that there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light. A reference frame that has exactly zero spatial width and exactly zero time elapsing is simply a reference frame that does not exist. If an entity is zero in every way we try to describe it, how can we possibly say that the entity exists in any meaningful way? We can't. Space and time simply don't exist at and beyond the speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, taking the limit towards c simply reaffirms the two postulates.

Since there is no valid reference frame at the speed of light in vacuum, there is also no way for an object with mass to ever go exactly the speed of light. If it did, then the object with mass, which certainly exists, would be jumping into a reference frame that does not exist, which makes no sense. In reality, an object with mass can go ever faster and get ever closer to the speed of light c, but never exactly reach it. The fastest speed achieved on earth by humans is 99.9999991% of c for a group of protons in the LHC particle accelerator relative to another group of protons. Getting this handful of subatomic particles so close to the speed of light requires more energy from the electric power grid than is consumed by a city. Special Relativity also tells us that the closer an object gets to the speed c, the more energy it takes to get the object one increment faster. As the object gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the amount of energy it needs in order to go faster spikes up rapidly. As a t takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to exactly the speed of light in vacuum.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/?sh=255a586278df

See: https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/11/03/why-is-time-frozen-from-lights-perspective/

See: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/the-arrow-of-time/

Gravitational time dilation, also known as gravitational redshift, is a key prediction of the theory of general relativity, which Albert Einstein published a century ago. Gravitational fields slow the passage of time; the closer a clock is to a massive object, the more slowly its hands will move, as seen by an outside observer.

Time dilation also occurs due to motion, as predicted by Einstein's 1905 Theory of Special Relativity. The faster you go, the more slowly clocks tick as seen by an outside observer.

Since both Galileo 5 and 6 satellites both have passive hydrogen-maser clocks, which remain stable to within 1 second every 3 million years. As a result the researchers managed a roughly five-fold improvement in precision over Gravity Probe-A's work, which featured an atomic clock launched to an altitude of about 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers) and compared its ticking to that of a similar instrument here on Earth. The results confirmed the predictions of general relativity, to within .0007 %. The Gravity Probe-A measurement was the gold standard for four decades.

Imagine the block universe, which is supported by Einstein's theory of relativity, as a four-dimensional space-time structure where time is like space, in that every event has its own coordinates, or address, in space-time. Time is tenseless, all points equally "real," so that future and past are no less real and knowable than the present.

Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many of us, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.

Is time irreducible, fundamental, an ultimate descriptor of bedrock reality? Or is our subjective sense of flowing time, generated by our brains that evolved for other purposes, an illusion?

Time flows, the present is super special as the only real moment, and the deep nature of reality is one of becoming. The direction of time can also be defined by a class of diametrically opposite processes: those that destroy information and generate disorder.
Hartmann352

"Ah, light and time, one of my favorite subjects." Me too.

"If a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) walk to the store takes eight minutes, and you walk to the store, you age eight minutes. And if the shopkeeper watched you walk to the store, she’d know you aged eight minutes, too. If all we did was adhere to the Newtonian definition of time — with the notion that time was an absolute quantity — this would be true for absolutely anything in the Universe: everyone, everywhere would experience time passing at the same rate in all circumstances. But if this were the case, the speed of light couldn’t be a constant."

That's true. It is NOT constant. The velocity of light is only constant under certain conditions.

"Imagine you stand still on the ground, shining a flashlight in one direction at an object one light-second away. Now imagine you’re running towards that same object, shining that same flashlight. The faster you run, the faster you’d expect that light to go: it ought to move at whatever speed light-at-rest moves at plus whatever speed you run at."

No, No, No. The velocity of the emitter, does NOT superposition with the velocity of the propagation! Because the emission is an instant act. No interaction time.
The velocity of the absorber....does superposition with the velocity of the propagation, because the act of absorption, takes time, it takes a duration. We have interaction time.

"If time ran at the same rate for everyone, everywhere and under all conditions, then we’d see the speed of light be arbitrarily fast the faster something moved. And what’s even worse, is if something moved very quickly and then turned on a flashlight in the opposite direction, we’d see that light barely move at all: it’d be almost at rest."

Not with the dynamic of instant emission.

"Since light doesn’t do this — or change its speed-in-a-vacuum under any circumstances — we know this naive picture is wrong."

This is so old. You can NOT use light, to measure the velocity of light. Light is a flux. You will always get an average result with flux. You(science) insist on measuring light in the wrong fashion.

"Time is not frozen from light's perspective, because light does not have a perspective. There is no valid reference frame in which light is at rest. This statement is not a minor issue that can be approximated away or overcome by a different choice of words. This statement is fundamental to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, which has been experimentally validated thousands of times over the last hundred years."

There are always TWO frames of reference for any and all emissions. The first one is position. All components of the emission is tied to that position. The second one is the instant, it was emitted. All components have the same birth time. AND for the last hundred years, light has been measured in an improper manner........you get the same wrong results, and think it proves your right.

"1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" True, but there is only one frame.

"2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial reference frames." Not true. There is only one frame. The velocity of light, depends on the velocity of the absorber.

A wave, takes time to emit. A speaker takes a sound's wavelength's worth of time, to emit. The duration of emission takes one period. The propagation is one period long. The absorption of the propagation takes one period also. That emission time(along with emitter movement) is what piles up, or stretches out the wave. The Absorption time......can also shorten or lengthen the interaction time.

EM radiation, has no emission time, it's instant. The propagation is 1/2 period long. The absorption of light takes one full period.

There is only one frame for nature. The No. 1 statement........insist upon it.

The theory of special relativity, explains an error in measurement.....with out exposing the error.

For one hundred years.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY