FTL - New Thoughts and Questions

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">i know what Einstein meant, what GR basically says, and i am saying he is 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong, however you wish to look at it.</font><br /><br />please enlighten me... To date, Al's theories have been proven to be rock solid. Explain how 1/2 is wrong? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>electromagnetic fields, etc. can bend light <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You're right to say they can't.<br />The wartime bending was an <i>effect.</i> If I recall one beam was strengthened giving an erroneous heading.<br />I think it was something to do with a Scotsman, Professor Reginald Jones

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />please enlighten me... To date, Al's theories have been proven to be rock solid. Explain how 1/2 is wrong?</font><br /><br />right. he assumed gravity to be a direct result of a body's mass. when his own thought experiment with the elevator directly refuted this. gravity is an acceleration effect.

 

[mlorrey]

Photons are EM waves. Just because they are visible makes them no different from other EM waves.<br /><br />While photons have no mass (charge doesn't matter: neutrons have no charge either, nor do neutrinos), their frequency determines their kinetic energy via the equation E = hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck's Constant (based on the Planck Length or Time).<br /><br />Ergo, higher frequency photons have more energy, and given that energy = mass via e = mc^2, you can say that: <br /><br />hf = mc^2<br /><br />Thus plugging in a frequency of a photon will give you its mass, given that Planck's Constant and the speed of light are constant values.<br /><br />I have, in fact, seen intense EM fields bend light. Anyone want to do an experiment? Take a two laser pointers and a two rifle targets. Mount the pointers on surveyors tripods, or camera tripods, and the targets on painters easels. First set it up so the 1st beam passes by a radio tower about 10 feet from it and strikes the target bullseye.<br /><br />Then measure exactly 10 feet closer to the tower at both the tripod and the easel, so that the lines are parellel (distance between the two pairs is the same), so the laser pointer passes less than a few mm from the metal of the tower. You will see that the laser beam is slightly disturbed because the EM field is more intense closer to the tower. The greater the distance between the tripod and the easel will exhibit a greater beam disturbance. I'd recommend at least 100 yards between each tripod/easel pair.<br /><br />Now, the light of the laser, being of a much shorter wavelength than the radio emissions of the tower, is of much higher energy than the radio waves. This means the laser beam will see a very small amount of disturbance.You can test this better using two laser beams crossing each other, since they will be of equal energy, each beam will have equal deflection.<br /><br />A photon is essentially a self perpetuating EM wave, where the electrical field is 90 d

 

[tap_sa]

Introduction to Refraction - What causes EM waves to bend?<br /><br />Courtesy of US Navy <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">when his own thought experiment with the elevator directly refuted this.</font><br /><br />How can you possibly say this? It certainly did NOT 'refute' it. It, merely, stated that they are indistinguishable from each other. You are, absolutely, 100 % correct in stating that acceleration can create a 'g'. This, however, does not eliminate mass from the equation.<br /><br />And how you can make the statement that the earth is accelerating (expanding) outward from the center in all directions is just completely beyond my comprehension. You are either simply joking, playing 'devil's advocate', or making an assumption on some seriously flawed information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">This, however, does not eliminate mass from the equation. <br /></font><br /><br />mass is not necessary to create "gravity." this is proven geometrically as acceleration can replace gravity in d=1/2at² and the result is the same. and this is corroborated in einstein's elevator premise. gravity does not need to exist. take your own advice in your sig.

 

[mlorrey]

Bonz, just because mass is not necessary to create gravity doesn't mean that mass cannot create gravity.<br /><br />You're excluding a cause because it may not be the only possible cause, which is not a rational argument.

 

[jatslo]

A fundamental property of matter which is a numerical measure of the inertia of an object or the amount of matter that an object contains. Therefore, mass-less space-time is empty, which is geometrically possible. If empty space-time can move as a fabric of space-time, then your hypothesis is possible, considering what we know in retrospect to centrifugal force. The mass of an object is different from its weight as mass is independent of the gravitational field exerted on an object, which can be centrifugal. You should also note that I do not believe that space-time is a fabric; my treatment of the masses involve the fabric in space-time, as opposed to the fabric of space-time. This fabric that I am referring to is energy, and/or Matter, whereas curvature is the warping of one or both of them.

 

[derekmcd]

The Equivalence Principle does not, in anyway, state that mass is excluded from the equation. How you come to this conclusion is certainly "stranger than I can imagine" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Encyclopedia and physics say, "... In physics, Faddeev-Popov ghosts are auxiliary fields which appear in quantum field theories involving redundancies of description, such as gauge theories. In the path integral formulation of quantum field theory, the path integrals should not overcount field configurations related by gauge symmetries since those correspond to the same physical state. Consequently, the measure of the path integrals contains an additional factor, which does not allow obtaining various results directly from the action using the regular methods (e.g., Feynman diagrams). It is possible, however, to modify the action such that the regular methods will be applicable. This often requires adding some additional fields, which are called the ghost fields. This technique is called the Faddeev-Popov procedure (see also BRST quantization). The ghost fields are a computational tool, and they do not correspond to any real particles. <br /><br />The Faddeev-Popov ghosts violate the spin-statistics relation. For example, in the non-abelian gauge theories of the standard model the ghosts are scalar fields (spin 0), but they anticommute (like fermions). In general, anticommuting ghosts are associated with bosonic symmetries, while commuting ghosts are associated with fermionic symmetries. <br /><br />The Faddeev-Popov ghosts are sometimes referred to as "good ghosts". The "bad ghosts" represent another, more general meaning of the word "ghost" in theoretical physics: states of negative norm - or fields with the wrong sign of the kinetic term - whose existence allows the probabilities to be negative. "

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />The Equivalence Principle does not, in anyway, state that mass is excluded from the equation.</font><br /><br />you can exclude mass and accelerate the body only, and g will be created, regardless of mass. when mass is excluded, g results. mass is not necessary.

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">you can exclude mass and accelerate the body only, and g will be created, regardless of mass. when mass is excluded, g results. mass is not necessary.</font><br /><br />This is true. I'm not arguing that point. I'm trying to figure out how you completely exclude mass as a cause. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>A photon is essentially a self perpetuating EM wave, where the electrical field is 90 degrees out of phase from the magnetic field.</i><br /><br />No. Once again. Photons are massless and chargeless, and while they demonstrate wave-particle duality, are *not* effected by an E/M field. There is *no* electrical/magnetic component to them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />This is true. I'm not arguing that point. I'm trying to figure out how you completely exclude mass as a cause.</font><br /><br />go to the "gravity does not exist thread" for further excursions into this. this thread has become a continuation of that thread, really, at least for what you and i are talking about. i'm ditching the thread here. see you in the other one.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Photons are massless and chargeless, and while they demonstrate wave-particle duality"</font><br /><br />So far very good...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"are *not* effected by an E/M field. There is *no* electrical/magnetic component to them."</font><br /><br />Well err yes and no. Photons <i>are</i> quantized packets aka quantums of EM-waves. E/M fields does not affect them because ... they make up the EM field. Photon itself does affect charged particles.

 

[yevaud]

The original assertation was that an Electromagnetic Field can bend light. It cannot. That is what I answered, no more no less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Aye. But the fact that photons affect charged particles means they do have electric&magnetic components, no?

 

[yevaud]

They are spin (1) but with no electromagnetic component. The can be refracted or reflected or absorbed by interaction with matter; they cannot just be diverted by an Electromagnetic Field. That was what was asserted.<br /><br />It would be as if you took a large magnet and used it to bend light around a corner. Can't happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

I believe the rule - so far - is that information and matter cannot beat light-speed. But the universe is probably more tightly woven than relativity indicates, so there must be exceptions. Quantum states, for instance, can be 'teleported' almost instantaneously. As is probably the case with all exceptions to <i>c</i>, this does not constitute a true violation of special relativity. No one has devised a method for modulating this quantum effect for the superluminal transmission of information or for accelerating a mass to greater than light-speed.<br /><br />This kind of thing does appear to be useful for encryption, however. The messages thus coded and decoded nevertheless must traverse space-time at or below the speed of light.<br /><br />All the same, there continue to be small hints that Einstein's work comes up short in some situations. A recent glimpse of what might constitute the long-sought new physics is offered on the ESA generates gravomagnetic effects! thread and the 'Antigravity' Propulsion System Proposed thread (on the Technology and Space Business & Technology boards, respectively).<br /><br />The discovery of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment goes beyond general relativity where the effect is shown to be far greater than Einstein's equations predict. At the same time, it demonstrates a stronger-than-expected kinship between gravity and magnetism - a possible step toward quantum gravity. It may constitute indirect proof of gravitons and a peak at M-theory.<br /><br />Again, though, only a glimpse, a peak, a hint at what the new physics has in store. Where the limits of relativity will eventually be exposed, allowing us to see past them. 'Eventually,' but at least it's a start.<br /><br />(Unrelated sidebar: And so ends my brief reign a

 

[rocketman5000]

I sure hope that Einstien didn't have all the answers. It seems today that many think that Einstien was infallible and everything he wrote was the be all and end all. While brillant his theroys were based on assumptions that are only now starting to be proved. We have learned much since his theories have been published. Hopefully someday to be able to go FTL

 

[mlorrey]

If you are so right, then why is it called the "electromagnetic spectrum"??? What absurd pseudophysics is it that you believe in?

 

[yevaud]

They are not quite the same thing.<br /><br />Electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electical or magnetic fields. They have no charge. <br /><br />Nevertheless, they do exert electrical and magnetic forces on charged particles and magnetic particles. Viewed classically, they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields propagating through space, so it's entirely appropriate to call them electromagnetic waves.<br /><br />Photons, real and virtual, are emitted and absorbed by charged particles, even though they are not charged themselves. They only interact with charged particles, and not with each other. That's why photons don't interact with magnetic fields -- the photons which make up the magnetic field are not charged so other photons cannot interact with them.<br /> <br />This is quite standard Freshman Physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Firstly, I don't think anybody specifically said anything about electrical or magnetic fields being static, so you've snuck a qualification in there.<br /><br />Secondly, for the third time, I've never said anything about photons having charge, so why you would say that is absurd.<br /><br />Photons do, in fact, interact with each other, else the classic double slit experiment would never result in an interference pattern. The fact that holograms exist and are produced by laser interactions is proof that photons interact with each other.<br /><br />I don't know what freshman physics you studied, but mine included holograms and double slit experiments...

 

[yevaud]

Mars_or_Die: <i>If gravity, <b>electromagnetic fields</b>, etc. can bend light...</i><br /><br />So I was not even answering you (go back to page two of this thread and look). You did, however respond to my response to Mars. So why you think I set out to deliberately bicker with you is beyond me.<br /><br />Secondly, this is simple classical physics taught in College in a Physics course. If you don't believe I'm correct, ask Saiph. I trust you'd believe his word?. The photon itself is not affected by an E/M field.<br /><br />Go try to bend a beam of light with a magnet. Don't believe me. Go do it. If you can do this, you will win the Nobel Prize.<br /><br />The classic interference pattern from interferometry is a result of the particle/wave duality nature of the photon. In point of fact, there have been experiments in which single photons have been emitted, and it still results in the interference pattern you mention. The photon interferes with itself (or, as some believe, some future photon). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>