I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

Also, if you read the three links I provided above, you'll see that the speed of a photon in a medium is not as straightforward a matter as you appear to think.

Hence it is called a photon-polariton. However, it is not a true photon.

I understand "true photon" as a photon traveling in vacuum, and in this case c is simply the maximum possible speed for this photon.

It does not change the fact that this photon can be slower if the medium is changed (it is not vacuum).

Furthermore, we have to be very careful about the phenomenon of photon, because it is not clear at all that we can talk about photons as if they are like very small billiard balls.

 

[Nonpareil]

I understand "true photon" as a photon traveling in vacuum, and in this case c is simply the maximum possible speed for this photon.

If it's traveling in vacuum, c is the only possible speed for that photon.

 

[ctamblyn]

I understand "true photon" as a photon traveling in vacuum, and in this case c is simply the maximum possible speed for this photon.

It does not change the fact that this photon can be slower if the medium is changed (it is not vacuum).

I stipulated that I was referring to a photon in a vacuum. Also, your last sentence is not correct (as was explained at the three links I provided above).

Furthermore, we have to be very careful about the phenomenon of photon, because it is not clear at all that we can talk about photons as if their are like very small billiard balls.

It's clear that we cannot, in fact. If you're worried, let's stipulate that we mean the phase velocity in vacuo.

 

[doronshadmi]

The locally-measured speed in vacuo, which is what is usually meant by the symbol c, is invariant.

This is not an example of a material phenomena, which is absolutely invariant (not changed under all conditions).

 

[ctamblyn]

Also, doronshadmi, don't forget there were other examples mentioned above of invariant quantities. There are more, too; the dimensionality of spacetime, the length of a given spacelike geodesic, the magnitude of the spin of a photon (or proton, or neutrino, etc.), and so on.

 

[ctamblyn]

This is not an example of a material phenomena, which is absolutely invariant (not changed under all conditions).

It's the outcome of a physical measurement performed on a physical system; it's the amount of time it takes a photon to travel some short distance, divided by the amount of time it took. You can't get more "material phenomenon" than that.

By what criterion or criteria do you dismiss this example, and why wait so long to mention it?

 

[doronshadmi]

Also, your last sentence is not correct (as was explained at the three links I provided above).

the macroscopic velocity of light has been reduced to zero, what this essentially means is that the light is moving in a circle, but it's still moving, and still moving at c.

It simply running in circles in vacuum, but can be slower also at the micro level if it interferes with another micro phenomenon.

Moreover, the circle must be greater than the moving photon, so such circle actually macro environment w.r.t the photon.

Furthermore, since the photon moves, it is, by definition, not invariant.

 

[ctamblyn]

It simply running in circles in vacuum, but can be slower also at the micro level if it interferes with another micro phenomenon.

Once again, I'm talking about light in vacuo. I've mentioned this several times, Nonpareil has mentioned it too. Also, don't forget the several other examples I gave that were not to do with light.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again, I'm talking about light in vacuo.

And I am talking about light which is also not in vacuo.

 

[doronshadmi]

If it's traveling in vacuum, c is the only possible speed for that photon.

It those not matter, since it is traveling it is, by definition, not invariant.

 

[doronshadmi]

with no charged particles escaping or entering it, the amount of electric charge contained in it remains fixed.

This is a temporary condition, which is changed by let charged particles escaping or entering, so it is not absolutely invariant.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also, doronshadmi, don't forget there were other examples mentioned above of invariant quantities. There are more, too; the dimensionality of spacetime, the length of a given spacelike geodesic, the magnitude of the spin of a photon (or proton, or neutrino, etc.), and so on.

Since they are all space\time phenomena they are, by definition, not absolutely invariant.

Dear ctamblyn in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 absolute symmetry is, by definition, not a space\time phenomena, but it is the absolute invariant substance of it.

 

[Myriad]

The coin I just tossed came up heads.

That measurement is absolutely invariant. It will never retroactively turn into tails.

 

[Nonpareil]

It those not matter, since it is traveling it is, by definition, not invariant.

Your definition is wrong.

 

[ctamblyn]

And I am talking about light which is also not in vacuo.

This is a temporary condition, which is changed by let charged particles escaping or entering, so it is not absolutely invariant.

You asked for something invariant, and examples were given; you are now pointing out that modified versions of two of those examples do not meet your criteria, and dismissing the others on grounds which are unclear to me.

I can't say that I am persuaded. All the examples I originally gave still seem adequate, so maybe I don't really get what you mean by "invariant".

 

[realpaladin]

The coin I just tossed came up heads.

That measurement is absolutely invariant. It will never retroactively turn into tails.

I predict you either:

A) will be ignored for giving an example that can not be kibitzed about
B) will get a reply along the line that it is 'also tails' if you look at it from the other side. (at the same time).

 

[Nonpareil]

I can't say that I am persuaded. All the examples I originally gave still seem adequate, so maybe I don't really get what you mean by "invariant".

Like I said, it's impossible to offer any sort of meaningful commentary on his current ramblings, because he isn't using the words involved in any way that anyone else can understand. He changes definitions on a whim, so even if there were a coherent idea behind it all, no one else can ever be exactly sure of what it is he's saying.

It's one of his defenses against criticism. If he uses really big, official-sounding words, most people can be dissuaded from attempting to offer comment, and if he changes the definitions of those words, those that do can be dismissed, since they obviously don't understand.

After all, those words are very big and impressive-sounding. How do you know that doronshadmi isn't just a genius on a level beyond your comprehension? He certainly says he is, since he observes us from the perspective of Unity or whatever. How can you be sure he isn't right?

It's all hokum, of course. There's nothing to do but sit and wait for him to actually say something semi-coherent again, instead of just spastically throwing out references to unified field theory and general relativity and claiming they somehow support him.

 

[ctamblyn]

The coin I just tossed came up heads.

That measurement is absolutely invariant. It will never retroactively turn into tails.

I predict you either:

A) will be ignored for giving an example that can not be kibitzed about
B) will get a reply along the line that it is 'also tails' if you look at it from the other side. (at the same time).

C) The outcome of the toss was tails in some other Everett branch.

 

[realpaladin]

C) The outcome of the toss was tails in some other Everett branch.

Dude...(I presume)... you just have given him a new tangent to go off on again.

 

[ctamblyn]

Like I said, it's impossible to offer any sort of meaningful commentary on his current ramblings, because he isn't using the words involved in any way that anyone else can understand. He changes definitions on a whim, so even if there were a coherent idea behind it all, no one else can ever be exactly sure of what it is he's saying.

It's one of his defenses against criticism. If he uses really big, official-sounding words, most people can be dissuaded from attempting to offer comment, and if he changes the definitions of those words, those that do can be dismissed, since they obviously don't understand.

After all, those words are very big and impressive-sounding. How do you know that doronshadmi isn't just a genius on a level beyond your comprehension? He certainly says he is, since he observes us from the perspective of Unity or whatever. How can you be sure he isn't right?

It's all hokum, of course. There's nothing to do but sit and wait for him to actually say something semi-coherent again, instead of just spastically throwing out references to unified field theory and general relativity and claiming they somehow support him.

On the plus side, since the validity of our objections must themselves be "variant", they must be correct some of the time.