Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Miken]

In 2005, Professor Lene Hau did something that Einstein theorized was impossible.
Hau stopped light cold using atoms and lasers in her Harvard lab

Einstein specifically said that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. He knew perfectly well about refractive index, which results from light slowing down in a transparent medium.

Here is how that works:

Light consists of electromagnetic waves, with both magnetic field and electric field components. When light passes through a transparent medium, the electric field component interacts with the electric fields of the electrons in the material. The electrons will oscillate creating moving electric field waves. Since electrons have mass, they are going to oscillate much slower than the light waves. The resulting sum of the two waves will be slower than the speed of the light waves by themselves in a vacuum. It is these summed waves that pass through the medium at a lower speed. The electron configurations in different materials is what makes for different refractive indices.

Professor Hau has done something really extraordinary, fine tuning the interaction of the electric fields of the light waves and the electrons to such an amazing degree. But it does not contradict Einstein.

 

[MNoBody]

Einstein specifically said that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. He knew perfectly well about refractive index, which results from light slowing down in a transparent medium.

Here is how that works:

Light consists of electromagnetic waves, with both magnetic field and electric field components. When light passes through a transparent medium, the electric field component interacts with the electric fields of the electrons in the material. The electrons will oscillate creating moving electric field waves. Since electrons have mass, they are going to oscillate much slower than the light waves. The resulting sum of the two waves will be slower than the speed of the light waves by themselves in a vacuum. It is these summed waves that pass through the medium at a lower speed. The electron configurations in different materials is what makes for different refractive indices.

Professor Hau has done something really extraordinary, fine tuning the interaction of the electric fields of the light waves and the electrons to such an amazing degree. But it does not contradict Einstein.

I just brought it up because i was familiar with this and thought it fascinating and perhaps some of the more versed in these fields here can add something constructive, and this comment is informative and helpful as to the topic.....however the video i used was the best one I could find at hand, I suppose I could have revised their wording....but I figured these harvard fellows knew what they meant by saying it that way.

 

[Miken]

I just brought it up because i was familiar with this and thought it fascinating and perhaps some of the more versed in these fields here can add something constructive, and this comment is informative and helpful as to the topic.....however the video i used was the best one I could find at hand, I suppose I could have revised their wording....but I figured these harvard fellows knew what they meant by saying it that way.

It's a great video. No need to make excuses for that. It is just that after all these years Einstein still gets misunderstood even sometimes by the big brains.


A probably apocryphal story but what the heck.

In the 1920s, Arthur Eddington, astronomer and theoretical physicist, was being interviewed for a magazine. The interviewer asked him:

“Professor Eddington, they say there are only three people in the world who really understand Einstein’s theories. Do you think that is true?”

Long pause…

“Uh, Professor?”

“Oh, I heard you. I was just trying to figure who the third one might be.”

 

[MNoBody]

another item i think related [Light phenomena] is the cavitation experiments which are useful practically as well

and again a vortex is implicitly involved in the process

 

[Native]

The universe is the space-time continuum. This means that space AND time are integral parts of the universe.

Quote from - Spacetime - Wikipedia
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold".
----------------------
This idea is just a mathematical speculation. You cannot add the concept of "time" to the coordinate concepts of width, height, and depth and then take these different concepts to be "the space-time continuum".

Time is NOT a dimension, but a simple measurement method invented by humans.

Get updated on the "space-time" concept here - https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

 

[Native]

Einstein specifically said that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. He knew perfectly well about refractive index, which results from light slowing down in a transparent medium.

The "refraction bending and slowing down light" happens all over in the observable Universe and it probably confuses the convensus cosmological scientists to conclude wrong distances measurements in cosmos, hence the idea of "dark energy".

 

[Native]

You just contradicted yourself by quoting me.

I just confirmed your principle point of view - and now you contradicts yourself

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just confirmed your principle point of view - and now you contradicts yourself

No, you contradicted yourself. You claimed to follow the evidence yet you rejected the concepts supported by evidence and follow concepts that lack evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh well, forget it.

It´s OK with me if you believe that a conceptual idea of "space+time" can make the physical space to expand.

I don´t believe in the BB speculations anyway.

Well......

First of all, the science, nore the universe itself, cares about what you "believe".
Secondly, you accused me of circular reasoning and then post after post utterly failed to justify that accusation.

I'm more then happy to "forget it".

I just don't like it when people accuse me of things and then completely fail to substantiate the accusation and then simply run away, without even acknowledging their mistake and/or inability to justify their claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely and this is why I don´t believe that an Universe can be created from a single point.

FYI: the big bang deals with the development of the universe. Not with its origins / creation

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote from - Spacetime - Wikipedia
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold".
----------------------
This idea is just a mathematical speculation. You cannot add the concept of "time" to the coordinate concepts of width, height, and depth and then take these different concepts to be "the space-time continuum".

Time is NOT a dimension, but a simple measurement method invented by humans.

Get updated on the "space-time" concept here - https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Correction, some people can add the concept of time to the concepts of width, height and depth. I can't and I am pretty sure that you can't do so either. Those that understand relativity seem to be able to do so quite easily.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quote from - Spacetime - Wikipedia
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold".
----------------------
This idea is just a mathematical speculation.

A "speculation" which allows for theories like relativity, which is so accurate that it comes with practical application like GPS systems - which wouldn't work if one doesn't calibrate the internal atomic clocks of the satellites to account for the relativistic effects.

I think it's funny how you are really trying to argue with Einstein here.

You cannot add the concept of "time" to the coordinate concepts of width, height, and depth and then take these different concepts to be "the space-time continuum".

Apparently one can, since GPS works if one does while it doesn't work when one doesn't.

Time is NOT a dimension, but a simple measurement method invented by humans.

So the idea that events follow each other up in a sequence where causes precede effects, is a "human invention"?

Get updated on the "space-time" concept here - https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

I don't see how that changes anything.
GPS still needs to be calibrated to account for relativistic effects.

 

[Native]

No, you contradicted yourself. You claimed to follow the evidence yet you rejected the concepts supported by evidence and follow concepts that lack evidence.

Of course I rejected the premis as a BB is just a human invention "backed up" by a huge amount of hindsigt bias addings.

 

[Native]

FYI: the big bang deals with the development of the universe. Not with its origins / creation

No matter how you define this, you have to it explain it causally in order to obey the scientific method - otherwise it belongs to the science fiction department.

 

[Native]

So the idea that events follow each other up in a sequence where causes precede effects, is a "human invention"?

You conflates "sequences of motion" with the subjective concept of "time" which is a human invention.

 

[Polymath257]

The "refraction bending and slowing down light" happens all over in the observable Universe and it probably confuses the convensus cosmological scientists to conclude wrong distances measurements in cosmos, hence the idea of "dark energy".

It happens where there is enough matter to sufficiently slow down the light. But, for example, even something as dense as our atmosphere only slows it down by about 2%.

The point is that light slows down and refracts for reasons and we understand the reasons it does this. There are differences between refraction because of passage through matter and gravitational refraction (lensing). For example, the existence of Einstein rings and crosses is something that doesn't happen for ordinary refraction. But, because of the way that gravity is polarized (which is quite different than how E&M is polarized), we can know what we see is due to gravity.

Next, distances in the far cosmos are best determined either by expansion factor (known as z) or by the optical effects (dimming, angular size, etc). it is the relation between the different methods that leads to the conclusion of accelerated expansion and hence of dark energy. Refraction is relevant to dark matter, not dark energy.

So, no it is not a 'confusion' of conventional science in this regard. The confusion is in a different location.

 

[Polymath257]

Quote from - Spacetime - Wikipedia
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold".
----------------------
This idea is just a mathematical speculation. You cannot add the concept of "time" to the coordinate concepts of width, height, and depth and then take these different concepts to be "the space-time continuum".

Time is NOT a dimension, but a simple measurement method invented by humans.

Get updated on the "space-time" concept here - https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Quote from - Spacetime - Wikipedia
"In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold".
----------------------
This idea is just a mathematical speculation. You cannot add the concept of "time" to the coordinate concepts of width, height, and depth and then take these different concepts to be "the space-time continuum".

Time is NOT a dimension, but a simple measurement method invented by humans.

Get updated on the "space-time" concept here - https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Interesting that they say Minkowski 4D spacetime would predict the two clocks to tick at different rates when, in fact, it predicts they would tick at the same rate.

Looks to me like we have a couple of people that can't do basic math.

The 4D nature of spacetime is well supported by the evidence collected over the last 100 years. You may not like it, but time as a dimension is a solid concept (which actually goes back before Minkowski).

 

[Polymath257]

You conflates "sequences of motion" with the subjective concept of "time" which is a human invention.

There is no 'subjective concept of time' for times like the decay time for a muon.

As Archibald Wheeler said: Time is defined so that motion looks simple.

 

[Native]

It happens where there is enough matter to sufficiently slow down the light. But, for example, even something as dense as our atmosphere only slows it down by about 2%.

And on the 13.8 bill. ly intergalactic distancies from the Earth it is/can be what %? And how much does this affect the true distance measuring in space?

There are differences between refraction because of passage through matter and gravitational refraction (lensing).

Try to get the two paragraphs together: Light is bended and slowed down when moving through "matter" i.e. gaseous molecules in our atmosphere. Occams Razor says it´s the same phenomenon in outher space.

"Gravitational lensing" is yet another speculative invention in the standing cosmology.

But, because of the way that gravity is polarized

What do you mean by that?

 

[Polymath257]

And on the 13.8 bill. ly intergalactic distancies from the Earth it is/can be what %? And how much does this affect the true distance measuring in space?

Irrelevant. it is the differences in density that determine refraction, not the density itself. And, given the fact that the lensing happens close to galaxies, it isn't a cumulative thing over 13.8 billion light years, but an aspect of galactic clusters.

Try to get the two paragraphs together: Light is bended and slowed down when moving through "matter" i.e. gaseous molecules in our atmosphere. Occams Razor says it´s the same phenomenon in outher space.

Nope. The *amount* of slowing and bending depends on the density of the matter and its type. Given that the vast majority of intergalactic matter is hydrogen at very low density, Occam would say exactly the opposite.

"Gravitational lensing" is yet another speculative invention in the standing cosmology.

No, it is a measured effect.

What do you mean by that?

E&M allows two types of polarization while gravity allows for four.