Speed of light

On Feb 12, 12:34*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:24:37 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
You'd think with a trillion frame per second camera, that capturing
the individual singular photon on the fly would be relatively simple.

Individual photons are trivially captured. As previously noted,
capturing an _image_ of a photon is impossible- the idea itself is
meaningless.

Only meaningless to those forever stuck on the mainstream status-quo
physics train that's going nowhere, just like individual photons seem
to travel nowhere.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 12, 12:42*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:22:05 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
But you still have nothing objectively telling us if the individual
photon actually moves from point A to point B.

You produce a photon at point A, with a known spin (polarization),
energy, and direction. You consistently detect a photon with the same
spin and energy, in the direction of travel (and only that direction),
at point B, after a time interval of (B-A)/c.

How is that not objective evidence that you are detecting the same
particle that was emitted? Is it proof? No. But it's pretty
compelling, absent some well supported theory that suggests otherwise.

Since the individual photon isn't being tracked at any given point
between point A and point B (not even by any trillion frame per second
camera), there's hardly anything objective about it.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 12, 12:26*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/12/12 11:32 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



Supposedly at the velocity of c...

* *Objects with mass are *never* observed to travel at c.

* *Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
* * *http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../velocity.html

* *Four-Velocity
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity

* * In physics, in particular in special relativity and general
relativity, the four-velocity of an object is a four-vector (vector in
four-dimensional spacetime) that replaces classical velocity (a
three-dimensional vector). It is chosen in such a way that the velocity
of light is a constant as measured in every inertial reference frame.









In relativity theory, events are described in time and space, together forming four-dimensional spacetime. The history of an object traces a curve in spacetime, parametrized by a curve parameter, the proper time of the object. This curve is called its world line. The four-velocity is the rate of change of both time and space coordinates with respect to the proper time of the object. The four-velocity is a tangent vector to the world line.

For comparison: in classical mechanics events are described by their (three-dimensional) position at each moment in time. The path of an object is a curve in three-dimensional space, parametrized by the time. The classical velocity is the rate of change of the space coordinates of the object with respect to the time. The classical velocity of an object is a tangent vector to its path.

The length of the four-velocity (in the sense of the metric used in special relativity) is always equal to c (it is a normalized vector). For an object at rest (with respect to the coordinate system) its four-velocity points in the direction of the time coordinate.

Subjective science is always such fun. Now do it objectively.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

Since the individual photon isn't being tracked at any given point
between point A and point B (not even by any trillion frame per second
camera), there's hardly anything objective about it.

I see. So when your friend leaves your house, drives to the store, and
returns, there is no reason to assume that he is the same person?
Because you haven't tracked his position every point of the way?

On Mar 12, 2:27*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
Since the individual photon isn't being tracked at any given point
between point A and point B (not even by any trillion frame per second
camera), there's hardly anything objective about it.

I see. So when your friend leaves your house, drives to the store, and
returns, there is no reason to assume that he is the same person?
Because you haven't tracked his position every point of the way?

You know what I mean, and it's not just little old me that wants to
see that objective proof positive that each and every individual
photons actually moves through space (or through solids), other than
just traveling or modulating within its wavelength.

The Doppler effect or redshift/blueshift seems by itself to suggest
that individual photons do not move.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

You know what I mean, and it's not just little old me that wants to
see that objective proof positive that each and every individual
photons actually moves through space (or through solids), other than
just traveling or modulating within its wavelength.

No, I do not know what you mean.

The Doppler effect or redshift/blueshift seems by itself to suggest
that individual photons do not move.

They certainly don't suggest that to me!

On Mar 12, 5:05*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
You know what I mean, and it's not just little old me that wants to
see that objective proof positive that each and every individual
photons actually moves through space (or through solids), other than
just traveling or modulating within its wavelength.

No, I do not know what you mean.

The Doppler effect or redshift/blueshift seems by itself to suggest
that individual photons do not move.

They certainly don't suggest that to me!

That's clearly the ongoing difference of our interpretations.