between3and26characterslon

Sure. And the terminology you use, "virtual state, interaction, does not impart energy or momentum" is different from some of the terminology others used, "bounces around, absorbed and re-emitted, bumps into"

I described what I believe others had posted so that I could demonstrate what it was I am not understanding. "Bouncing, absorbed and re-emitted", all of those things happen and will happen to some light which is traveling through a medium which is transparent to that light i.e. the medium is not perfectly transparent to any wavelength. But there is some light which travels through the transparent medium, is not bounced around, absorbed and re-emitted, and yet is slowed. The OP's post is that bouncing, absorbing and re-emitting is not a mechanism that adequately explains why light is slowed in a medium. This is explained in the video they posted and supported by the one I found from Fermilab. Surely light propagates through a medium at the same speed i.e. all photons will traverse the same distance in the same time, two photons entering the medium together will exit together?

Are you sure? It looked to me that some of the earlier posts were saying exactly that hence my confusion. I cannot understand how a photon can travel in a straight line, enter a medium and bounce around or be absorbed and re-emitted in random directions and then leave the medium parallel to its original direction. However a photon traveling in a straight line until it reaches a medium, changing direction and going in a straight line through the medium and then resuming a path parallel to its original path does make sense. Interacting with a medium is not the same as bouncing around etc.. As above Of course

Not something I'd considered/knew. In one of the videos they say that any of the component waves could be c but the super position of waves would be less than c. Does that mean the speed of the photon is c but the speed of light is <c I don't understand this. And you are under no obligation to watch it, I thought it would help in understanding the OP's reasoning. The link I posted, as I stated, is By Dr Don Lincoln from Fermilab. This is verifiable by going to the Fermilab website which is what I did. So I think watching a video from an expert in his field from a world renowned establishment at the forefront of scientific thinking is a reasonable source for a discussion on a forum. I don't believe I provided a strawman argument. If you put a pencil in a glass of water it appears to be broken due to the refraction of light in/by water, the direction light that leaves the glass is parallel to the path it would have taken if the glass was not there. Their explanation was that if light bounced between atoms or was re-emitted you would not see a clear image of the pencil in the water, the light would be scattered and the image defuse. This makes sense to me but if it is wrong perhaps you could explain how light can leave the glass parallel to its original path and still showing a clear image of the pencil I understand that cheese would not make a good fiber optic cable. If glass is transparent to red light and red light is slower in glass than in vacuo then it cannot be slower because it is bouncing around otherwise it would be defuse would it not? it would be like cheese. Does conserving momentum equate to conserving direction? If a photon can bounce around in any direction when within the medium how does it acquire a very specific direction when it leaves the medium?

You could watch the video and you would hear what they say, it may not be a great source but it is what the OP is referring to. The link I posted is a video from Fermilab with Dr Don Lincoln who is easily found on the Fermilab website so there is some pedigree. I didn't say photons do not interact with atoms, the super position of EM oscillations is after all interaction, I said they don't bounce around and are not absorbed and re-emitted (to clarify, some wave lengths are and some are not, depending on the medium). As far as I'm aware photons do not have a memory and so could not resume a path parallel to their original path. With fiber optics and prisms I'm not referring to total internal reflection at the boundary, I'm referring to the propagation of light through the medium before it gets to the boundary. If light bounced or was re-emitted it would go in all directions.

He literally said, "I want to prove to you that light really does slow down" (01:12) and he did not mention the average speed of light through the substance. light does not bounce around between atoms nor is it absorbed and re-emitted otherwise fiber optics and prisms would not work. Let's remember the speed of light is c in vacuo He gave 3 explanations 1. Light is a wave and therefore oscillates, there are EM oscillations of the atoms in the medium, the super position of these two waves propagates through the medium at less than c 2. light travels at the average speed of all possible paths through the medium (Young's' slits was used as an example) 3. Light ceases to be a photon and becomes a Polariton

I saw this just a few days ago which gives a similar explanation to the video you posted but with a little more detail. 06:15 for the explanation to start https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8

In any given population an IQ of 100 is defined as the average and marks the 50th percentile. This means that in any given population 50% are below average intelligence! Also I don't think 53% is statistically significant where you have a 50/50 choice i.e. it was a conspiracy/it wasn't a conspiracy. Building a model that replicates the collapse of the buildings is a great hobby and will offer great rewards but the rewards will be educational not monetary.

My apologies

There is no expectation, there is a question. Your reply is one of pedantry and evasiveness! No offense, it may suggest I'm asking an invalid question! I'll try this. If you had a glass sphere where the refractive index was greatest at the center and got progressively less as you moved out from the center following a 1/r^2 rule would the light follow a path similar to if it were passing a massive object through its gravitational field? Is it a meaningless comparison, is it a reasonable visualisation like a heavy ball on a rubber sheet or can you consider the progressively changing refractive index in the same way you consider the progressively changing time dilation in a gravitational field?

So what I was thinking about is the question that came up earlier: if a photon traveling from one medium to another is refracted such that it follows the path of shortest duration between A and B (A is in one medium and B in the other) then if it was going through many layers of progressively increasing then decreasing refractive index would the path it follows be analogous to a photon traveling past a massive object? I think that's the question you answered in the last two lines of your comment, I'm just not sure I understood your answer. That led me on to another question which is the one I asked. In that question, yes "Locally, an observer anywhere on that path will measure the light to be going at c", I understand that. The question is, from B's POV one photon will arrive after the other because it has traveled farther, but from the photon's POV do they both consider they have traveled the same distance in the same time but one still arrives after the other? Being that they were both emitted together.

If two photons are traveling from A to B, one photon's path is uninterrupted whilst the other follows a curved path around a massive object the straight line photon will arrive at B first as it travels the shorter distance. The curved line photon will have traveled farther but will experience time dilation due the the gravitational effects of the massive object so will both photons have the same proper time even though one arrives after the other? Something doesn't quite seem right with that??? For anyone who says 'do the math(s)' I am trying to spend 20 mins per day learning, I have finished multiplying pairs of brackets and am now on factorising. Gives you some idea where I'm at.

Would socks make a better analogy? You have one pair of white socks and one pair of black socks. if you lose one white sock you instantaneously lose one black sock.

But it isn't called the two clocks paradox or the who's the younger of two people paradox it is called the twins paradox and the fact they are twins has important implications, it implies: 1) they are in close proximity to each other 2) whilst they are in close proximity they are at rest with respect to each other, or both at rest to the same inertial frame 3) whilst they are in close proximity and at rest their respective clocks start simultaneously 4) their clocks tick simultaneously from then on (ignoring insignificant differences) 5) they are simultaneously the same age if one of those twins were then put on a spaceship and flown around the galaxy at great speed relative to the inertial frame and returned some considerable time later to be with their twin they would once again be in close proximity, be at rest, their clocks would tick simultaneously but one will have ticked less than the others they would simultaneously be different ages. the statement 'they were simultaneously the same age but are now simultaneously different ages' is true If in a different scenario there is a rogue planet speeding through the galaxy, traveling at a constant speed in a straight line and is heading straight for Earth at 0.9c. It is also true the Earth is heading towards the rogue planet at a constant speed in a straight line and at 0.9c. So there are two inertial frames heading towards each other at 0.9c. Is there any way we can conclude that an event which occurs in one inertial frame happens simultaneously with an event in the other inertial frame (with the speed and distance involved). Can the birth of a child on Earth be considered simultaneous with the birth of a child on the rogue planet. If the answer is no then the statement 'they were simultaneously the same age but are now simultaneously different ages' is false. They were never simultaneously the same age If you can conclude that events that occur in two different inertial frames, separated by some vast distance and approaching each other at some great speed, are simultaneous you can agree that two children born are simultaneously the same age. However if they were to fly off to meet each other, accelerating at the same rate for the same time, or, at the instant the planets pass each other you capture a photo (data) of the two individuals they will both be the same age still so the statement 'they were simultaneously the same age but are now simultaneously different ages' is again false. They are not different ages. So the OPS experiment will explain time dilation and the time dilation will be equivalent to the twins time dilation but in the OPS experiment the statement 'they were simultaneously the same age but are now simultaneously different ages' is false. and the statement 'they were simultaneously the same age but are now simultaneously different ages' can only be true where acceleration is involved. so Einstein was right, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be pleased to know that... (I mock myself)

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/twins/ In the link above it seems to me that they are asserting the twin paradox (previously I stated SR) is the observable results of events within an inertial frame. For twins to be twins they must have been at rest relative to each other, or more formally both at rest relative to the same inertial frame of reference (IFOR), at some point i.e. the moment before they were born. Then within this IFOR one twin will accelerate, travel at speed, turn around and come back whilst the other one remains stationary. So if the OP is suggesting that all clocks are synchronised whilst at rest relative to the same IFOR, are then moved to locations where they have the relative velocity and distance as set out in the OP and obey the timings and measurements as set out then is the OP, in part, right? However this is just a more complex twins paradox. I am struggling with this though: if clocks which originated from outside the IFOR matched their velocity and position with the synchronised clocks they should give the same result, but this is not consistent with any explanation of SR I can find, to wit, the link above.