Does this math explain lights speed ?

[MigL]

I find it strange that you are trying to explain the fixed speed of light, c , by claiming that it is variable in different mediums.
It is NOT !

Light always travels at c, but when passing through a medium, its passage is affected by absorption/emission events of variable timing for differing mediums. light is massless, so it cannot accelerate due to F=ma, although it will follow least action rules in GR, and is affected by gravity. 
As Swansont poined out, thespeed of light is inherent in J C Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, and has been verified countless times experimentally.

You, on the other hand, are trying to make up relationships by throwing shit at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
That is NOT what we do in a science forum.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by MigL

[Bufofrog]

15 hours ago, Pbob said:

I don't see your link sorry but light slows down passing through glass because of the permitivity and permeability  of the glass . It travels through the glass because it is been pulled through the glass by beyond the glass which has less energy in the space than the glass .

The simple reason you did not see the link is because I'm an idiot.

Here is the link.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Light always travels at c, but when passing through a medium, its passage is affected by absorption/emission events of variable timing for differing mediums

Photons travel at c. Light travels at c/n

One is a quantum explanation, the other is classical.

[exchemist]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Photons travel at c. Light travels at c/n

One is a quantum explanation, the other is classical.

Yes, my understanding is one needs to distinguish between phase velocity, which is what changes with refractive index, and front velocity, which as I recall remains at c. But this is from a while ago now so I may be mis-remembering. 

[Pbob]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

The simple reason you did not see the link is because I'm an idiot.

Here is the link.

Thank you for the link but it doesn't answer why light speeds back up again once exiting a medium . Additionaly a laser shun through a bottom of a glass of water in the dark does not refract . 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Photons travel at c. Light travels at c/n

One is a quantum explanation, the other is classical.

What does the n represent please ? 

14 hours ago, MigL said:

I find it strange that you are trying to explain the fixed speed of light, c , by claiming that it is variable in different mediums.
It is NOT !

Light always travels at c, but when passing through a medium, its passage is affected by absorption/emission events of variable timing for differing mediums. light is massless, so it cannot accelerate due to F=ma, although it will follow least action rules in GR, and is affected by gravity. 
As Swansont poined out, thespeed of light is inherent in J C Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, and has been verified countless times experimentally.

You, on the other hand, are trying to make up relationships by throwing shit at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
That is NOT what we do in a science forum.

 

Can you answer why a photon travels at c in a vacuum ? 

I neither suggested it was F=ma , I implied there is a gravitational transition force at work which I have suggested several conceptions to try explain . 

 

hf/F(<hf)=c  I think is the answer which also fits in with thermodynamic process . 

 

I additionally have supplied a model showing this to back this up . 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Pbob

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Pbob said:

What does the n represent please ? 

n is the index of refraction.

16 minutes ago, Pbob said:

Can you answer why a photon travels at c in a vacuum ? 

We know that c is invariant and that it’s about 3 x 10^8 m/s, and depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space, by why those constants have those values is not known.

[Pbob]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

n is the index of refraction.

We know that c is invariant and that it’s about 3 x 10^8 m/s, and depends on the permittivity and permeability of free space, by why those constants have those values is not known.

Thank you ,that confirms my pursuit for an answer is not in vane .

I have hf/F<hf=c ? 

Doesn't this explain lights speed mechanism  ? 

Science has never claimed the speed of light was a product of the photon itself . Sciences claim is for the perfect measure of the constant which is a correct measure and been tested loads of times . 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Pbob

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Pbob said:

 

I have hf/F<hf=c ? 

Doesn't this explain lights speed mechanism  ? 

 

No

[Pbob]

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Light is is not a material object.

Only material objects are subject to the effects of forces.

 

Light isn't a material but can be viewed as a material when it is a part of a material . What we call photons are points of energy passing point to point through quantum fields . 

In example light travels through the Earths magnetic field , the earths magnetic field is also light but more of a material because of density . 

Anology - A sponge soaked with water (Sponge credit elsewhere , not my terms) 

Light that passes through quantum fields is observabably  indistinguishable from those fields and space but detectable by device . 

 

I don't think ''solid state matter'' is illuminated in the day time by photons passing through the field ,I think the Suns field maybe reacting with the ground . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

No

Why not ? 

I thought we could use hf to represent photon energy ? 

Could we express as my previous supplied model : 

1ev/F=c ? 

F yet to be determined ? 

 

The obvious is 1ev/(d/t) = c but that doesn't explain the force involved . 

I have added a second model to the thread , demonstrating the question . 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Pbob

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Pbob said:

Thank you for the link but it doesn't answer why light speeds back up again once exiting a medium .

It does answer that question, but I guess you didn't understand.  

[SergUpstart]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:05 PM, joigus said:

Another thing is that ε0 is not really a constant of Nature. Rather, just an artifice in the choice of units for electric charge. Stick to Heaviside-Lorentz units and there's no ε0 . It disappears!

It seems to me that a more important physical constant is 4 *Pi*G*epsilon0, which shows how many times stronger bodies with masses of 1 kg interact gravitationally stronger than two charges of 1 Coulomb at the same distance. The dimension of this constant is  Сoulomb^2/kg^2 that is, it does not depend on the distance scale.

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

It seems to me that a more important physical constant is 4 *Pi*G*epsilon0, which shows how many times stronger bodies with masses of 1 kg interact gravitationally stronger than two charges of 1 Coulomb at the same distance. The dimension of this constant is  Сoulomb^2/kg^2 that is, it does not depend on the distance scale.

There is absolutely no significance whatsoever in the ratio between a kilo and a Coulomb. Same reason why the length of my nose divided by the mass of my head has no significance whatsoever. But I can define units o mass, length and time so that aforementioned ratio happens to be 9×10⁹ or whatever other value I find convenient. Such is the nature of \( \varepsilon_0 \).

[Pbob]

Added proof : Transition force F=<hf 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7dvJj5gB4g

Further proof : F=<hf 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSXy32JagA

''The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory''

Mass is  a form of energy F=<hf

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Pbob

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Pbob said:

In example light travels through the Earths magnetic field , the earths magnetic field is also light but more of a material because of density . 

The earth’s magnetic field is not light.

2 hours ago, Pbob said:

Added proof : Transition force F=<hf 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7dvJj5gB4g

Further proof : F=<hf 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSXy32JagA

''The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory''

Mass is  a form of energy F=<hf

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Please review rule 2.7 regarding using videos ti]onsupport your arguments

You’re bringing up Cavendish out of the blue. Nobody should be required to have to figure out your tortured logic. If you can’t be bothered to explain, then we’re done here. Don’t bring this topic up again.