Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

[AdB]

Here is a video why your understanding of what happens when light passes through a physical medium is wrong.

A further inquiry if I understand the idea of this video correctly combined with some info I read elsewhere regarding what determines the amount of delay.

- A light wave approaches an atom
- The electrons of the atom start resonating to the wavelength of the light wave
- This resonating happens with a small delay compared to the interval of the light wave
- The closer the energy of the light wave is to the energy required for the electron to jump to a higher energy level within its atom, the longer the electron will keep resonating
- When the electron finally stops resonating the wave is "released" with a shorter or longer delay.

 

[sjastro]

A further inquiry if I understand the idea of this video correctly combined with some info I read elsewhere regarding what determines the amount of delay.

- A light wave approaches an atom
- The electrons of the atom start resonating to the wavelength of the light wave
- This resonating happens with a small delay compared to the interval of the light wave
- The closer the energy of the light wave is to the energy required for the electron to jump to a higher energy level within its atom, the longer the electron will keep resonating
- When the electron finally stops resonating the wave is "released" with a shorter or longer delay.

From a classical physics perspective electrons in an atom have a natural tendency of vibrating at a certain frequency known as the resonance frequency.

The transmission of light through a medium depends on the frequency of the incident light and vibration resonance frequency of the electron not being the same.
If the frequency of light is the same as the resonance frequency of the electron, energy is transferred in the form of thermal energy or can eject the electron from the atom.

The resultant wave which is a combination of the incident wave and the wave caused when the electron is accelerated through vibration travels at c between atoms.
It is the delay time between the impingement of light on electrons and the creation of the resultant wave which slows down the speed of light in the medium.

 

[AdB]

It is the delay time between the impingement of light on electrons and the creation of the resultant wave which slows down the speed of light in the medium.

And the amount of delay is related to the degree in which the frequency of the incident wave deviates from the resonance frequency?

 

[sjastro]

And the amount of delay is related to the degree in which the frequency of the incident wave deviates from the resonance frequency?

No the resonance frequency of an object is simply the frequency at which maximum energy transfer is possible between the oscillating driving force and the object being driven.

Light is an oscillating electric field which causes electrons to oscillate in the field which in turn creates electromagnetic radiation which when added to the incident light wave produces the resultant wave.
This happens well away from any resonant frequencies.

The process of the light’s electric field driving the electron which ultimately produces the resultant wave is not instantaneous and the time delay results in the resultant wave travelling at less than the speed of light c in a vacuum.

 

[AdB]

Light is an oscillating electric field which causes electrons to oscillate in the field which in turn creates electromagnetic radiation which when added to the incident light wave produces the resultant wave.
This happens well away from any resonant frequencies.

The process of the light’s electric field driving the electron which ultimately produces the resultant wave is not instantaneous and the time delay results in the resultant wave travelling at less than the speed of light c in a vacuum.

So when the wave caused by the resonating electron is ADDED to the incident wave, shouldn't the resulting wave then have an increased amplitude?

I assume the resonant wave caused by the electron will have the same frequency as the incident wave, but as you say it will be slightly offset from it.
If those are added then the resulting wave would have an offset half of the offset of the resonating wave?

 

[sjastro]

So when the wave caused by the resonating electron is ADDED to the incident wave, shouldn't the resulting wave then have an increased amplitude?[

The amplitude of the resultant wave depends on the phase difference or angle θ between the incident light wave and the electromagnetic wave created by the electron as it is driven into motion by the electric field of the light wave.

If θ = 0 there the amplitudes add, when θ = 180° the amplitudes cancel each other.

The resultant wave falls within these extreme values.

I assume the resonant wave caused by the electron will have the same frequency as the incident wave, but as you say it will be slightly offset from it.
If those are added then the resulting wave would have an offset half of the offset of the resonating wave?

When comparing the incident light and the resultant wave (not the electromagnetic wave) the properties of the mediums determines how much phase shift if it occurs at all.

The phase angle between the incident wave and electromagnetic wave is a measurement of the amount of energy dissipated by the electron when driven into motion by the electric field of the incident light wave.

The frequency of the incident and resultant waves are the same which presents a problem; if the speed of light is reduced in the medium and the frequency doesn’t change it means the wavelength is reduced or blue shifted which contradicts the observed cosmological redshift.

 

[AdB]

The amplitude of the resultant wave depends on the phase difference or angle θ between the incident light wave and the electromagnetic wave created by the electron as it is driven into motion by the electric field of the light wave.

If θ = 0 there the amplitudes add, when θ = 180° the amplitudes cancel each other.

The resultant wave falls within these extreme values.


When comparing the incident light and the resultant wave (not the electromagnetic wave) the properties of the mediums determines how much phase shift if it occurs at all.

The phase angle between the incident wave and electromagnetic wave is a measurement of the amount of energy dissipated by the electron when driven into motion by the electric field of the incident light wave.

The frequency of the incident and resultant waves are the same which presents a problem; if the speed of light is reduced in the medium and the frequency doesn’t change it means the wavelength is reduced or blue shifted which contradicts the observed cosmological redshift.

I believe the amplitude of the wave is the brightness of the light? So depending on how the phase shift falls the light would be brighter or dimmer?

 

[sjastro]

I believe the amplitude of the wave is the brightness of the light? So depending on how the phase shift falls the light would be brighter or dimmer?

That's correct.

 

[AdB]

That's correct.

I know the brightness can be reduced by scattering and absorption, but I have never heard of brightness increasing because of refraction...

 

[sjastro]

I know the brightness can be reduced by scattering and absorption, but I have never heard of brightness increasing because of refraction...

This has nothing to do with the question you asked.
You asked if the brightness of the resultant wave depends on the phase angle θ between the incident light wave and the electromagnetic wave generated by the vibrating electron.
The answer is still yes.
When the phase angle is θ = 0° maximum constructive interference occurs between the two waves and the resultant wave has a maximum brightness which decreases with increasing phase angle until it reaches a zero value when θ = 180° for maximum destructive interference.

If you meant to ask if the resultant wave can be brighter than the incident wave then you should have been more explicit in your question in which case the answer is no.

 

[AdB]

This has nothing to do with the question you asked.
You asked if the brightness of the resultant wave depends on the phase angle θ between the incident light wave and the electromagnetic wave generated by the vibrating electron.
The answer is still yes.
When the phase angle is θ = 0° maximum constructive interference occurs between the two waves and the resultant wave has a maximum brightness which decreases with increasing phase angle until it reaches a zero value when θ = 180° for maximum destructive interference.

If you meant to ask if the resultant wave can be brighter than the incident wave then you should have been more explicit in your question in which case the answer is no.

That was exactly what I asked... "brighter or dimmer".

So you say light can become brighter while it radiates inside a medium? And would it still be brighter once exiting that medium? If that can occur can you give an experimental example of this?

 

[sjastro]

That was exactly what I asked... "brighter or dimmer".

So you say light can become brighter while it radiates inside a medium? And would it still be brighter once exiting that medium? If that can occur can you give an experimental example of this?

I did not say anything of the sort and stop taking me out of context.
I said the brightness of the resultant wave depends on the phase angle between incident light which travels inside the medium and the electromagnetic radiation generated by the vibrating electrons.

The resultant wave = incident light wave (inside medium) + electromagnetic radiation.
The resultant wave is what you see inside the medium.

It only makes sense to use the terms brighter or dimmer when comparing the incident light outside the medium to the resultant wave in the medium.
The resultant wave will always be dimmer due to reflection and absorbance inside the medium.

 

[AdB]

I did not say anything of the sort and stop taking me out of context.

How am I taking you out of context?
I said: (note there's a question mark, it's not a statement)
So you say light can become brighter while it radiates inside a medium?
And that is what you indirectly state again in your last response:

The resultant wave = incident light wave (inside medium) + electromagnetic radiation.
The resultant wave is what you see inside the medium.

So when the phase shift causes the crests of the incident light wave and the electromagnetic radiation to be at about the same position, then both waves will be added and thus result in a resultant wave with a larger amplitude. Please explain if this assumption is not correct...

And then I followed up with a second question:
And would it still be brighter once exiting that medium?
Which you haven't seem to have answered, you have only talked about the incident wave (I take that as the light wave BEFORE it enters the medium) and the resultant wave INSIDE the medium.

The resultant wave is what you see inside the medium.

It only makes sense to use the terms brighter or dimmer when comparing the incident light outside the medium to the resultant wave in the medium.

My question is about the wave when it EXITS the medium again... Will that be brighter than the incident wave if the resultant wave has become much brighter than the incident wave, more than the brightness loss because of scattering etc?

And actually it is also an interesting question if the resultant wave (inside the medium) can be brighter than the incident wave...

 

[SelfSim]

(Now I understand why I did signal theory .. all the modelling and math removed the potential of verbal miscommunication).

 

[sjastro]

How am I taking you out of context?
I said: (note there's a question mark, it's not a statement)
So you say light can become brighter while it radiates inside a medium?
And that is what you indirectly state again in your last response:
So when the phase shift causes the crests of the incident light wave and the electromagnetic radiation to be at about the same position, then both waves will be added and thus result in a resultant wave with a larger amplitude. Please explain if this assumption is not correct...

And then I followed up with a second question:
And would it still be brighter once exiting that medium?
Which you haven't seem to have answered, you have only talked about the incident wave (I take that as the light wave BEFORE it enters the medium) and the resultant wave INSIDE the medium.

My question is about the wave when it EXITS the medium again... Will that be brighter than the incident wave if the resultant wave has become much brighter than the incident wave, more than the brightness loss because of scattering etc?

And actually it is also an interesting question if the resultant wave (inside the medium) can be brighter than the incident wave...

Funny how you insist on merely asking a question but you don’t seem to take no for an answer.
Here we go one more time.
A picture tells a thousand words.

The incident light beam emanates from the left hand side and is clearly brighter than the resultant wave in the plastic medium as well as the light beam emerging from the block.
A similar type of image would be obtained if medium was replaced by water, glass etc.

I mentioned in post #106 the resultant waves falls within the range θ = 0° to θ = 180°.
The phase angle can never be zero which would imply the electron will experience no energy dissipation during acceleration yet by definition energy is dissipated through electromagnetic radiation resulting in a large phase angle and the amplitude of the resultant wave can never be greater than the incident light.
Then there are the other factors which reduce brightness in the medium such as reflection and absorbance which have been mentioned previously.

While the wave nature of light is used to explain what happens inside the medium, the particle nature of light provides a far more intuitive description for brightness than the amplitude of a wave.
In this case the brightness is the photon flux which is the number of photons striking a detector per square meter per second.
If the resultant light beam and the emerging light beam are brighter than incident light beam than their photon fluxes must also be greater.

How is the photon flux increased?
Increase the number of photons in the resultant and emerging light beams but this doesn’t work as the number of photons is limited to the incident light beam.
Extra photons cannot be created out of nothing as this violates the conservation of energy.
The other option is decreasing the time taken for photons to reach the detector; this would require the speed of light in the medium to be faster than the incident light beam which is a contradiction.
Note in the image the photon flux of the emerging light beam is less the incident light beam even though it is travelling back to the speed of light c but is caused by photon losses in the medium due to reflection and absorbance.

What is bizarre about this thread is your fixation of light passing through a medium when it is not even an analogy for Setterfield’s model.

 

[AdB]

What is bizarre about this thread is your fixation of light passing through a medium when it is not even an analogy for Setterfield’s model.

simply that I'm trying to understand as a layman how this light speed delay as you propose it would actually work...

I mentioned in post #106 the resultant waves falls within the range θ = 0° to θ = 180°.
The phase angle can never be zero which would imply the electron will experience no energy dissipation during acceleration yet by definition energy is dissipated through electromagnetic radiation resulting in a large phase angle and the amplitude of the resultant wave can never be greater than the incident light.

Not sure about what you are saying here...
So let me try to describe what I mean in layman's terms...
- Let's say the incident wave has an amplitude of 10 (V/m for a light wave?)
- Will it remain at 10 once it enters into the medium OR will the amplitude decrease (let's say with 2 V/m leaving it at 8) because energy is "taken" by the resonating electron?
- The resonating electron will generate its own wave, so this wave will have a certain phase angle compared to the incident wave.
- Will that wave also have an amplitude of 10 like the incident wave, or will it be the 2 that were "taken" as per above situation where the amplitude of the incident wave is reduced, or will it have yet another amplitude?
- The incident wave (either still having amplitude 10 or the reduced value of 8) then is combined with the wave generated by the resonating electron (with amplitude 10, 2 or yet something else?)
- So the resultant wave would then be getting one of below amplitudes?
> 10 + 10
> 8 + 2
> 10 + ??
> 8 + ??

 

[sjastro]

simply that I'm trying to understand as a layman how this light speed delay as you propose it would actually work...


Not sure about what you are saying here...
So let me try to describe what I mean in layman's terms...
- Let's say the incident wave has an amplitude of 10 (V/m for a light wave?)
- Will it remain at 10 once it enters into the medium OR will the amplitude decrease (let's say with 2 V/m leaving it at 8) because energy is "taken" by the resonating electron?
- The resonating electron will generate its own wave, so this wave will have a certain phase angle compared to the incident wave.
- Will that wave also have an amplitude of 10 like the incident wave, or will it be the 2 that were "taken" as per above situation where the amplitude of the incident wave is reduced, or will it have yet another amplitude?
- The incident wave (either still having amplitude 10 or the reduced value of 8) then is combined with the wave generated by the resonating electron (with amplitude 10, 2 or yet something else?)
- So the resultant wave would then be getting one of below amplitudes?
> 10 + 10
> 8 + 2
> 10 + ??
> 8 + ??

It doesn’t work this way.
Perhaps there is some confusion when I wrote the following equation;
The resultant wave = incident light wave (inside medium) + electromagnetic radiation.
This is an equation for how sinusoidal waves add up, it doesn’t mean the incident light wave (inside medium) and the electromagnetic radiation exist as separate physical entities inside the medium.
It is therefore meaningless to refer the amplitude of the incident light inside the medium as it disappears inside the medium.

As I mentioned in post #102 the frequency of the incident light wave does not correspond to the resonant frequency of the electron since the electron dissipates energy when being driven by the electric field of the incident light.
This results in a phase shift or non zero phase angle.
When light interacts with an electron in an atom it doesn’t stop there, the resultant wave becomes the “incident” light for the next interaction with an electron in an atom to create a new resultant wave and “incident” light for further interactions.
These multiple interactions have an additive effect on the phase shift or phase angle; while the phase angle may be very small for each individual interaction collectively the angle becomes large and the resultant wave as a product of these multiple interactions has a lower amplitude of brightness than the incident light.

 

[AdB]

It doesn’t work this way.
Perhaps there is some confusion when I wrote the following equation;
The resultant wave = incident light wave (inside medium) + electromagnetic radiation.

Indeed, when I read or see a video stating that two waves are added together, than that is what I think of literally... And the images you used literally show two waves that merge and result in a wave with a higher amplitude...

So let's try again to put the new approach of your explanation into layman's language...

So the incident wave is AFFECTED by the electrons in the medium that it interacts with.

In these interactions the electron is getting exited by the incident wave, but the electrons response is limited in the possible frequencies because of its orbit around its atoms nucleus.
Because of the deviating frequency of the electron compared to the incident wave, the effect will be a resultant wave with a slightly shorter wave length.

This is effectively a small "set back" of the wave front at each interaction with an electron.
So the incident wave itself is not really changed, but with each interaction with an electron its wave front is pushed back a little which results in the wavelength getting reduced.
Because the frequency of the incident wave is not changed the resultant wave will have a slower phase velocity.
As soon as the light wave exits the medium it will continue on its path unchanged (except for some loss of amplitude) because it is no longer affected anymore by the electrons.

 

[sjastro]

Indeed, when I read or see a video stating that two waves are added together, than that is what I think of literally... And the images you used literally show two waves that merge and result in a wave with a higher amplitude...

So let's try again to put the new approach of your explanation into layman's language...

So the incident wave is AFFECTED by the electrons in the medium that it interacts with.

In these interactions the electron is getting exited by the incident wave, but the electrons response is limited in the possible frequencies because of its orbit around its atoms nucleus.
Because of the deviating frequency of the electron compared to the incident wave, the effect will be a resultant wave with a slightly shorter wave length.

This is effectively a small "set back" of the wave front at each interaction with an electron.
So the incident wave itself is not really changed, but with each interaction with an electron its wave front is pushed back a little which results in the wavelength getting reduced.
Because the frequency of the incident wave is not changed the resultant wave will have a slower phase velocity.
As soon as the light wave exits the medium it will continue on its path unchanged (except for some loss of amplitude) because it is no longer affected anymore by the electrons.

The Don Lincoln video in post #63 gives a simplified layman approach on why light slows down in a medium and treats the electron as an isolated particle which when oscillated generated the electromagnetic radiation.
To be consistent with the video this description has been used throughout this thread.
The actual physics is much more complicated as one needs to consider the distribution of the electron charge in an atom.

Before describing this your description of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus doesn’t work for the very reasons given in this thread; when an electron travels in a curved trajectory such as an orbit it produces electromagnetic radiation through energy loss and will spiral into the nucleus.
The theory of atoms being miniature solar systems was replaced by quantum mechanics which could explain an atom’s stability.

In quantum mechanics the electron is not treated as a particle but as an electron cloud which is a probability distribution of where an electron occupies space.
The electron cloud can undergo polarization where the cloud distribution can become non uniform resulting in charge separation.

When charge separation occurs an electric dipole is formed.

The dipole acts like weights attached to springs which are set into oscillation when acted on by an external force, in this case electric field of the incident light wave.

The "rabbit ears" TV antenna operates on the same principle it is an electric dipole where the charges inside the antenna oscillate when exposed to external electromagnetic radiation.
It is the oscillating electric dipole which generates the electromagnetic radiation and interacts with the incident light to form the resultant wave.

Once again let me reiterate in your description you admit the wavelength is reduced which contradicts observation of cosmological redshift so why are you even pushing this idea?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Don Lincoln video in post #63 gives a simplified layman approach on why light slows down in a medium and treats the electron as an isolated particle which when oscillated generated the electromagnetic radiation.
To be consistent with the video this description has been used throughout this thread.
The actual physics is much more complicated as one needs to consider the distribution of the electron charge in an atom.

Before describing this your description of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus doesn’t work for the very reasons given in this thread; when an electron travels in a curved trajectory such as an orbit it produces electromagnetic radiation through energy loss and will spiral into the nucleus.
The theory of atoms being miniature solar systems was replaced by quantum mechanics which could explain an atom’s stability.

In quantum mechanics the electron is not treated as a particle but as an electron cloud which is a probability distribution of where an electron occupies space.
The electron cloud can undergo polarization where the cloud distribution can become non uniform resulting in charge separation.

When charge separation occurs an electric dipole is formed.

The dipole acts like weights attached to springs which are set into oscillation when acted on by an external force, in this case electric field of the incident light wave.

The "rabbit ears" TV antenna operates on the same principle it is an electric dipole where the charges inside the antenna oscillate when exposed to external electromagnetic radiation.
It is the oscillating electric dipole which generates the electromagnetic radiation and interacts with the incident light to form the resultant wave.

Once again let me reiterate in your description you admit the wavelength is reduced which contradicts observation of cosmological redshift so why are you even pushing this idea?

Respect SJ, I admire your patience!