Constancy of C in a Nano-Rumpled SpaceTime

[roSSman]

I'm one of those non-physicist persons who’s quite interested in physics, while still being very non-expert. I've read quite a lot within books and articles that are lay-person-accessible. In the process, I've formulated a question for which I’ve yet to encounter an answer (or even discussion).

For background, I have a very clear picture of how general relativity shows that spacetime curves in the presence of mass -- or, in another way of viewing it, its density varies. I also have a clear picture of how special relativity shows that for any frame of reference the speed of light is constant -- at least in a vacuum.

For discussion sake, please extend the above to imagine a photon traveling through interstellar (or intergalactic) space. As our photon encounters various space-time curves (as induced by the gravity wells of miscellaneous celestial objects), it follows what from its perspective (while enveloped within such curves) is a straight path. From our perspective, however (looking externally from outside such curves), our photon’s path will (and quite obviously) be circuitous.

For such reason, we’ll observe two apparent exceptions from what would otherwise be our expectation for the photon’s path: (1) it will take it more time to travel from Point A to Point B (across a curve/rumpled spacetime) than a non-rumpled calculation of the distance would predict; and (2) the vector of its travel upon exiting from the area of curve/rumpled spacetime may divert substantially from the vector it had upon entering.

If I’m not mistaken, all the above is academic, and has been since early acceptance of Einstein’s GR. Where I have not seen any discussion is on the question of whether it makes sense to carry this kind of imagery and analysis to the nano-world.

Specifically, it’s the commonly stated qualification, to constancy in C, that bugs me. Based on the above analysis, we can see that our object-scattered universe is not actually a vacuum, and that from an external perspective a photon does not actually travel straight or at C while traversing through it. It’s only by reaching within, and understanding the internally-rumpled spacetime perspective, that we can understanding it is in fact obeying C’s mandate.

Given this, why in the heck doesn’t it make sense to suppose the same dynamic occurs on a nano-scale within, say, the solid of prism?

That is my question.

I’ve read enough to understand that many credentialed physicists suppose there are indeed substantial deformations of spacetime on a nano-scale. If so, and if (this is the big “if”) those deformations are of a scale and slope that would induce a photon into a circuitous path while traversing through, say, a block of Lucite, it follows the qualification that’s typically given for constancy in C is, in fact, superfluous. Based on that single and simple insight, C could be viewed as an unexcepted universal.

To me, the above seems extremely powerful, and yet I’ve never read a thing about it.

The notion also seems obvious – much like when we were school children looking at the world map and theorizing that the American and Euro-African landmasses must have once been connected. Back then, and even with a second or third-grader’s self-scrutinizing skepticism, I wondered if I was in left-field.

I’m wondering the same thing now. If any of you smart, truly expert physics guys can provide some light, I’ll appreciate it.

 

[blutoski]

I think I'm having trouble identifying a question in your post.

Are you asking if light slows when propagating through a material? The answer is 'yes'.

 

[sol invictus]

You're asking whether we can view the speed of light in a material as equal to c if we look on sufficiently small scales, and if so, whether the discrepancy between that local speed and the one we ordinarily call the speed of light in the medium is due to significant spacetime curvature on those scales? Is that right?

If so, the answer is yes to the former and no to the latter.

The velocity of the precise edge of a lightfront is always c, regardless of the material. If you turn on a light bulb embedded in some glass, the first (very small) indications that you turned it on will arrive at a point a distance d away (still in the glass) in a time d/c, even though the speed of light in glass is only c/n (where n is about 1.5). However the first actual light, properly speaking, will arrive only after a time n d/c.

The reason for this is that there is a difference between the velocity of the waves themselves and the velocity of the wavefront. Roughly speaking, you could think of it like this: for a wave to propagate through glass, the glass molecules have to absorb the wave, vibrate, and re-emit it. That process takes a little time, and slows down the wave speed. However there is a little bit of the wave that just bypasses the molecules entirely and propagates as if in a vacuum, at speed c. The more glass the wave has to pass through, the more attenuated that little bit gets, but it is always there at least a tiny bit.

As for the second part, none of this has anything at all to do with spacetime curvature or gravity. Forget about that (for this question at least).

 

[blutoski]

Sol: my mental image of the effect of em passing through a transparent material is that of the light pulse starting as a very sharp normalized curve, but as it transfers through the material, the curve spreads out. The wavefront is traveling at c, but the peak gets lower in amplitude and further behind.

Is this a correct visualization?

My prediction would be that the thicker the material, the more dampening takes place, such that the peak will get difficult to detect. Does this effect mirror the problems that occur when we try to transmit electronic pulses through copper cable? (I seem to recall that the early transatlantic cable transmissions had to be reconstructed at their destinations with complex math to be audible at all. The 'beeps' came out like 'wommmms' at the destination end and blended together.)

 

[sol invictus]

Sol: my mental image of the effect of em passing through a transparent material is that of the light pulse starting as a very sharp normalized curve, but as it transfers through the material, the curve spreads out. The wavefront is traveling at c, but the peak gets lower in amplitude and further behind.

Something like that.

The thing is, in a true linear medium there is no dispersion (all frequencies propagate with the same phase velocity), so there wouldn't be any change in the shape of the pulse as it propagates. This effect - the wavefront propagating at c - isn't captured in the linear medium approximation. Of course no medium is perfectly linear, but I suspect what the means is that in nearly linear media the wavefront amplitude is very very small, and probably gets smaller rapidly with time/distance.

I might add that there is considerable confusion about this in the literature - many people confuse group velocity for wavefront velocity (that is, they think the group velocity is the speed at which the first information about an event can arrive). Considering that it is quite easy to make a model in which group velocity is superluminal, this is obviously wrong.

My prediction would be that the thicker the material, the more dampening takes place, such that the peak will get difficult to detect.

I'm not sure the peak will necessarily get harder to detect; rather, the peak will fall behind the leading edge more and more, and the leading edge will get smaller and smaller in amplitude. At least I'm pretty sure that's what happens in a nearly linear medium when the distances aren't too long. If the peak changes shape significantly it means the medium is dispersive (different frequencies have different phase velocities).

Does this effect mirror the problems that occur when we try to transmit electronic pulses through copper cable? (I seem to recall that the early transatlantic cable transmissions had to be reconstructed at their destinations with complex math to be audible at all. The 'beeps' came out like 'wommmms' at the destination end and blended together.)

That could either be due to the copper itself, or to finite-size waveguide effects (e.g. effects proportional to the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the wire). I don't know which is more important, but both lead to dispersion, which does indeed smear the edges of sharp pulses. This is pretty easy to understand if you're happy with Fourier transforms - a localized pulse must contain all frequencies, and if those constituents propagate at different speeds the pulse later on will have a different shape.

 

[roSSman]

Sol grasped my question. Thank you.

Your answer, Sol, analyzes the question from the wave-side perspective of duality. I'm curious how the answer would be phrased if addressed more from the particle-side.

More particularly, though I understand all quantum characters can be thought of as bundles of probability rather than as discrete objects having a definite velocity and position in space (thereby giving rise, I believe, to what's called the wave function), if you were to try to use more particle-like imagery in describing what you did, I'm curious how it would come out -- or would it even be practical?

By coincidence, my self-developed imagination of the dynamics pre-encompasses something very much akin to what you've described as the wave front (something I'd read about, but half-forgotten). My image (right or wrong) is that as a photon (pictured in this case solely as a particle) strikes the outer skin of a glass surface, it impacts the spacetime nano-structure of the atomic matrix. A reverberation from this impact then transmits through the matrix at precisely C.

In fact, my imagery supposes this wave (a genuine, true-wave type of jiggling, much as if I was to slap a block of Jello) travels at perfect C to the opposite skin, where there's a bounce that reverberates back, again at C. I then envision this reflected wave greeting our photon particle head on, as it continues its own traverse (at something that would be externally viewed as sub-C) through the matrix. I also imagine the slopes as involved in that front affecting the photon's path, and in particularly probabilistic ways.

In other words, while it's the normal notion that a single quantum character (in this case a photon) has dual characteristics, my thinking (about a perhaps nano-rumpled spacetime) leads to the conjecture of an unambiguous wave-type of phenomenon occurring within the matrix a photon passes through -- even while the photon itself remains a more unambiguously discrete object. It seems to me that interactions between a genuine wave in the matrix and a genuine particle as the photon might potentially produce the attributes (all the attributes) of duality we encounter.

To state it differently, my conjecture is that, in spite of being reasonably discrete objects, photons may "seem" to have duality because unambiguous waves genuinely arise -- within transparent matrices, or even material that encompasses slots in a screen -- whenever a photon strikes them (of course, I'd analyze similarly for other quantum characters).

Obviously, this is also something I've not seen discussed.

I understand what you're saying about the standard explanation (in regard to glass molecules needing to absorb the wave, vibrate, then re-emit it, and this consuming some time). I thank you for that. I didn't realize this (combined with the wave-front notion) was offered as a general solution to constancy in C. It's good to know.

Even so, it's sometimes found that an alternative method for picturing a phenomenon can be more useful than others. The method you describe works, and also ends up with precisely the same phenomenal attributes (at least in terms of what I know about) as mine.

In fact, my own picture encompasses absorption and re-emission in the same sense that a space probe is temporarily "captured" in the gravity well of a planet as it's sling-shot to the next on a NASA mission (any probe that was permanently captured in orbit could be said to have been absorbed). Quite similarly, I picture photons as being temporarily captured and re-emitted as they dart into slopes surrounding atomic particles, curve momentarily, then fly onward.

It's not necessarily a different picture, so much as it is a different way of looking at it. At least, this is arguable if my picture is not otherwise dis-allowed (i.e., does not contradict any phenomena). I also think if the above is true, it would make for a significantly more insightful perspective.

In that particular regard, you did not directly elaborate when stating "none of this has anything at all to do with spacetime." I fully understand that your conventional explanation does not invoke any notion of a nano-rumpled spacetime. But please tell me is there anything of which you're aware that would disallow my explanation as an alternative?

I should mention, I'm fully aware that nano-rumples in spacetime would of necessity consist of precisely the same ultimate "substance" as gravity (i.e., space-time slopes), yet be phenomenally very different. On its face, that might seem to beggar my question. I believe, however, differences in phenomenal attributes may potentially be accounted for on the basis of differences in slope pitch and scale. Those differences, quite simply, would make for very different phenomena.

 

[sol invictus]

Your answer, Sol, analyzes the question from the wave-side perspective of duality. I'm curious how the answer would be phrased if addressed more from the particle-side.

Sure - it's more or less as you say later. Photons typically get absorbed and then re-emitted by glass molecules, which slows them down. A few lucky ones avoid this fate and propagate untouched at speed c.

In that particular regard, you did not directly elaborate when stating "none of this has anything at all to do with spacetime." I fully understand that your conventional explanation does not invoke any notion of a nano-rumpled spacetime. But please tell me is there anything of which you're aware that would disallow my explanation as an alternative?

According to Einstein's equations, spacetime is curved by the presence of mass and energy. The magnitude of the curvature is set by the mass/energy density times Newton's constant.

Imagine for a moment a world in which Newton's constant is zero. In that world spacetime is never curved - it is always flat. And yet the phenomenon we're discussing - light propagating more slowly through media than through vacuum - is not changed by this at all (it has nothing to do with gravity, as should be obvious). Therefore the slowing has nothing to do with the curvature of spacetime.

You could also see this by calculating the curvature given the mass density of glass and noticing that it's much too small to affect photon propagation in any significant way.

 

[roSSman]

Thank you, Sol.

In response to your answer one, I'm saying to myself "Aha!" The picture, evidently, is that the "wave" is composed of multiple photons, some speeding through at true C ("the wave front") while the main packet of photons ("true light") is retarded. But I have a problem. I believe everything you describe (in terms of the wave front zooming ahead at C) is observed to occur even when dealing with a single photon. In that case, the idea of a wave as composed of multiple particles doesn't work.

Oh, wait! Yes it does. It's back to that probability thing, isn't it? Sometimes you fire a photon through and it's "lucky," making it through without absorption and re-emission (thereby going at full C). Other times (indeed, the main bulk of times), it gets absorbed and re-emitted, thereby producing a sub-C speed. And, of course, by averaging out multiple single photon events, you get the same graphs as when sending through a bunch at the same time.

Cool. That's an insight I didn't have. It's also more fully satisfying, as a standard explanation for retarded C, as compared to what I formerly possessed. Thanks again.

In regard to your answer two, I understand what you're saying, and easily accept it insofar as referencing spacetime slopes that occur on gravity's scale (such slopes being the kind that are induced by mass and energy according to Newton's constant).

However, I was not talking about gravity. The slopes I'd envisioned would be many magnitudes smaller, and many magnitudes more steep (at least as compared to typical gravity slopes). Based solely on such differences, they'd be very different creatures, as compared to gravity.

I'm well aware that to envision such slopes as potentially pervading sub- or inter-atomic spaces is not part of typical thinking, but that realization begs my query.

Please let me restate my interest, in three parts.

(1) To your knowledge, has anyone in the credentialed arena conjectured along lines at all similar to mine?

(2) Regardless of the answer to 1, is there anything in the current understanding of spacetime that would preclude the kind of spacetime nano deformations I envision?

(3) If there is any such preclusion, would you be so kind as to point me toward an understanding?

Again (and particularly in regard to number 3), please let me emphasize I fully appreciate that gravity, as a spacetime deformation, is super large in scale and involves (typically) very gentle slopes. But the spacetime slopes in my imagination (aside from being in the same medium) would be utterly different creatures.

To put it another way, I'm well aware that gravity (as a very large-scale, typically gentle slope) is induced by large accumulations of energy/mass (at least when dealing with other than infinitesimal slopes). But is there anything to say there cannot be very different scale slopes induced on the basis of different dynamics?

I should emphasize, I am momentarily maintaining an interest in this inquiry because, though the standard explanation for retarded C (as you've explained it) provides reasonable satisfaction, I think the mental image in my proposed alternative (if tenable) may potentially yield more.

In fact, the alternative provides a straightforward mechanical image on which to picture wave interference when just a single particle is involved (based on imagining that our particle confronts a reflected wave that it initially induced). If there's anything in the standard explanation that explains wave interference so easily, I'm not aware of it.

Wait. I just thought of what may be a killer for my whole thinking. If experiment shows (fitting my understanding or your answer in the first part) that occasionally a full-fledged photon makes it through a transparent block at true C, it would be consistent with the standard explanation, and potentially inconsistent with my proposed alternate (since I'm not envisioning the wave front as an occasional photon that gets lucky). Please tell me, is that what happens in experiment?

 

[sol invictus]

Thank you, Sol.

You're welcome.

(1) To your knowledge, has anyone in the credentialed arena conjectured along lines at all similar to mine?

(2) Regardless of the answer to 1, is there anything in the current understanding of spacetime that would preclude the kind of spacetime nano deformations I envision?

(3) If there is any such preclusion, would you be so kind as to point me toward an understanding?

The modern (as of 1915, that is) understanding of gravity is that it is spacetime curvature. Nothing more, nothing less. So your conjecture is that gravity is important for photons propagating through a medium. That's clearly not the case in general relativity, so you must be proposing a new equation relating curvature to energy density, or perhaps to something else. Please go ahead and make sure a proposal, and then I can answer your questions.

Certainly people that work on quantum gravity believe that spacetime curvature gets large and fluctuates a lot if you look at very small scales. But that's because energy densities get large and fluctuate a lot on small scales (because of quantum mechanics). And by small I mean small - much, much smaller than atoms. This wouldn't affect light in glass.

 

[roSSman]

To state it simply, you're saying spacetime deforms on two scales only: as involved in gravity, and at scales too small to affect a photon as it passes through a transparent solid. You evidently feel emphatic that siginficant deformation does not occur at any in-between scales.

I've been aware, certainly, that no in-between scales are typically conceived, but my question has been whether there's any good basis for concluding such scales are impossible.

Regardless, I think I could put my whole notion to bed if the answer to my last previously asked question is affirmative. That question, again, was whether the wave front, to which you refer, is evidenced by the fact that a small minority of photons, full-fledged as such, are observed to pass through a transparent block at full C?

Would it be too great an imposition to ask for just that one more, final answer, please?

 

[sol invictus]

To state it simply, you're saying spacetime deforms on two scales only: as involved in gravity, and at scales too small to affect a photon as it passes through a transparent solid. You evidently feel emphatic that siginficant deformation does not occur at any in-between scales.

It's got nothing to do with how I feel. I can take Einstein's equations - which are the only ones that tell us about spacetime curvature - and just check. The answer is what the answer is.

Regardless, I think I could put my whole notion to bed if the answer to my last previously asked question is affirmative. That question, again, was whether the wave front, to which you refer, is evidenced by the fact that a small minority of photons, full-fledged as such, are observed to pass through a transparent block at full C?

I don't know the answer to that. My guess is that through any significant thickness of material the wavefront photons will be extremely rare and hard to detect, but I haven't checked that. I'm not aware of any experiment looking for that, although there may well be some. In any case I don't see what this would prove - if spacetime is really rumpled, why can't there be a few paths through which the photons travel at c? And actually, how do you know the rumpling of spacetime will slow photons down and not speed them up?

 

[roSSman]

Thanks again, Sol, for your kind attention. You're helping me progress in some areas I've thought a lot about, and I appreciate it.

It's got nothing to do with how I feel. I can take Einstein's equations - which are the only ones that tell us about spacetime curvature - and just check. The answer is what the answer is.

I'm sorry, "feel" was a very bad word choice on my part.

Still, I've guessed Einstein's equations purport only to describe what happens at gravity's scale. In other words, I've not guessed they necessarily claim exclusive province over all forms of deformation that might occur at any scale. But, in fact, I don't know, and am asking.

Certainly, we don't have equations to describe deformations at other scales, but does this mean such equations could not exist, or that (if they did exist) they could not accurately describe a genuine (though very differently-scaled from gravity) phenomena?

In any case I don't see what this would prove - if spacetime is really rumpled, why can't there be a few paths through which the photons travel at c?

Good question. In fact, when conceding that occasional passage of a full-C photon would likely kill my line of thinking, I considered precisely that idea. However, my mental-model conceives the wave front not as an occasional photon that gets lucky, but as a true wave/jiggling action within the solid's spacetime matrix (it's on this basis it purports to explain wave interference). I realize that, regardless, if learning that occasional photons indeed make it through at full C, I could seek salvation with the "lucky path" notion. But so far as I can tell by present analysis, it wouldn't be right. If the occasional full-C photon makes it through, the standard picture fits better than mine. As always, the better fit must win.

And actually, how do you know the rumpling of spacetime will slow photons down and not speed them up?

If there was a rumpling at the appropriate scale, a photon traversing the terrain would effectively have further to travel (as compared to the outside dimensions of the solid as perceived by an external observer). Assuming it travelled at C, the further distance would, simply, mean more time elapsed.

 

[sol invictus]

Still, I've guessed Einstein's equations purport only to describe what happens at gravity's scale. In other words, I've not guessed they necessarily claim exclusive province over all forms of deformation that might occur at any scale. But, in fact, I don't know, and am asking.

I'm not sure what you mean by "gravity's scale". Gravity couples to all forms of energy, and if the energy is very concentrated, the resulting curvature will be large (e.g. curved on a small scale). This is actually the root of the problem of forming a theory of quantum gravity.

If there was a rumpling at the appropriate scale, a photon traversing the terrain would effectively have further to travel (as compared to the outside dimensions of the solid as perceived by an external observer). Assuming it travelled at C, the further distance would, simply, mean more time elapsed.

It sounds like you're assuming that space alone is rumpled, not spacetime. That's not what happens in general relativity, and this question (time delay versus advance) is highly non-trivial.

 

[ben m]

Rossman, do you think that your spacetime-effect is going to act in addition to the effects of Maxwell's Equations, or is it going to replace them? For example, if I stick a charged pith ball onto a tuning fork, then expose it to a long-wave radar transmitter---well, Maxwell's Equations are perfectly adequate for describing how the radar's electric field will exert forces on the pith ball, and how the pith ball starts vibrating, and the radiation emitted by those vibrations---and thus you find that the pith ball's effect is to slow down some of the photons. The math, and the physics, is exactly the same (in the classical limit) as the physics of visible light moving past a bunch of atoms in a crystal. (If you want something in-between, Google for "metamaterials")

Do you want a pith ball on a tuning fork to vibrate due to "nano-rumpled spacetime"? Or are you content to use Maxwell's Equations for this one?

 

[roSSman]

Hi Ben. Good to hear from you. You guys are all great.

No, I'm not wanting to replace any equations. Nor am I wanting to add new ones.

I've simply come up with a different method for picturing some underlying dynamics as involved in a number of phenomena. In my own analysis, and based on such phenomena as I'm aware of, this different method (you might call it a different "interpretation") seems to work really well. It seems to provide a more satisfying mental picture, as compared to standard descriptions (making many otherwise seemingly "strange" phenomena appear inevitable and natural, instead of surprising).

But it's all based in the notion that spacetime deforms at particular scales where there has prior been no such conception. If there's any good basis for concluding spacetime cannot (or does not) deform at such scales, that's it. It doesn't matter how "just right" my interpretation otherwise seems (particularly in my own mind, of course); it's kaput.

Similarly, if I learn of any experimental fact that's renders my interpretation into less than a better fit (by my own analysis, for I cannot substitute it with anyone else's) vis-a-vis standard descriptions (such as if it's a fact that some small percentage of "lucky" photons are reliably observed to pass through a block at full C), it will be a simple matter for me toss it.

The difficulty is, this interpretation seems (again, by own analysis) powerful enough that, absent finding some direct basis to discredit it, it's very difficult for me to do so.

In answer to . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by "gravity's scale". Gravity couples to all forms of energy, and if the energy is very concentrated, the resulting curvature will be large (e.g. curved on a small scale).

Yes, but as I understand it, no matter how steep the slope is in gravity, the total involved area remains very large in terms of distance covered (applying Newton's constant to the inverse square of distance). My notion would be that, while gravity is (most obviously) the very kind of slope that's induced by accumulations of energy-mass, other, different-character slopes may be induced by other kinds of perturbation -- these following the mandate of a different constant.

An imperfect analogy would be to compare sand dunes to sand ripples. Both are surface features in the same medium. Both consist of alternating peaks and valleys. But the scales are different.

To continue the analogy, suppose we had no ability to directly see the ripples, but that on moving toy vehicles up, down and around the dune slopes we found them vibrating up and down (as toy wheels traverse the ripples). We might put together a very perfect set of models and equations to describe the ripples -- even while failing to realize they are surface features in the very same medium as the otherwise much more obvious dunes. If someone then came up with the wacky notion that what had been so well modeled was essentially the same thing as dunes (but on a different scale), he'd not be seeking to replace the prior understanding, or to add new equations either. He'd simply be seeking a different, possibly more fulfilling interpretation.

But the analogy is likely utter garbage in this instance, because as a dumb 'ol layperson I've got to be too poorly informed to come up with anything so meaningful as (going back to analogy) it would be to say: "hey, they're actually much like the dunes." I don't mean this sarcastically. I'm meaning to very genuinely acknowledge the impossible odds, in today's world of physics, against any interpretation so novel (and especially as introduced by a dumb layman) having authentic value.

But I'm still stuck with my problem. Regardless of how deeply I appreciate the odds, so long as the picture that I've got of ripples seems so compelling (again, by my own analysis), it's tough to drop it.

In answer to . . .

It sounds like you're assuming that space alone is rumpled, not spacetime.

No, I do mean spacetime.

Thanks again.

P.S. I'll not be offended if you call me a crackpot. I likely deserve it.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes, but as I understand it, no matter how steep the slope is in gravity, the total involved area remains very large in terms of distance covered (applying Newton's constant to the inverse square of distance).

I don't really understand what you're trying to say there, but I'm pretty sure it's not true. In GR space can be curved however you like, given the right kind of source.

No, I do mean spacetime.

Then I ask again - how do you know the travel time is always increased by the rumpling? Remember, time is rumpled too.

 

[ben m]

But it's all based in the notion that spacetime deforms at particular scales where there has prior been no such conception. If there's any good basis for concluding spacetime cannot (or does not) deform at such scales, that's it. It doesn't matter how "just right" my interpretation otherwise seems (particularly in my own mind, of course); it's kaput.

That's why I bring up the radar-photons-interacting-with-pith-ball example. That's all macroscopic phenomena on kilometer-to-mm scales in which "light slows down". Ditto, with more complications, for metamaterials, in which macroscopic (cm to mm scale) currents, voltages, and fields interact to make light "slow down". There is a very good basis for concluding that spacetime does not deform on these scales; those are the scales on which we do all of our regular physics experiments, with real rulers and ordinary clocks and whatnot.

You're fooling yourself, I think, in the following way: any time you find yourself confused by some aspect of your picture, you imagine the confusion happening on a smaller and smaller scale, until it's so small that you feel comfortable saying, "well, we don't know much about those scales anyway and that's why this has escaped detection." Unfortunately, the phenomenon of light refraction is (a) perfectly well explained by Maxwell's Equations, and (b) explained by the same equations at all scales from kilometers to nanometers.

So, as far as I can tell you're making the following claim:

1) Kilometer-scale EM waves obey Maxwell's Equations in interacting with charges, and under many circumstances this causes refraction
2) Meter-scale EM waves obey Maxwell's Equations in interacting with charges, and under many circumstances this causes refraction
3) Micron-scale EM waves maybe obey Maxwell's Equations and maybe interact with charges, but if they refract it's due to Nano-Rumpled Spacetime.

 

[roSSman]

You guys are forcing me to come clean with the fact my thinking is more ambitious (and thus more crackpotterish) than I wanted to reveal.

The analogy about sand dunes and ripples is more on point than perhaps I intimated. Its dunes are an analog for gravity. In regard to its ripples, you may think I intended to reference some supposed phenomena separate from what’s been revealed by Maxwell and others. I did not. My intent was for the ripples to stand in as analog for the very object of Maxwell’s work.

To say it more directly, Maxwell and his successors have tended to picture electromagnetic interactions as something existing within spacetime, while still being at least quasi-independent in the sense spacetime is thought of as a background for them to function in (I know spacetime wasn’t quite conceived as such until after Maxwell, but please bear with me). Electromagnetism is imagined, in other words, as a feature over-laid on spacetime. My notion is to suppose, instead, that electromagnetism consists of disturbances in one and the same medium as involves gravity -- perturbations in spacetime that precisely match in scale, slope and other attributes all that we’ve become familiar with in regard to electromagnetism.

Wacky idea, huh?

Before pounding your heads in dismay, please consider Ben’s pith ball. For a moment only, divorce yourselves from conventional modes of explaining, pretend you’ve never conceived anything about electromagnetism, and instead begin with the supposition that a long-wave radar transmitter is projecting spacetime disturbances. Suppose further that the charge structures in a pith ball (electrons and protons) involve spacetime peaks and/or cavities that precisely match, in slope and dimension, electrical charge fields as conventionally conceived.

Please further suppose that the distance between peaks and canyons in the disturbance (as projected by the transmitter) is sufficiently close in size to the net deformation as induced by charge structures in the pith ball so as to set the latter rocking, as spacetime waves (projected by the long-wave transmitter) pass by. Of course, we’d only witness this on a gross level if the pith ball had a net surplus or deficiency of electrons as compared to protons, because otherwise the tendency of each to rock (in a vector opposite its counterpart) would precisely cancel the other out.

To illustrate, picture a toy boat riding in water as small wavelets pass by. If the size of the toy is nearly equal to wavelet length, it will bob up and down significantly, even while a larger boat remains unaffected.

Though this picture is far from precise, its purpose is to illustrate that by the mere expedient of assuming same medium activity (for both transmitter and electrons in the pith ball), it’s as easy to suppose the medium is spacetime as to conceive it as any other.

I think it has not seemed natural to think of electromagnetism as being in the same medium as gravity because the two are so different. But again, let’s think about sand dunes and ripples. If I’m sitting in my SUV on the slope of a dune, I’ll have a strong urge to roll in a particular vector. But if I’m on a section of dune that’s otherwise level, yet covered with ripples, the latter will impart no such urge –- notwithstanding that ripples are undulations in precisely the same medium as the dunes.

My point is that differently scaled deformations can produce dramatically different phenomenal results, notwithstanding they are (potentially) identical in other respects.

But even granting the above, perhaps you’ll attack based on the quantum factor, a phenomenal attribute to which electromagnetism answers readily, while gravity has to date resisted. If electromagnetism so obviously involves grainy photons, how can it be in the same medium as gravity’s seemingly smooth curves? The answer is to think whirlpools, eddies and vortices. The conception of such actors, potentially, may be tightly aligned with our quantum experience.

Based at least roughly on this kind of thinking, I urge you please to realize there is no prima facie basis for concluding electromagnetism cannot consist of disturbances in the same medium as gravity’s curves. Please realize that disallowance should be more specific than simply saying “they’re too different, gravity is weak while electromagnetism is strong, gravity is large-distance while electrical charge fields are small,” etc. Please comprehend likewise why mere tradition is no good basis. It is not without precedent to find that even a rigorous scientific discipline has embodied some assumptions uncritically.

It’s not that any burden of proof lies against me (which would be backward). As the proponent, it’s up to me to demonstrate that conceiving gravity and electromagnetism in the same medium produces clearer insights, and a more unified/coherent mode of thinking, as compared to conventional thinking. But if I can do that, and if there are no apparent bases on which to conclude conventional images are a better fit, it would at least be significant.

I began this thread by discussing one phenomenal area where it seems to me that conceiving electromagnetism as a topology in spacetime potentially meets the above test. Please, for a moment, mentally equate charge fields with slopes in spacetime (suppose, in other words, that’s what charge fields are). Based on that, you can imagine that the inter-atomic spaces in a glass prism have some pretty extreme (albeit short compared to gravity) spacetime slopes. Now, if you picture a photon passing through, it’s going to be somewhat like a space probe (or photon) passing through a very crowded galaxy -– following significant curves this way and that. To me, that’s a potentially more elegant description than supposing it’s absorbed by some atoms then re-emitted –- especially because it would allow us to unequivocally say light always travels at C, and always in a straight direction for the particular spacetime it confronts.

Is it just me, or wouldn’t it be powerful were we permitted to conclude as just stated?

That is one sampling of where it’s occurred to me we might do better, conceptually, if we thought of particular phenomenal events being the result of varying kinds of perturbation in the same spacetime with which gravity is involved. In this respect, I’m not purporting to invent anything new. I’m not claming to have discovered anything. All such hard work, in these respects, has been done. I’m simply suggesting that if we think about these things a bit differently, maybe there’s a benefit.

But I have robust respect for the fact it’s likely my whole notion is rubbish. That’s why I’m looking for any specific on-point fact with which to condemn it. That would allow me to put it away. An example (to rehearse from earlier discussion) would be if I was reliably informed that some small percentage of photons reliably make it through a transparent block at full C.

Regardless of what occurs, I thank you guys for your attention. If you must know, a significant while back I wrote a paper arguing for merit in at least exploring my concept, but I’ve not managed to get past the front door of any establishment in terms of getting it published. I genuinely think my notion is likely silly (given the general situation about overall odds to which I earlier referred), but by my own best and specific analysis it nonetheless continues to seem compelling. That attribute makes me an unhappy prisoner.

 

[ben m]

roSSman, if you "distorted spacetime" to make the charged pith ball move, why didn't uncharged objects move also? Why did positive and negative charges move in opposite directions? Why didn't clocks and rulers stretch?

Spacetime isn't a good way to make some things move and not others.

 

[roSSman]

In response to Ben's most recent . . .

why didn't uncharged objects move also?

Let me agree it’s not readily obvious how we might imagine topographies in a single media potentially resulting in all the variegated phenomena with which we are familiar. It's that mental task that, in the last several years, I've spent considerable time focusing on.

In the case of this question, Ben, I've hinted at a potential answer. If we suppose electrons and protons are opposite-density spacetime characters (one characterized by peripheral slopes that ascend to a peak and the other as the opposite), it's logical to suppose each would be impelled in opposite vectors as a spacetime wave passes by.

For any gross object that has a net neutral charge (i.e., equal quantity of electrons and protons), the impetus of each electron would be precisely offset by the precisely countervailing impetus of a proton. Hence, there'd be zero net impetus.

If, on the other hand, there was a surplus, say, of electrons, those for which there were not matching protons would have no countervailing impetus. Hence, their own impetus within the slopes of the passing wave would have no counteracting effect. Add up enough non-proton-matched electrons and you get enough force to make the entire object (pith ball) visibly rock.

But, and logically, it won't happen for an object with equal protons and electrons.

I readily grant the above may not be what's going on. I don't know whether in the heck it's what happens or not. But I'm not too dense to understand that the picture at least has a certain logical coherence -- at least so far as the factors directly discussed. Other factors might destroy the picture entirely, and if there are such factors, I seek to know about them.

Why did positive and negative charges move in opposite directions?

With respect to gravity's spacetime curves, we understand very well that mass/energy is impelled in the vector of increasing density. Significantly, when we refer to mass/energy in that context, those may in themselves (at least arguably) be segments of larger-than-ambient space/time density -- which arguably produces the rule that a nugget of larger-than-ambient spacetime density tends to be impelled, within a larger spacetime slope, in the vector of increasing density.

What's not been thought about (so far as I know) is in what vector would be impelled a nugget of spacetime that, instead of being more-dense-then-ambient, is in fact less. Think of this object, in other words, as a corpuscle of spacetime vacuity. In what vector will it be impelled in a larger spacetime slope?

Logically (and applying the same math as would have to hold in the opposite situation), it would have to be impelled in precisely the opposite vector: in the slope direction that favors decreasing density.

To answer your question, I've simply supposed that while either proton or electron must encompass a little spacetime density peak, its counterpart evidently involves the opposite (I've not conceived any basis on which to even guess which might be which) -- and because of this each must behave oppositely (vis-a-vis its counterpart) within larger spacetime slopes.

Why didn't clocks and rulers stretch?

Fantastic! After thinking on this question overnight, it's given me the idea for an experiment I'd not previously thought of. It would work as follows:

Start with two spheres just large enough to accomodate a cesium clock. Rig each so that its inside surface can be strongly charged either positive or negative (if outer surfaces are similarly charged doesn't matter; it's simply the inside surface that counts). Put previously synchronized cesium clocks in each, induce strong opposite charges on their inside surfaces, wait a day, then pull the clocks out and see if they're still synchronized.

I wonder if there have been any setups at least similar to the above? Most obviously, my notion predicts one of the clocks should run fast and the other slow. I'm presently trying to figure if I can rig something at least akin to the setup with my own meager resources.

Spacetime isn't a good way to make some things move and not others.

I grant there are likely flaws in my thinking that render it stupid. But internally, given the premises with which I'm working, can you see how it's logically coherent? So far as the elements I've been able to consider, it makes sense. Given the assumptions, at least, I'd argue spacetime does prove to be a good way of making some things move and not others.