Light - Science topic

The theme of the diffraction typically refers to a small aperture or obstacle. Here I would like to share a video that I took a few days ago that shows diffraction can be produced by the macroscopic items similarly:

I hope you can explain this phenomenon with wave-particle duality or quantum mechanics. However, I can simply interpret it with my own idea of Inhomogeneously refracted space at:

in past I had beige color

Hello everyone,

I want to stain live and dead cells in a fresh tissue. There are a large variety of stains (i.e, PI, cell tracker, FDA, DAPI). As long as I know, the should not be exposed to light. The pathology facility I work with, does not have a dark environment( the samples would be exposed to light). Can you recommend a staining agent that does not degrade in light exposure?

Smart photonics is a new technology that uses the combination of photonics and artificial intelligence. This technology uses light to transmit information at high speed, increase the efficiency of communication and data processing systems, increase processing speed and reduce energy consumption. Smart photonics is used in various fields such as optical communications, optical sensors, data processing, medicine, energy and environment, security and protection, etc. By integrating the power of photonics and artificial intelligence, this technology can significantly improve the performance and efficiency of various systems and devices. What do you think about the advancement of photonic efficiency based on artificial intelligence?

I am analyzing a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) on high plastic silt that has been treated with cement. During the examination, I observed a recurring shape across some of the images, which appears to be a particle with a diameter of nearly 20 microns. Could it be a hydration product, or an aggregation of silt particles, or any other foreign material? Could any researchers/ experts shed light on this? It would be a great help. I'm new to analyzing SEM images, so please bear with me if my question seems silly.

Hello,

I would like to know if someone could advice me about the best device to use to measure artificial light at night in coastal areas, outside and inside water (just few meters)?

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Nathalie

Dear Scientists, I have uploaded the preprint of my manuscript on the velocity of light, showing an argument different from Special Relativity theory. A proposal to go beyond Bing Bang theory was also described there. I would greatly appreciate a critical review comments on it. It can be found in ResearchGate " ".

Thank you very much.

Best Regards, Chan Bock Lee

My research, in particular my analysis of time perception, suggests that consciousness correlates with a large scale quantum coherent state in the brain in the form of a Bose-Einstein condensate. Aside from the philosophical analysis which, I suggest, proves that this must be the case, there remains the problem of concrete evidence. How can we observe or measure large scale coherent states in the brain.

Hydrocephalus is a condition in which spinal fluid can become trapped in the centre of the brain. In very severe cases where the condition has gone undetected for a considerable period of time the brain can be forced develop around a large fluid filled space in an unusual way. In severe cases this can lead to a condition coined 'shell-brain'. The brain literally occupies a thin layer on the inside of the skull. Some sufferers of this condition can be highly functional.

This layer can be so thin that a light shone in one ear can be detected at the other. So, if we shine a fast burst of light through the brain in this way and measure the time lag between the burst of light and its detection then we can calculate the speed of the light. If the light passes through a BEC then it should be slowed down and this can be measured.

Is this feasible?

I am investigating changes in gene expression in cells after light irradiation at multiple wavelengths using ddCt method. I would like to compare the control and irradiated areas and describe the increase or decrease in gene expression. Usually the Dunnett method is used for comparison, but I believe the ddCt values are not normally distributed.

What is the best multiple comparison method?

I'm teaching a student to do Drosophila embryo whole mount RNA in situs. She's using the same solutions that I use however her embryos turn light tan to medium brown after incubating O/N in prehyb. Does anyone have suggestions for how this is happening?

Hello, when I use a reflective light microscope (with light entering at approximately 45 degrees), I can see a lot of details and textures. I suspect the image may contain some sub-annual lines. However, when I use a transmissive light microscope or a reflective light microscope (with light entering vertically), I can see the main growth lines more clearly, and many micro-growth lines and textures are not visible under oblique light. I am conducting cross-dating and am unsure which perspective of images to use for cross-dating.

In fact, there is little evidence about this, but it seems that different types of laser light are produced by stars under different conditions.

I am setting up a test to measure power and spectrum of laser dies. To avoid precise alignment, and also due to lasers' high output power, I have decided to use an integrating sphere to do the power measurement.

I have also been trying to use the same sphere to sample light and couple it into a 50um NA=0.22 multimode fibre for spectral measurement. As you can imagine, the coupling efficiency of bare fibre is quite low. So I tried other options including:

1- attaching a collimator to the fibre and put the collimator at the sphere's port,

2- trying to use a lens to collimate the light coming out of the port and then focus it into the fibre using another lens.

However, none of these methods gave me a significant improvement over bare fibre directly connected to the sphere's port.

The sphere is 2-inch diameter and port diameter is 0.5 inch. The wavelength is 1310nm.

Is there any other way that I can get better results? Thanks.

This discussion aims to delve deeper into the interconnectedness of classical mechanics, wave mechanics, and relativistic physics, alongside an exploration of piezoelectricity, guided by the fundamental concepts of velocity, speed, and gravitational dynamics. Drawing inspiration from recent research, we seek to unravel the intricate relationships between external forces, atomic structures, and wave phenomena, shedding light on potential advancements in materials science, physics, and engineering.

Join us as we navigate this interdisciplinary landscape and contemplate its implications for future scientific endeavours.

Famously, QM has a lot of EXPERIMENT-DEPENDENCE. Many call it mind-dependence, partial non-causality, freedom, etc. In fact, what there is, is EXPERIMENT-DEPENDENCE.

Similarly, the whole of STR and GTR depend on the experimentally fixed velocity of light and some experimental explications of the equivalence principle. Merely because equivalence principle is defined in a manner, we need not have it as a fully acceptable a priori setting. Similarly also the experimentally set quantity of the velocity of light. Hence, STR and GTR too are experiment-dependent.

How then can we have reliable truth in QM, STR, and GTR for a physics beyond the layers of physical reality that that the present kinds of experiments are engaged in? IN SHORT, WE NEED TO GENERALIZE PHYSICAL CASES FOR ALL POSSIBLE OTHER EXISTENT PHYSICAL WORLDS, with the condition that such a generalization is true enough only if they do exist.

I know this will be taken as a far-fetched suggestion. But look closer at the possible quantitative modalities in the suggestion being made. We need only to broader and/or limit the quantitative prescriptions in physical theories -- and we have generalizations!

By reason of the application of the Lorentz Factor [(1 - (v squared / c squared)) raised to the power of 1/2] in the denominator of equations, luminal and other comparable energy propagations take on one and the same velocity. This is the relativity-effect (better, comparative effect) between v of objects, compared to c of the speed of light. That is, it is presupposed here that c is the object of comparison for determining the speed effect of velocity difference across a duration.

It is against the criterion-velocity itself c that c becomes unsurpassable! Hence, I am of the opinion that the supposed source-independence is nothing but an effect of OUR APPARATUS-WISE OBSERVATION LIMIT AND OUR FIXING OF THE CRITERION OF OBSERVATION AS THE OBSERVED VELOCITY OF LIGHT.

In this circumstance, it is useless to claim that (1) luminal and some other energy propagations with velocity c are source-independent, and (2) these wavicles have zero rest mass, since the supposed source-independence have not been proved theoretically or experimentally without using c cas the criterion velocity. The supposed source-independence is merely an effect of c-based comparison.

Against this background, it is possible to be assured that photons and other similar c-wavicles are extended particles -- varying their size throughout the course of motion in the spiral manner. Hence the acceptability of the term 'wavicle'. Moreover, each mathematical point of the spiral motion is to be conceived not as two-, but as three-dimensional, and any point of motion added to it justifies its fourth dimension. Let us call motion as change.

These four dimensions are measuremental, hence the terms 'space' (three-dimensional) and 'time' (one-dimensional). This is also an argument countering the opinion that in physics and cosmology (and other sciences) time is not attested!

The measurements of the 3-space and measurements of the 1-time are not in the wavicles and in the things being measured. The measurements are the cognitive characteristics of the measurements.

IN FACT, THE EXTENSION OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'SPACE', AND THE CHANGE OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'TIME'. Hence, the physically out-there-to-find characteristics of the wavicles and objects are EXTENSION AND CHANGE.

Extension is the quality of all existing objects by which they have parts. This is not space. Change is the quality by which they have motion, i.e., impact generation on other similar wavicles and/or objects. This is not time. Nothing has space and time; nothing is in space and time. Everything is in Extension-Change.

Any wavicle or other object existing in Extension-Change is nothing but impact generation by physically existent parts. This is what we term CAUSATION. CAUSALITY is the relation of parts of physical existents by which some are termed cause/s and the others are termed effect/s. IN FACT, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE PARTS, WHICH BEGINS THE IMPACT, IS THE CAUSE; AND THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE CAUSE. Cause and effect are, together, one unit of continuous process.

Since energy wavicles are extended, they have parts. Hence, there can be other, more minute, parts of physical objects, which can define superluminal velocities. Here, the criterion of measurement of velocity cannot be c. That is all...! Hence, superluminal velocities are a must by reason of the very meaning of physical existence.

THE NOTION OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ('TO BE') IS COMPLELTEY EXHAUSTED BY THE NOTIONS OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. Hence, I call Extension and Change as the highest physical-ontological Categories. A metaphysics (physical ontology) of the cosmos is thus feasible. I have been constructing one such. My book-length publications have been efforts in this direction.

I invite your contributions by way of critiques and comments -- not ferocious, but friendly, because I do not claim that I am the last word in any science, including philosophy of physics.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

Should we prohibit the false statements from the papers published in academia journals?

The words that “Einstein's famous equation E=mc²” is a sentence directly copied from internet. It is a general sentence about E=mc2. But, it is clear, this is a false statement. Now, it is well known that it is De Pretto who originally presented E=mc² from the energy of atomic nuclei. His explanation about E=mc² is the current explanation in today’s theory of relativity. And, Ohanian showed that in 7 papers, Einstein’s mathematics derivations about this equation are wrong.

And, these sentences are also false statement: 1) Einstein predicted the invariance of the speed of light or Einstein’s postulation of the invariance of the speed of light, 2) Einstein predicted the gravitational light bending or Einstein’s gravitational light bending.

In https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363832456_Crucial_Experiment_Showed_That_Einstein's_Theory_of_Relativity_Is_Wrong and

(PDF) Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (V2) (researchgate.net)

these problems are introduced in detailed.

I was astonished at that, in the books or articles about the theory of relativity, this kinds of statement: Einstein predicted xxx, Einstein’s principle/postulation about xxx, Einstein obtained xxx, and so on, are all false statement. Could you find out one of such kinds of statement is true?

In the past 100 years, we obtained the maximum scientific innovations. These innovations are much more than the sum of that before 100 years. But, it is very unfortunate, the development of theoretical physics is stopped or slowed. Some people think that “Physics is dead”. Here we emphasize, the main reason for the death of physics is that the false statements are prevailing in the papers and books published in the famous academia journals.

We think, we are all the honest people. We don’t like or hate lie and false statement. Therefore, could we reject the false statement in scientific papers with the journals, magazines, books and so on that publish the false statements?

How can we do?

Good morning Research Gate scientists

I have an LB agar plate for DH5a bacteria cell storage at 4C for 6 weeks, and I tried to subculture to a new plate plenty of times but I could not get colonies at all. the colony on the storged plate is not white, as usual, It is a light yellow color.

Then, I tried to subculture using a glycerol stock, I used a loop dipped deeply on the stock, and one loop streaked on the agar plate but still, no colony appeared on the agar surface, though I tried to avoid thaw-freezing for the stock.

No antibiotic was added to the plates because it was just a simple bacteria subculture. And plates were warmed and dried before subculture and the plates were incubated at 37 C overnight, I don't know the problems. Thanks in advance for your assist

I am setting up a simulation where I want to see the reflectance from an array of nanoparticle using COMSOL wave optics module. I want to see the reflectance for co and cross polarized light. For example, let's say the incident beam is x-polarized. I want to see the reflectance separately for x and y polarized scattered light. I can't find a way to do the same. I can get the total reflectance using ewfd.Rport_1 or ewfd.S11, but I don't see a way to get the same thing for a particular polarization.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

to know the amount of light incident on leaf surface

Shadows could be a little energy and do not “without anything”?

In the light of the overlap between Literary Theory and Translation, having for their object an interpretation for each literary work, I would like to discuss the following points with you.

Does the interplay between Literary Theory and Translation Pedagogy matter?

How can we strike the balance between the text objectivity and the translator's subjectivity?

How should Literary Theory subtly influence Literary Translation Methodology and its professionalism?

The NULL-result of the Michelson-Morley-experiment (MMX) has a theoretical, let’s say geometrical, explanation. You might see it below: If light goes up with 90 degree and comes from that point to the beam splitter.

If the MMX executed here on earth, using visible light with wave length, the ratio of motion (of the earth) w.r.t the light is one into ten thousand: 0.0001. The difference of the x-position that needs to be focused will be two thousands of a nanometer. If you turn the table of the experiment (like Albert Michelson did), the light coming along Fermat's path will vanish because the path length is different by angle.

Hence, the NULL-result of MMX was a very trivial consequence of the setup: The setup works as selector that removes any non-constant path (in terms of length) from the visible fringe-shift result.

Will there be a change in bandgap energy of AgNP exposed under blue, red and visible wavelengths of light?

Consider two clocks set just under the surface of water, they are synchronized. One of them departs at velocity v and then rejoins at -v.

The overall time dilation must be the same as the one in vacuum (depends on the constant c), it should not depend at all on the EM wave speed of propagation in water which is lower than c.

What about the derivation of Lorentz Transformations from Maxwell equations in such case?

Do we have to consider the gamma factor with the speed of light in vacuum or the speed of light measured by an observer moving in water?

"Reconciliation of the Rosen and Laue theories of special relativity in a linear dielectric medium"

"In a 1952 American Journal of Physics article, Rosen [3] considered an arbitrarily large, but finite, macroscopic Maxwellian dielectric such that an observer in the interior of the dielectric has no access to the vacuum i) microscopically, because the continuum limit precludes an interstitial vacuum, and ii) macroscopically, because the boundary of the dielectric is too far away from the interior for light to travel within the duration of an experiment.

This brings to the fore again the old problem related to how the principle of relativity is combined with the Maxwell field equations in a continuous medium.

Dear Friends, Grand Success. The 133rd finding in my TOU (Theory of Universality) is : that if we compare the cosmos to a hydrogen atom; and the cosmos with a radius of 133.64 x 14 x 140 Billion Trillion Light years, has a ratio to CCBH radius as calculated ( at a point in space-time where speed of light is 2.148285 m/s ) = 97,240. If we now take the ratio of Van der Waals radius of Hydrogen atom ( = 120 pm ) to its proton radius ( = 1.237 x 10^-15 m ), it works out to be 97,009. Both agree. So, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Indian belief that as the atom so the Cosmos is once again proved to be true and correct. The Cosmos can be compared to a Hydrogen atom. To be published in next Annexure.

Pl join :

How else can we explain :

Imprimis : That a light ray has different lengths for different observers. (cf. B.)

ii. That the length of a light ray is indeterminate? - both gigantic, and nothing, within the Einstein- train embankment carriage : (cf. B.)

iii. That a light ray can be both bent and straight. Bent for one observer, and straight for another : (cf. C.)

iv. That a light rays "bends" mid-flight in an effort to be consistent with an Absolute event which lies in the future : (cf. C.)

v. That these extraordinary things -- this extraordinary behaviour, (including the "constancy of speed") are so that the reality is consistent among the observers -- in the future. (cf. D, B, C)

vi. That light may proceed at different rates to the same place--- wholly on account of the reality at that place having to be consistent among the observers : (cf. D, A)

---------------------------------------------------------

A. --https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_misspeak_in_Einsteins_train_and_embankment_thought_experiment_as_described_by_Einstein_in_the_1952_edition_of_his_book

B. --

C.--

D.--

How could we monitor the spin of atoms using far-detuned light?

Michelson-Morley's tests were interpreted based on a particle model for light long time ago. This mistake caused an illusion of an ether wind effect in the arm transverse to light motion in these tests. By using a more relevant interpretation, based on the wave model for light instead, we can see that this transverse effect is not real. To cover up for this error the absurd concept dilation of time was invented. So, Michelson's mistake long time ago gave us multiple time concepts and individual ageing and absurd physics. We need only ONE time concept.

This important mistake is described in the attached article. Take a look and judge by yourself.

John-Erik

In order for the passing of time to occur, time has to have the ability for change: time has to be able to cause its own passing. Instead, consider that each particle individually has the ability for change, and time is a measurement based on how much a particular particle changes (photon). In this context, light travels the furthest distance relative to any other particle, and thus our light clock allows us to invent the concept of time based on how far light travels. When light travels a greater distance in one region of space relative to another, the number of passes inside of the light clock in each RF differs giving rise to time dilation. This would solve many of the philosophical problems that plague cosmology. This would explain why each RF measures their speed of light to be c.

Hello,

I am currently a student majoring in Mechanical Engineering and i am using Spectrometer to measure transmittance.

While utilizing the scope mode in the software, I have been able to obtain information on wavelength and counts.

However, I am seeking clarification on what exactly counts represent and how to interpret them in terms of light intensity or transmittance.

1. What is the counts?

2. How to calculate counts to intensity?

3. How to convert counts to intensity?

Hi all in looking into create a growth mathematical model in correlation to Kelvin cycle and I was wondering whether it makes sense, from a physiological point of view, to consider that the production of oxygen and the fixation of CO2 can be considered as independent processes, because O2 is produced as part of the light reactions, while CO2 fixation follows the Calvin cycle kinetics.

I would appreciate being corrected if I am wrong, but it seems that the expansion of the universe is actually an illusion caused by the variable speed of light. The same equation that models the expansion without the need for dark energy, also models the gravitational curves for galaxies without the need for dark matter. Furthermore, this same equation resolves the infinite velocities found at a singularity. For of you who are wondering, this theory proposes that time is actually a function of light so no matter where you are, you always measure the same value of c regardless of how much c varies relative to a universal time. Thanks for the feedback.

There are two rooms: Room A and Room B; initially both are dark; contains no light source (of whatsoever). Now, I bought a light source and set it up in the room A, enabling me to see things inside the room A; photons from the light source bounced back from the walls and things contained within the room to my eyes, enabling me to see inside the Room A. Ok.

Now, consider a pretty hypothetical situation, the moment photons bounced back and head towards my eyes; "at the same instant", I somehow (SOMEHOW) transferred those photons into the Room B "at the same instant", the Room B had no light source initially.

Now, here comes my question: While observing Room B, what would I see? Will I see Room B (as I should) or Will I see Room A in Room B (because there are photons from a different source)

My explanation for the question is like this:

I'll see room A in room B, for some time (don't know for how long?), and as soon as photon spread across the room B, I'll start to see room B. However, Isn't this process should be instantaneous? Considering photon travels at the speed of light, so I should NOT be able to see Room A at all. I should see room B, however, I don't know.

For a material with direct bandgap, if its indirect bandgap is very close to its direct bandgap, does the indirect bandgap influence the light absorption?

We know the event horizon of a black hole is the boundary surrounding it beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape its gravitational pull. It is essentially the point of no return for anything falling into a black hole. Then, how it formed and do all black holes have an event horizon?

It is mentioned in A Biography Albert Einstein by Alice Calaprice & Trevor Lipscombe, JAICO, 2023, p.35: "If light is a wave, what does it travel through?...... Light, surely, had to travel through something. This unknown "something" was what physicists back then called the ether. Many theories were proposed for the ether, but none of them stood up to experimental tests...... Einstein, in 1905, showed that the ether hypothesis simply wasn't needed."

But, recent confirmation by the physicists of the existence of background hum of the universe has confirmed that light wave travels through ether (Akash Tattwa). According to Eastern Philosophy sound is the subtlest and minutest particle, technically known as tanmatra, of ether (Akash Tattwa). According to His Holiness Maharaj Sahab (1861-1907), 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith describes that, 'Akash, accordingly, serves the purpose of vehicle of higher forces in the economy of creation'.

Thus, it is clear that light wave definitely travels through ether (Akash Tattwa) and Einstein's views on this need corrections. It is also imperative to conduct extensive research work on ether (Akash Tattwa) keeping Eastern Philosophy in Frontline.

I am currently seeking a custom LED array capable of emitting light at either 680 nm or 780 nm wavelengths, preferably with interchangeable LEDs. This array is intended for use within a 96-well plate setup housed in an incubator. The purpose is to irradiate cells with specific wavelength light subsequent to the addition of various compounds to the cell media.

While researching, I have encountered several papers outlining similar experimental requirements, all of which utilized custom-built instruments. Unfortunately, I do not possess the necessary expertise to construct such a device myself. Consequently, I have explored options for purchasing pre-assembled parts, yet have not succeeded in finding a suitable solution.

If anyone is aware of a company, institution, or research group capable of producing such a custom device or similar alternatives, I would greatly appreciate any pertinent information shared. Thank you in advance.

Hi everybody,

I have two plasmids:

- One expressing the CRY2-CIB1 optogenetic system fused to the TetA transcription factor (TetA is reconstituted upon stimulation with blue light). This one has a constitutive promoter.

- The other one expresses a reporter fluorophore under the Tet promoter.

Does someone have any advice on how to join both in a single plasmid? Is it possible to have a plasmid with two different promoters?

I am trying to avoid co-transfection of the two, because the efficiency is obviously lower than by having a single construct.

Thanks to anybody that can help!

In light of the technological advancements, the use of rigid terminologies has become an inevitable aspect. Regrettably, this has made it challenging for African languages to develop a corresponding lexicon, consequently resorting to transliteration as the sole viable option. However, it remains unclear whether transliteration represents a novel approach to word creation or a catalyst for stagnation in the African languages' creativity in their terminologies.

We know that time is not an existent entity. It is a measuremental concept behind all experiences of existent physical processes. But measurement is always by conventional scales. Can we then measure photonal velocity as a constant like the constants of proportionality in physics? Can light be of constant velocity if no constant of proportionality exists that makes it constant?

I know that you will now ask what the meaning of such a question would be! The constancy of the velocity of light is bound to experiments within this universe, that too in this phase of the universe.

If the amount of matter-energy in the big bang (or even at the bang of a certain amount of matter-energy within a region of the universe) is, let us say, A, then the highest transportation speed would be fixed by the first propagations that arise from the big bang at issue.

That region of the universe or our big bang universe as such has produced a maximal velocity at the start of its phase of expansion, and this limit cannot be overcome by any other propagation within that region or universe. This is a very pragmatic fact, and not a theoretical limit of all propagations in the universe!

There can be another region of our big bang universe or another phase (say, another phase of expansion, or its contraction phase), where the amount of matter-energy directly available for work is less.

The amount of energy here is, say, B -- for causal reasons determined by the amount of matter-energy available for work, due to its exteriorizing some energy during the previous phases of evolution. This will naturally result in the causal determination of the maximal photonal (or any other) velocity being limited to another amount. This is simply because of the difference of density due to the difference in the amount of matter-energy.

If not, we may admit at least that there will be speed values A, B, C, etc. in a finite number of times, and then there will be another level, determined by, say, speed values F, G, H, etc., where the propagation velocity would be lower or higher.

This is for me a solid argument to keep our minds open to accept that (1) the speed of light need not be a constant for all regions of the universe or for all universes, (2) in this case some universes may have superluminal velocities, (3) these propagations will surely enter some universes other than the one/s in which they were produced, and (4) it is extremely difficult to detect them in our universe. But this need not mean in-existence of superluminal velocities.

Can we now say that there will be a general constant of proportionality between possible forms of source-independent (source-independent with respect to objects in their own universes) propagations? If this is imaginable, it can really be called a constant. How can the this-worldly luminal velocity be a constant beyond our universe or our cluster of universes, where its velocity of propagation was determined causally by the available amount of matter-energy at the bang?

I have discussed this in two of my books (2014, 2018), the latter being more general than the earlier. I have also questioned the universality of the Lorentz Factor in the Special Theory of Relativity. The background of reasoning behind these arguments is that of reading various books on the velocity of light during my school days.

I would be pleased to get open-minded reactions on this question.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Hello ! I would like to characterize experimentally Stokes vector of light passing through a half-waveplate with a polarimeter in order to fit the parameters of the angle and the retardance. Up to now I fit S1, S2 and S3 singularly in Mathematica. The best way would be to fit simultaneously S1, S2 and S3. How can I do it ?

Hi,

I want to create a model to see how the light(laser) is absorbed in a tube fill with water (absorption vs length of the tube)using COMSOL. I already created geometrical structure of the tube, but confused about the physics and boundary conditions.

So, which physics should I use and which boundary conditions will I use? Is there any model example that I can follow?

For reference, I am attaching two figures.

*Capture 11 ( I want to recreate this model and plot the absorption vs length of tube)

[Capture 11 is taken from )

*Capture 12 ( my design in COMSOL)

Thanks for Helping.

Dear Friends, Grand Success. The 126th finding in my TOU (Theory of Universality) is that : assuming the density of the Cosmos is uniform and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Central Black Hole (of density 1.037 x 10^165 kg/m^3) the density of our observable universe at a distance of 11.716 x 14 x 140 Billion Trillion Light Years from the Central Black Hole works out to be 10.292 x 10^-24 kg/m^3 (taking the equivalent of radius of Central Black Hole at our OU by multiplying by c/c" ); which agrees with the observed value of 9.9 x 10^-24 kg/m^3. To be published in the next Annexure.

Pl join :

Hi all,

Recently I've been setting up Doric's ilFMC4 (3rd gen) cube for fiber photometry experiments. It says that in the cube itself there is an isobestic excitation (IE) port, a regular excitation (E) port of our wavelength needed, and a fluorescence (F) port that has a built in detector and amplifier. I had wired up the cube to a NI DAQ and everything was working fine two days ago. I removed the BNC cables connecting the E and F ports to the DAQ in order to use an oscilloscope to test for AC/DC current (maybe not the best idea?).

When I reconnected them and tested the system, I found that I had no light coming out of the the fiber optic patch cord that is connected to my sample port, where it's supposed to shine from. Usually I get about 40-50uW from the end of that cable that then goes into a fiber optic rotary joint (at this point I will get about 30-40uW) that is then used to shine light onto a mouse's implanted fiber (this final output has about 25-30uW of light at max). I could not get light to come out of even the first step, where it would usually be about 40-50uW.

I maxed out the LEDs to see if I got anything, and it looks like only the IE might be on. I saw absolutely no blue light at all. Any ideas what could have gone wrong? The cube was turned off between two days ago and when I switched it on today, and the only thing I fiddled around with was the E and F BNC cables to attempt to measure voltage on the oscilloscope. It runs on a power cord, not battery.

In classical mechanics, an important principle is the principle of relativity: the physical laws are invariant with respect to the transformation from one inertial frame into another. Maxwell's equations seem to violate this principle, because they contain a distinguished speed -- the speed of light c. It was this apparent conflict between mechanics and electrodynamics that led Albert Einstein in 1905 to his special theory of relativity. By a careful analysis of the concept of time, he realized that Maxwell's equations do indeed obey the relativity principle, although the transformation law becomes more complicated (Lorentz instead of Galileo transformations).

Einstein was very aware of the problem of the speed of light inconcitensy with Newton's laws (and Maxwell's equations). We was also aware of the observer effects (relative velocity effects) and he married the two, being the fist to explain the constancy of speed of light or reconcile classical mechanics with that fact.

This has been the only (albeit successful) attempt. Are you aware of any others >

Respected all

please put some light on practical dog feeding management and specifications along with specific disease feedings. this is a gray area where informations are scanty. a discussion may help mutual learning. Kindly share some literatures if you have related to this topic and homely food preparations for canines as well.

regards

Partha

This should be a simple question. Given the real part of the refractive index n′ for Silver, approximately 0.05, and applying the relationship for the wavelength inside a material, λ=λ0/n'​​, where λ0​ is the vacuum wavelength of green light (around 530 nm), results in a calculated wavelength significantly greater than 10 micrometers. This outcome appears unusually large; is this calculation correct?

For relativists, fiber optic gyroscopes are fatal.

Fiber optic gyroscopes have been widely used, which proves that the view that the basic theory of relativity "in any inertial system, the speed of light is constant" is wrong!

It proves that light is pulled by the gravitational field, and the speed of light on the earth will be superimposed on the moving speed of the earth! This is also the fundamental reason why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot measure interference fringe movement.

When the fiber optic gyroscope is stationary relative to the ground, it cannot measure the rotation speed of the earth.

If the light on the earth is not superimposed on the moving speed of the earth (that is, the moving speed of the earth's gravitational field), then the fiber optic gyroscope cannot accurately measure it.

Einstein derived the expression for stellar aberration by relating the ray direction cosine in the moving frame to that in the stationary frame. See P 911-912. On Page 911, the direction cosines are related by the expression a' = (a-v/V)/(1- a v/V) where a' is the direction cosine of the ray in the moving system, a the direction cosine in the stationary system, v the velocity of the moving frame and V the velocity of light. For the stellar aberration formula, Einstein explicitly put in the angles, giving cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V). However, in presenting his formula, Einstein says "If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the moving system and the connecting line “source-observer” ϕ′, the equation for ϕ′ assumes the form: cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V)". As far as my understanding goes, here the angle ϕ′ is being being replaced by the difference of ϕ′ and ϕ; which is not allowed. It has been pointed out to me by somebody elsewhere that Einstein, later on, changed his original text by replacing the phrase "connecting line 'source-observer' with the expression "direction of motion". (See Note 29, https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/345). But this put the stellar aberration angle corresponding to ϕ=Pi/2, (arccos(-v/c)), in the second quadrant, which is contrary to experimental observations.

As light moves through the universe with light speed, it should not be exposed to time as we know it. Therefore, the photon arriving from the earliest time of the universe should arive "now" in its own time scale everywhere in the universe.

But if no time is passing for light, how is it possible that photons "change" their spin, as changing needs time?

A primary difference between photons would be:

Radio waves (3 kHz to 30 GHz) have lower frequencies of all types of EMR, and their photons carry less amount of energy. Interactions with matter depends on wavelength and energy density and create EM charges with absorption or emission.

Microwaves (30-300GHz) don’t bend (diffract) around hills or mountains, they don’t reflect back from the ionosphere (Micu, 20230). With higher frequency, microwaves penetrate more than RF waves transmit data over wireless networks, to communicate with satellites and spacecraft.

Dear Friends, the 122nd finding in my TOU (Theory of Universality) is that : the no of Earth like universes (parallel universes) in the thin shell comprising of thickness 93.016 billion light years in which the Earth is present (around the CCBH-Central Cosmic Black Hole, at a radius of 984.525 Billion Trillion Light Years from the CCBH), are about 71,999; which agrees with the Indian belief that 72,000 times the Earth is created and dissolved in one Cosmic cycle. ( 311.04 Trillion years for the cosmos formation and 4.32 billion years for the Earth formation, i.e., 311040/4.32 = 72,000) . Thanks. To be published in the next Annexure.

Please, join :

I have seen a lot of discussions here at ResearchGate and YouTube about the one-way speed of light and two-way speed of light. Can we measure the one-way speed of light with different relative speed between the emitter and observer?

Here is two possible experimental apparatus:

1. A moving object carrying a distance measurement device similar to those used in gaming sensing that has two receivers measuring the angle of the signal from the emitter. The emitter is broadcasting its clock like GPS in the frequency domain. Even if the light is blue shifted or red shifted, the frequency pattern maintains so the receiver can still tell the time of the signal is emitted when it receives the signal. At the same time, it can measure the distance between itself and the emitter by measuring the angle of the light. Even if the space is curved, within a certain approximation the distance is still measurable from the angle.

2. A rotating wheel carries a receiver, and the emitter is fixed with the time synchronized by a computer sits exactly in the middle of the wires. Switch the emitter and detector to test if there is a media to carry the light wave.

While Newtons 2nd law cannot predict the constancy or upper limit of speed of light, c, its generalized version i.e.changing mass with constant acceleration definition can do. In other words, Newtons law holds when an active force applies on a object and cannot accelerated it as long as there is an active change in mass (experimental verified). This explains the constancy of speed of light without need for Lorentzian/special relativistic mechanics.

The podtulate of constancy itself is another issue.. It is reasonable since light is the fastest process and infinite speed makes no sense, mathematically and causally. Still, some consider it an assertion

In fact what is a charge? This is a question that has not yet response in physics. But according to me the charge vibrates at the speed of light and provide this speed c to the photons to travel at the same speed which is the speed of light by a mechanism not yet known in fundamental physics. In addition according to me the charge quantify the energies it provides for the photons that it "produce"!

I want to describe one system (two massive bodies synchronously rotating around each other in circular orbits). Bodies move counterclockwise. This system is well known - Kepler's problem - but with the only difference that the speed of propagation of the gravitational force is finite and, as predicted by general relativity, equal to the speed of light. This additional factor significantly changes the behavior of the rotating two bodies.

Let's look at this two-body system (attached file). Let us assume that at time T the bodies are located at points A (heavy body) and B (light body). Knowing the velocities of bodies in their orbits and the distances AO and BO, it is possible to determine the exact position of bodies in orbits at delayed time Tr = R/c = AO/c:

Arc length AA' = AO*v_h/c, arc length BB' = BO*v_l/c

where v_h and v_l are the velocities of heavy and light bodies. Why it is possible to determine the exact location of bodies at a retarded time is explained in: https://www.qeios.com/read/R1KXRJ

So, when the heavy body is at point A, the gravitational force, which ensures the rotation of the bodies, was emitted by the light body from a point with arc length BB*.

(arc BB*)= (arc BB")*OB/(OB + AO)

Let us assume for simplicity that this force comes from point B'.

If in the classical Kepler problem the gravitational forces are of a central type - they are always directed along a line connecting the points of instantaneous location of bodies - line AB, then at a finite speed of gravity the forces are of a non-central type. The force attracting a heavy body acts along the line AB', and the corresponding other force acts along the line A'B.

It can be seen that an additional tangential component of the gravitational force appears.

F_tan(B->A) = AB' * sin alpha, where sin alpha ~ alpha ~ v/c

The important thing is that this force accelerates bodies. Consequently, the angular momentum and energy of each body must increase. All calculations are given in the specified file.

This is a strange result, since the gravitational force is of a conservative type - no energy is spent to create this force. Thus, there is no energy loss to increase the energy of the system. We have a classic example of a perpetuum mobile.

My question is: if it is not possible, then why is it not possible?

Me and my team is working on developing a model that will utilize Space Borne Remote Sensing data and will help us to Identify, classify, and track whales with the help of satellites. It would be really helpful if anyone can throw light into:

1. EM Spectrums that we have to work on other than visible spectrum in order to identify presence of whale.

2. Road map of tools which we will have to learn about to work with Machine learning and harnessing AI in the model.

3. Previous research that we should refer.

It would be really great if some specialist on these topics could help us, Thankyou.

let assume we are in spacecraft travelling in speed of light , droplet of ink drops in a cup of water ..theoritcally Time stops !

what is the behaviour of the droplet when it hits the water ?

We’ve got an LD laser matrix with 20 blue LDs (I attached the spec). We need to diffuse the beam to spread it over 20X20cm spot at 30-50mm. We need energy density variation <10% in the spot. I know how to do it by attaching fibers to emitters but it is not an option.

This article introduces the PLS theory, presenting a novel perspective that unifies light propagation, quantum mechanics, and the experimental outcomes of General Theory of Relativity (GTR) into a cohesive framework. The theory posits that time dilation in GTR results from the dilation of light speed, wherein all fundamental forces exhibit a rate of propagation that dilates with the speed of light. This leads to changes in clock speed with varying light speed, ensuring that the local measurement of the speed of light remains constant at \(c\). By formulating equations that describe the actual processes in a reference frame and accounting for the observed differences arising from the variable speed of light, the theory reconciles the quantization of Quantum Mechanics with the smoothness required by GTR. Any feedback or question is welcome and appreciated. Thank you!

After the spread of artificial intelligence day after day, what will the nature of philosophy be in light of this spread, especially since artificial intelligence has begun to depend on it for many practical and life tasks? Will reliance on artificial intelligence lead to the decline of philosophical thinking? Or will philosophy adapt itself in the age of artificial intelligence?

Tuesday, Oct. 3, the Nobel Prize committee announced the 2023 physics prize, recognizing Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz, and Anne L'Huillier "for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter."

After AgCl photocatalytic degradation of Rhodamine, it turns black and has poor stability. How to make it more stable under light irradiation

I have an idea related to Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces In RIS technology, waves are reflected. Can we do the opposite? I mean that we collect or attract these waves instead of reflecting them. This will benefit us in many things. It depends on Snell’s law of light reflection, but it is possible to do the opposite through a smart lens to collect light waves if we want to preserve information. Important and confidential. For example, we can use this lens and then use systems for converting signals and converting them into electrical ones and encrypting them. This is more similar to the way RIS works in terms of the working principle, meaning this smart surface consists of groups of parts of small cells through which we control the reflection of waves. This smart lens is the same thing if When we do it, we will use a technology like this, and it is not like a receiver that receives waves. It will be like that, but it will be in a different way because it will collect all the waves, not just pick up a signal, for example, or just receive it. Am I thinking correctly ? and should I continue working on this idea?

A seemingly obvious explanation for redshift in light that has traveled distances on the order of hundreds of millions or billions of light-years would be a slight loss of energy resulting in redshift. The loss could come, for example, from some quantum event resulting in very occasional loss of a photon, or from some other phenomena. Given the ubiquitous appearance of entropy in nature, there seems no reason to expect light would propagate over extreme distances without some degrading.

If entropy were the cause of redshift it would be expected that the amount of redshift would be based on the distance traveled. Since this conforms with the detected data, it seems this explanation, whatever the objections may be, is a reasonable candidate as the cause of detected redshift. At first glance, this would seem a better candidate than a conjectured but undetected new entity such as “dark energy”.

This is such an obvious explanation for redshift, I am assuming that it has been advanced before, likely numerous times. I am interested in getting up to speed on arguments for or against entropy as an explanation for redshift.

Why does it light up at night during an earthquake?

As you know, positive and negative electrons are sent towards the planet after solar storms, bringing 9 waves with them. One of them is the waves of positive electrons that remain in the earth's atmosphere and appear in polar nights in countries that are close to the earth's pole in polar winters or at night as aurora borealis. Now we have to see, Why does the weather in that area light up during an earthquake at night? According to seismologists, there are magma rocks in which there are more positive and negative electrons than other rocks of the earth, and because these rocks are also split during an earthquake, electrons may be released from them at night and with electrons Earth's atmosphere collides and in one moment, like in action movies, both sound and light appear and become more frightening. Now the question is, is it possible to receive electrical energy from this energy in the magma rocks inside the earth and not use it only for earthquakes?

General/special relativity question

Although hot mirror refelect IR light and transmitt vissible light. but not 100%. similarly for cold mirror also. So am looking for materials which can reflect 100% IR and transmit 100% Vis light and vice versa.

In fact photons created at the beginning of the big bang should have a space to travel until now , is the possibility that all the space vibrate create and extend this space for photons at the speed of photons?

Dear Friends, Grand Success. There is a sure test to check if the Earth is moving faster than light (as per my Theory, it does, in an absolute sense). The procedure to check is as follows : 1. There are two blind spots on the surface of the Earth, they are : the exact North Pole and the exact South Pole. 2. Now, standing at these Poles if you flash a beam of light in a direction opposite to the direction of the Earth's revolution around the Sun, the light will not be observed by an observer standing away in space in that direction. 3. That is to say, the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis cannot be seen by an observer travelling to Mars, while they are being seen here on the Earth.

Please, join :

Hello all, Anyone know any materials which can reflect 100% IR light and transmit 100% visible light and vicve versa.

I have encountered an error to measure the light intensity of my laser source (650nm) (see image attached). The serial plot remains constant even i have changed the intensity of my light source, I have even tried both extremes: dark environment and close to lase source, yet there are no changes to the serial plot. Have anyone enconutered similar problem? How do i solve this error?

Here, the codes were used for the complete setup of photodiode BH1750 and Arduino Nano:

/*

Advanced BH1750 library usage example

This example has some comments about advanced usage features.

Connection:

VCC -> 3V3 or 5V

GND -> GND

SCL -> SCL (A5 on Arduino Uno, Leonardo, etc or 21 on Mega and Due, on esp8266 free selectable)

SDA -> SDA (A4 on Arduino Uno, Leonardo, etc or 20 on Mega and Due, on esp8266 free selectable)

ADD -> (not connected) or GND

ADD pin is used to set sensor I2C address. If it has voltage greater or equal to

0.7VCC voltage (e.g. you've connected it to VCC) the sensor address will be

0x5C. In other case (if ADD voltage less than 0.7 * VCC) the sensor address will

be 0x23 (by default).

*/

#include <Wire.h>

#include <BH1750.h>

/*

BH1750 can be physically configured to use two I2C addresses:

- 0x23 (most common) (if ADD pin had < 0.7VCC voltage)

- 0x5C (if ADD pin had > 0.7VCC voltage)

Library uses 0x23 address as default, but you can define any other address.

If you had troubles with default value - try to change it to 0x5C.

*/

BH1750 lightMeter(0x23);

void setup(){

Serial.begin(9600);

// Initialize the I2C bus (BH1750 library doesn't do this automatically)

Wire.begin();

// On esp8266 you can select SCL and SDA pins using Wire.begin(D4, D3);

/*

BH1750 has six different measurement modes. They are divided in two groups;

continuous and one-time measurements. In continuous mode, sensor continuously

measures lightness value. In one-time mode the sensor makes only one

measurement and then goes into Power Down mode.

Each mode, has three different precisions:

- Low Resolution Mode - (4 lx precision, 16ms measurement time)

- High Resolution Mode - (1 lx precision, 120ms measurement time)

- High Resolution Mode 2 - (0.5 lx precision, 120ms measurement time)

By default, the library uses Continuous High Resolution Mode, but you can

set any other mode, by passing it to BH1750.begin() or BH1750.configure()

functions.

[!] Remember, if you use One-Time mode, your sensor will go to Power Down

mode each time, when it completes a measurement and you've read it.

Full mode list:

BH1750_CONTINUOUS_LOW_RES_MODE

BH1750_CONTINUOUS_HIGH_RES_MODE (default)

BH1750_CONTINUOUS_HIGH_RES_MODE_2

BH1750_ONE_TIME_LOW_RES_MODE

BH1750_ONE_TIME_HIGH_RES_MODE

BH1750_ONE_TIME_HIGH_RES_MODE_2

*/

// begin returns a boolean that can be used to detect setup problems.

if (lightMeter.begin(BH1750::CONTINUOUS_HIGH_RES_MODE)) {

Serial.println(F("BH1750 Advanced begin"));

}

else {

Serial.println(F("Error initialising BH1750"));

}

}

void loop() {

float lux = lightMeter.readLightLevel();

Serial.print("Light: ");

Serial.print(lux);

Serial.println(" lx");

delay(1000);

}

Newton's second law is not a resultant force, it should be seen as a pure force.

If we separate the force of Newton's second law from the resultant force, to extract the force of the second law from the resultant force, You will find that the forces in Newtonian mechanics except gravity are all inertial forces (or repulsive forces), whether it is the tension of the light on the top of the room, or the support of the elevator floor, they are the resultant force of Newton's second law and the second law of gravity, the second law is a more basic force, a purer force. It's like analyzing more basic elements from the "resultant force," and then it can describe much more, like it can describe "why the train ball accelerates in the opposite direction," it can describe the inertial force, it can recognize the existence of inertial forces. The Newton's second law as a pure force, we can find that Newton has three laws are all inertial force, the second law is the continuous action of the third law, the first law it is inertial force, in addition to gravity, all the forces in Newtonian mechanics can use inertial force unified, three laws only one force: inertial force (repulsion). Taking Newton's second law away from the resultant force and taken as a more basic element is closer to the essence than the original Newtonian mechanics.