Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

Did you type this link in your search engine?

No, I was a bit late to this conversation and didn't see it. I've typed it in now. Thanks. It looks like you've gone to quite a lot of trouble with your theory.

I see you have a PhD in Biology from Leeds. I was at University in York, just down the road, a long time ago now. Small world! But I have to say it does seem odd that you have a PhD in Biology and therefore presumably did a first degree in something related to Biology and therefore must have studied Physics and Chemistry up to 'A' level standard but seem a bit hazy on some of the basics of high school Physics. For example, as a Biology PhD you must surely be familiar with mass spectrometry and the way in which it measures mass (or mass to charge ratio)? It seems odd to me that a Biology PhD (who therefore must have a good general education in natural sciences) would have to ask a question like "how do you calculate the mass of a moving object?". Unless the question was rhetorical?

I also read red light travels faster than blue light in water and glass. I have not seen experimental results showing red and blue light travel at the same speed in vacuum.

As someone with a long background in natural sciences you're presumably aware of the mechanism by which light appears to travel more slowly through a medium than it does in a vacuum and the fact that light in a vacuum travels at the same speed for all observers.

If light of different frequencies travelled at different speeds in a vacuum, what might you expect to see when you look at the night sky, do you think? If 'c' was not a constant, how would you re-write the laws of electromagnetism (which depend on it being a constant) while ensuring that they are still as useful as they currently are?

Something to remember: Proposing a new theory which will completely replace almost all of existing physics is a great aim. But in order to replace it, you first need to know what it says. I've seen lots of people proposing that they've thought up something that will entirely revolutionise a subject which has taken hundreds of years to construct. Maybe they have. But on closer inspection they usually don't seem to know in any detail what it is they're seeking to replace. The bigger the system you seek to replace, the more work you have to do reproducing all of the successful results of that system.

[Yaniv]

As someone with a long background in natural sciences you're presumably aware of the mechanism by which light appears to travel more slowly through a medium than it does in a vacuum and the fact that light in a vacuum travels at the same speed for all observers.

My theory predicts red light should travel faster than blue light in vacuum. #ResultsRequired

If light of different frequencies travelled at different speeds in a vacuum, what might you expect to see when you look at the night sky, do you think? If 'c' was not a constant, how would you re-write the laws of electromagnetism (which depend on it being a constant) while ensuring that they are still as useful as they currently are?

Electromagnetic theory predicts heat is massless. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves this notion. The laws of electromagnetism currently used in technology can be used further until and if ever replaced by a better set of equations but should not be described as 'universal' and used outside field of application.

Something to remember: Proposing a new theory which will completely replace almost all of existing physics is a great aim. But in order to replace it, you first need to know what it says. I've seen lots of people proposing that they've thought up something that will entirely revolutionise a subject which has taken hundreds of years to construct. Maybe they have. But on closer inspection they usually don't seem to know in any detail what it is they're seeking to replace. The bigger the system you seek to replace, the more work you have to do reproducing all of the successful results of that system.

Experiments are the primary component of the scientific method and used to support and disprove theories. It seems odd to me a philosopher of science like you completely ignore the title and description of this thread.

[Steve3007]

My theory predicts red light should travel faster than blue light in vacuum.

Yes, you've said. Since you never appear to give any quantities for any of your predictions it would be difficult to test them experimentally with any certainty. If the experiment yields negative results you can simply claim that the experiment was not sensitive enough to detect the effect that you are predicting. But if you don't state how sensitive the experiment needs to be in order to detect the effect that you are predicting, how can the experiment be performed?

Still, obviously countless experiments have been done which have involved measuring the speed of chromatic light (light consisting of more than one frequency) with varying accuracies, and as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) none have found that the red component of the light travels at a different speed to the blue component in a vacuum. One of the most famous was perhaps the Michelson–Morley experiment, conducted in the late 19th Century (and repeated in various forms numerous times since then) to try to detect the proposed "luminiferous aether" - one of the experiments that led to the conclusion that light (of all frequencies) travels in a vacuum at the same speed relative to all observers and that there is no such thing as the luminiferous aether.

Here's another thought to consider: The distant stars all emit a range of different frequencies of EM radiation, including light of different colours. And they are all moving relative to us, both towards/away from us and across our field of view. For example, the star with the fastest "proper motion" is Barnard's star (6 light-years away) which moves across the sky, relative to the average positions of all the other stars, at about 10 arc-seconds per year. If the EM radiation from the stars was all travelling towards us at different speeds (relative to us) then it would all reach us at slightly different times, when the star was in a slightly different position in our sky, and we would expect the stars to appear to be smeared across the sky in the direction of their motion.

Tell us how large your theory predicts this smearing effect to be so we can look for it. It certainly hasn't been detected yet with any existing telescope or radio telescope. Are they accurate enough to detect it?

--

On your website you said this:

The theory predicts blue light travels slower than red light. Gamma, x-rays, radio and microwave deflect less than infrared and predicted to consist of negative E particles travelling faster than infrared. Ultraviolet deflects more than blue light and predicted to travel slower than blue light

You seem here to be a bit muddled about the nature of various forms of EM radiation. Gamma and x-rays have a higher frequency than visible light and ultraviolet. Radio and microwaves have a lower frequency than visible light and infrared. They've all been observed experimentally to travel at the same speed in a vacuum. You lump them together and claim that they all travel faster than infrared. Why do EM waves/particles of both higher and lower frequencies than infrared and red light all travel faster than infrared according to you?

As you'll know, numerous technologies rely on the experimentally confirmed fact that, for example, different frequencies of radio waves travel at the same speed. GPS triangulation is one example. Is your predicted difference in the speed of radio waves of different frequencies big enough to be significant for GPS triangulation calculations?

Electromagnetic theory predicts heat is massless.

Heat is a measure of the collective movement - the kinetic energy - of the molecules of which objects are composed. It was once proposed to be a substance called "caloric", which was proposed to flow through objects like a fluid, but this theory has been demonstrated not to be a good fit with experimentally observed reality.

Classical Electromagnetic theory predicts nothing about heat. It is about electromagnetism. Thermodynamics deals with heat. More modern physics predicts that moving objects have a larger mass than their rest-mass. This has been confirmed experimentally numerous times, as I've explained before. For example, if it wasn't explicitly accounted for in circular particle accelerators the particles would crash into the walls of their containers. Modern particle accelerators have had particles travel within a very small fraction of the speed of light, at which speeds their mass is observed to be hundreds of times their rest-mass, in accordance with the predictions of theory.

...W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves this notion. The laws of electromagnetism currently used in technology can be used further until and if ever replaced by a better set of equations but should not be described as 'universal' and used outside field of application.

The constant speed of light in a vacuum is denoted by the letter 'c' and it appears as a constant in the equations of electromagnetism - Maxwell's equations. If you are proposing that 'c' is not a constant, what are you replacing Maxwell's equations with? You need to let us know because pretty much all of tried and tested technology for over 100 years relies on them.

[Yaniv]

Since you never appear to give any quantities for any of your predictions it would be difficult to test them experimentally with any certainty. If the experiment yields negative results you can simply claim that the experiment was not sensitive enough to detect the effect that you are predicting. But if you don't state how sensitive the experiment needs to be in order to detect the effect that you are predicting, how can the experiment be performed?

You don't need quantitative predictions to do an experiment. The results of the experiment will provide values for quantitative predictions.

Still, obviously countless experiments have been done which have involved measuring the speed of chromatic light (light consisting of more than one frequency) with varying accuracies, and as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) none have found that the red component of the light travels at a different speed to the blue component in a vacuum.

I have not seen any experiment in the literature measuring speed of different colors in vacuum. I read red light travels faster than blue light in air. I have seen however contradictory papers in the literature analyzing light from Gamma Ray Bursts. One paper by a Magic Telescope team claims photons of different energies have different arrival times and another paper by a Fermi Telescope team claims photons of different energies arrive at the same time (based on single GeV photon?). Reference below. I am thinking of a more down to earth experiment and wonder if the longest vacuum tubes and the most accurate clocks on earth (LIGO) could test if red light travels faster than blue light ?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... for-light/

Here's another thought to consider: The distant stars all emit a range of different frequencies of EM radiation, including light of different colours. And they are all moving relative to us, both towards/away from us and across our field of view. For example, the star with the fastest "proper motion" is Barnard's star (6 light-years away) which moves across the sky, relative to the average positions of all the other stars, at about 10 arc-seconds per year. If the EM radiation from the stars was all travelling towards us at different speeds (relative to us) then it would all reach us at slightly different times, when the star was in a slightly different position in our sky, and we would expect the stars to appear to be smeared across the sky in the direction of their motion.

Tell us how large your theory predicts this smearing effect to be so we can look for it. It certainly hasn't been detected yet with any existing telescope or radio telescope. Are they accurate enough to detect it?

I don't think this is a great experiment because starlight is continuous and we don't know if light observed was emitted at the same time.

You seem here to be a bit muddled about the nature of various forms of EM radiation. Gamma and x-rays have a higher frequency than visible light and ultraviolet. Radio and microwaves have a lower frequency than visible light and infrared. They've all been observed experimentally to travel at the same speed in a vacuum. You lump them together and claim that they all travel faster than infrared. Why do EM waves/particles of both higher and lower frequencies than infrared and red light all travel faster than infrared according to you?

Because Gamma rays, X rays, radio and microwaves all refract less than infrared when pass through a prism.

As you'll know, numerous technologies rely on the experimentally confirmed fact that, for example, different frequencies of radio waves travel at the same speed. GPS triangulation is one example. Is your predicted difference in the speed of radio waves of different frequencies big enough to be significant for GPS triangulation calculations?

I don't know if different speed of radio waves are too small and insufficient to affect GPS triangulation or engineers make corrections for GPS to work.

More modern physics predicts that moving objects have a larger mass than their rest-mass. This has been confirmed experimentally numerous times, as I've explained before.

The proposed experiment which you are reluctant to support could disprove this statement and most of the rest of physics.

The constant speed of light in a vacuum is denoted by the letter 'c' and it appears as a constant in the equations of electromagnetism - Maxwell's equations. If you are proposing that 'c' is not a constant, what are you replacing Maxwell's equations with? You need to let us know because pretty much all of tried and tested technology for over 100 years relies on them.

If W decreases at increasing T in vacuum and red light travels faster than blue light I am sure a new generation of physicists will find a new set of equations to replace Maxwell's equations.

[Steve3007]

You don't need quantitative predictions to do an experiment. The results of the experiment will provide values for quantitative predictions.

Ah. OK. That's good, because actually I did the experiment in my kitchen using my kitchen scales and a metal saucepan. After heating the saucepan's weight hadn't changed.

The proposed experiment which you are reluctant to support could disprove this statement and most of the rest of physics.

I am not reluctant to support it. On the contrary, I performed it in my kitchen.

[Yaniv]

Ah. OK. That's good, because actually I did the experiment in my kitchen using my kitchen scales and a metal saucepan. After heating the saucepan's weight hadn't changed.
The proposed experiment which you are reluctant to support could disprove this statement and most of the rest of physics.
I am not reluctant to support it. On the contrary, I performed it in my kitchen.

How sensitive is your kitchen balance ? Is your balance more precise than references provided earlier in this thread measuring W reduction of heated metals in micrograms ?

[Steve3007]

You don't need quantitative predictions to do an experiment. The results of the experiment will provide values for quantitative predictions.

How sensitive is your kitchen balance ? Is your balance more precise than references provided earlier in this thread measuring W reduction of heated metals in micrograms ?

OK, so despite your earlier comment (above), you accept that we need to have some idea of the size of the effect that we are looking for in order to decide whether our measuring apparatus is sensitive enough to detect it. That's a start.

[Yaniv]

Ah. OK. That's good, because actually I did the experiment in my kitchen using my kitchen scales and a metal saucepan. After heating the saucepan's weight hadn't changed.

You are [wrong] to do an experiment at lower precision than provided to you in the literature and claim to the contrary.

[Yaniv]