robinpike

Swansont, that is the part that I do not understand. If the speed of light is invariant to all observers, why isn't the first step in achieving that, that all photons move to a universal frame? I appreciate that there will be other steps, but how can that first step not remain in place?

But the constant speed of light can be noted by observing that two photons moving side-by-side, stay together. That is all that is needed. Why does any other observation, such as our relative motion to light being constant, have to be mentioned?

Although the maths is useful (and exact), I do find it easier to discuss from a descriptive point of view. However I can see from my opening post, that using the term 'frame of reference' has a specific meaning in physics: that is, reference from a single observer's point of view; and this isn't actually what I meant. The question I meant to ask is: Does the constant speed of light suggest that there is 'universal framework' that light moves to? Yes it could be said that from a trivial point of view, photons moving side-by-side, are in fact are at rest with respect to each other, but photons in general must of course be moving across space. Also, the observation that we do not detect any change in our relative motion to light's motion, would seem to be a separate point of discussion.

xyzt, thank you for taking part in this discussion, but please think more carefully before you start posting: garbage in, garbage out. The premise is that photons moving together, stay together - that is the premise. The deduction is that they are moving to a single reference frame. Please can you explain how the deduction doesn't follow? Thank you. Okay, here is a different way of expressing the premise and deduction. Two spaceships are next to each other moving through space - the observation is that they always stay abreast of each other. The deduction is that the two spaceships are moving in the same reference frame. Before we go back to the original premise and deduction, does anyone disagree with this deduction from the observation?

Actually, it is. Quote robinpike, on 30 Jun 2014 - 5:28 PM, said:: If the deduction that photons move to a single reference frame is being considered as false, then what are the steps that refute that deduction? From a wrong premise you can draw any conclusion. This is known under "GiGo" (garbage in, garbage out).Actually, it is. The premise is that a group of photons moving together in space stay together - the deduction is that are moving to a single reference frame. Please explain how the premise is garbage?

True - my mistake, the introduction should not have mentioned our measurement of the speed of light - that is not the important part: the important part is that a group of photons , however picked, stay together in space. But it is not necessary to include "with respect to any observer". If the deduction that photons move to a single reference frame is being considered as false, then what are the steps that refute that deduction? Please only consider how the group of photons stay together - not what different observers measure the speed of the photons.

It is not necessary to add "with respect TO ALL REFERENCE FRAMES" (even though that is an observation). For the discussion on whether photons move to an absolute frame of reference, or not, all that is needed is the observation that a group of photons stay together, regardless as to which photons are picked to be in the group. If the point of view is that the photons do not move to a single reference frame, then what is the explanation as to how the group of photons stay together?

Our observation of the speed to be 'c' is not part of the premise at all - the observation is that photons move at the same speed - there is no need for us to measure what that speed is, in that observation. Please explain in more detail how the observation that photons move at the same speed, can lead to a conclusion other than they move to an absolute frame of reference?

Our measurement of the speed of a photon as 'c' in any inertial frame is not needed for the deduction. We only need to observe that a group of photons stay together. I don't understand how the observation that 'all photons move at the same speed' - gives rise to the deduction that photons do not move to an absolute frame of reference. Using the observation that photons move at the same speed, what are the steps in logic that break the deduction that they move to an absolute frame of reference?

When photons move through empty space, they are found to always move at the same speed, i.e. that of the speed of light. This property of 'a single speed' can be demonstrated by the situation of several photons moving parallel to each other, side-by-side, always staying abreast to each other. This is regardless as to how the photons were created, or when they were created. In order for this to be the case, does this mean that light - no matter where it is in the universe and when it was created - is moving to an absolute frame of reference?

Suggesting that every indirect test of general relativity has been shown to be in agreement with nature seems bit of a sweeping statement. For example, do we really know that black holes exist? - and assuming that we take that to be true, in what way have we tested / seen evidence that light (in general) cannot escape from a black hole?

Are we able to describe what happens when the photon goes inside the atom?

What happens if the photon has more energy than is needed for the electron to go from the electron's lowest energy level to its second energy level, but not enough energy to get the electron to its third energy level? Does the electron still jump to the second energy level, but only absorb part of the photon's energy?

How do we know that the electron 'instantly' jumps to a new energy level when it absorbs and destroys the photon? And what if the photon is not exactly of the same energy as the electron's allowed orbitals? Assuming that the electron has mass, can someone describe the process of how this absorption and instant 'jump' works. And like-wise, how do we know that the photon is created 'instantly' by the electron - and why 'out of the vacuum'?

Edgard, To help make the point of your Newtonian story even clearer, have you considered using the same principle but with a more fundamental starting point than birds and boats? Why not start with particles that always move at a single speed (the equivalent of your birds), but this time have the boats built from those particles too. To make the boats from the particles, have the particles move in a circle - each particle moving in a circle would be a 'particle of matter' to build your boat. And when the boat moves, the 'particles of matter' would have to change the shape of their movement from a perfect circle into a 'squashed circle' of a series of loops, in order to move forward. Now you can use your story to ask the question: Can people on the boats detect when they are moving? In other words, when they are moving relative to the single speed of the birds, is there a measurement that they can make that shows a different speed of the birds?

Yes, but my point is that maths is no more valid a method of reasoning than other methods - and more to the point, maths is no more valid as absolute proof of a theory than other methods. So, I believe that the suggestion is that maths is the only valid method of proving a scientific theory? So as I suggested, in that case let's turn this around and use an example of a scientific mathematical theory that has been proven to be correct. How about the behaviour of an electron near to a proton? Is it the case that maths has been used to prove that the electron is an entity that, when near to a proton, exists only at any point in space as a probability? Or if I have worded that badly, or indeed incorrectly, state what the mathematical theory of an electron near to a proton has proved to state, so that I may respond correctly.

But there are lots of ways to obtain understanding in science without using maths. Maths is just one form of reasoning, but there are others. For example, I am reasoning with you right now, but I am not using maths to do it. In science, it is possible to understand something pictorially as well as mathematically.

Mike, you will struggle with this because the above request has innocently assumed that proofs represented by maths can be shown to be absolute proofs. But no method of proof is absolute. I would turn this around and argue that the proofs using maths are not proofs themselves either. When it comes to fundamental physics, the mathematical theories that are taken as being absolute proofs, will contain assumptions that the proof relies on.

That co-ordinate method is interesting because it shows that a single number co-ordinate system can be used to define any position in 3 dimensional space. Note that any co-ordinate system, whether it is our normal 3 dimensional grid / 3 number system, to any other system that is thought of, has assumed parameters beyond the number of co-ordinates that it uses. For example, in the standard three co-ordinate system, the other parameters are the directions of the 3 straight routes through the cubes in relation to some fixed point and the size of the cubes. Similarly, in the one co-ordinate system, it is the direction of the spiral route through the cubes in relation to some fixed point and the size of the cubes.

Thanks Swansont. I was trying to think of a line of reasoning that would challenge the current explanation of quantum effects, without the reasoning having to resort to speculation. I wanted to think of an experiment that might show that the proton's electric field has something to it in addition to its positive field, and therefore also different to the electron's negative field. But what I've now realised, is that such an experiment won't demonstrate anything, for there would be no need to separate out the electron's field if the effect was an additional effect. The effect would always be present, with or without the electron. Back to the drawing board...

The "we" as anybody doing an experiment with electric fields? So what are the experiments that the none "we" people have performed, which use protons as the source of the electric field?

How can that be correct? How would that explain how two electrons interact with each other - where would their electric fields originate from?

When we do experiments with electric fields, we do this by building up an excess of electrons. This means that such experiments tell us about the electron’s electric field, rather than also the proton’s electric field. Therefore, when we do experiments with light and electric fields, these experiments are only finding out about how light interacts with an electron's electric field. These experiments show that the light is not affected by the electron's field. Physicists have concluded that light does not interact with electric fields, whether that field be from an electron or a proton. But what SHOULD have been concluded: Is that light does not interact with the electron’s electric field - and left the possibility open that light is affected by a proton’s electric field. But why should any physicist ask: Is the proton’s electric field different to the electron’s electric field? And then also ask: If so, how is the proton’s electric field different to the electron’s electric field? I don’t see how any physicist could use experiment and maths to ask those two questions.

That is interesting, for if an electron is a wave on a field and a positron is a wave on a field, then both have a shape, and it is meaningful to ask: What is the difference between the two shapes?

It's a bit like this... A rock sitting in a field has no awareness of the universe. Take the electrons and protons that are in the rock and put them together in a different way to make a person, and you now have something (someone) that is aware of the universe. True, the electrons, protons and photons - the universe - might as well not exist if there is nothing in the universe that has awareness of the universe, but that doesn't stop such universes from coming into existence.