swansont

! Moderator Note This is the second time in a short span that you have done this: insinuate a claim, but not provided sufficient evidence in the thread to support it. It is not enough to just provide a link. Rule 2.7 states that people have to be able to participate without clicking any links That puts the onus on you to provide a quote from the article that provides a basis for the discussion. In this case, the passage that claims that this star is older than the universe. You imply that the article says this, in no uncertain terms, but it doesn't. That kind of argument style isn't acceptable. Do better.

You described an inelastic scattering interaction, which implies an absorption into a real state, and re-emission from that state. That's not what others are detailing. That's not a description that has much meaning, because we don't know exactly what is happening during the time it takes for a photon to be absorbed in an atomic state, and the photon is gone when the process is done. There's never any point where you can say the photon has stopped or slowed down. It's there, and then it's gone. Heisenberg limits what you can say about the interaction. Attenuation implies an absorption by a real state, and that's not what's going on with the slowdown in a medium. But the energy and momentum of a photon in a medium is not what it is in a vacuum. What exactly happens has been a long-time issue as described by the Abraham-Minkowski controversy (short version: there are two conflicting ways to describe the momentum of a photon in a medium) Light is interacting with the medium even without attenuation. Attenuation is an unnecessary complication to the discussion of slowdown.

What Einstein did was apply a known behavior to a different aspect of physics. The math he used for special relativity was algebra. The result was novel, but arguably not a new physical law. The title of the paper was "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" — he was applying a concept of electrodynamics to mechanics. His imaginations included trying to be constrained by physical law. If you lack that, what you're imagining is magic. In any event, how people conceive of new ideas is not limited by your notions of their processes. "Abstract" does not mean "ignoring constraints of math"

So you are pointing out that you can't do something that careful explanations of physics don't do. Light has wave properties/behaviors, and particle properties/behaviors. You seem to be rebutting a different argument. It's not a strawman, per se, because there are some introductory explanations out there that use that phrasing. But it's strictly for the tourists — people reading a pop-sci article, taking a survey class in physics, or from someone giving an oversimplified explanation. If you've moved past the tourist level you know that classical descriptions don't apply; you don't have classical behavior and you know classical descriptions don't apply. MigL mentioned the phrase "quantum particle" which underscores that point. A quantum particle is not a little ball bearing, nor is it a water wave.

1. Did the OP do that? 2. Where do guv and gamma-dot come from? Explain why time runs at a different rate - without invoking relativity.

Is my coordinate time the same as your coordinate time? Does my physics work just as well as yours? Since we know Newtonian time is wrong, what's the point of invoking it? And I was hoping for an actual experiment, not a thought experiment (which is not actual evidence) Not here in this thread, but nothing is preventing you from opening a thread in speculations (or putting this in an existing thread of yours in speculations, as appropriate) so this is hardly an excuse.

If there is no real transition for them, how can they do otherwise? As MigL has pointed out, momentum must be conserved. Energy, too. If none is imparted to the atom (no real transition) then how can the photon's energy and momentum change? Where does it go?

If you invoke "safely" then no, David Hahn did NOT do it.

Saying "the article" is not a link to the article, or a substitute for it. Saying "according to" is not a quote from the article, or a substitute for it. Do you not comprehend what is being asked of you? (Are you just re-creating that scene from "My Cousin Vinny"?) ——— Instead of wild claims, a better option for you is "I don't understand what this article is saying. Can someone explain it to me?"

That's a failure on all levels. No link, no quote, and no actual possible physics. So let me request this again: please provide the link, and a relevant quote, so I don't have to go digging for nonsense that has almost certainly been misrepresented.

You have to be careful, here. "light" and "photons" are not synonymous with each other, and don't mix quantum and classical models. The speed of light is smaller in a medium. The speed of photons is still c.

Which link says this? Provide a quote of the relevant passage. It's not fair to make others chase this stuff down.

Available transitions would be a better way of stating it. (With the caveat that some transitions are "wider" than others, energy-wise)

It's basically not having populated states separated by the energy (and thus wavelength) in question. That becomes much harder to do when you have complex molecules than for individual atoms and simple molecules, because of all the states available once you start combining multiple atoms

I think it was to save time and make transport more efficient. The one way it decreases waste is if it reduces losses to spoilage. But that has little to do with how much packaging that goes in the trash, which is what Phi was saying. ——— My food waste is because of the tendency for the stores to sell large (economy/family size) packages of food at the exclusion of smaller portions, and some of that starts to go bad before I eat it all. Either the volume I consume, or I get sick of having the same meal multiple times.

The point is you can't treat a material as if it has a distinct edge at the quantum level, or a particle like it's a hard sphere. You did so, and without any scientific justification. Unfounded? Do they not exhibit diffraction and interference? Are these not behaviors of waves? On the contrary, exhibiting particle properties is evidence of particle behavior. It's a tautology.

Yes, although they will behave differently. The wavelength of a particle is h/p

Who? (I think there was a tweet I saw about how his whole supporter will be disappointed)

Yes. If by "trap" you mean in an optical cavity — put the radiation in a cavity so you have a standing wave, it just sits there, but you can't localize where the photon would be. That's true for anything with a wave nature.

! Moderator Note Well, then, this will be put in speculations and you will limit your discussion of this subject to this thread, and this thread alone.

! Moderator Note Your pet theory has no place in this discussion.

No way to tell, since (as Strange ha pointed out) the photons are identical particles. It travels a path in which it undergoes interactions which take time. "along a longer path" is ambiguous. (One interpretation I have makes it wrong, and the other is irrelevant) The notion of a "void" doesn't really apply here. It can be a uniform material. There are atoms, which have some cross-section for interaction, and the photon. These aren't tiny ball bearings undergoing collisions. The real question is: how could the photon not undergo an interaction under the conditions we're talking about?

! Moderator Note Split from the unification? topic, since this has nothing to do with the question of the OP If you are going to make claims about entanglement, please back them up with citations (preferably not to just your own work) Also, please drop the tobacco industry remarks, as they have nothing to do with entanglement and are off-topic

Right. It's in a region, but you don't have a specific location, just limits on where it might be found.

It's not an either/or situation. Drawing mental pictures based on the math and physical laws is kinda what scientists do.