Horizons/power/photons

why06 · Aug 31, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IFR only has meaning in respect to matter because of the term 'inertial' in it - that term means the opposite of 'non-accelerated' .... wonder why we can't catch up with those photon waves or alter their speed, one way to look at it is by analogy - it is like if one wanted to catch up with one's shadow, real reasons I can't go into here <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>To me it makes perfect sense, but it does not really connect to the conversation, I see. In fact its sorta off topic. What you stated is actually the way most physicist I would think consider a photon. However there is not such thing as a photon of energy. There is however a photon of light. </p><p><strong>BTW vandivx:</strong> For Christsake use a period every once in a while. That was just one long sentence strung togehter. This makes it hard for me to consider a specific thought without considering the whole. It is probably one of the reason people are discouraged to read your post </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

derekmcd · Sep 1, 2008

<p>I apologize for referring to your post as mumbo jumbo.  However, let dissect the reference post and see what else we can consider it to be. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IFR only has meaning in respect to matter because of the term 'inertial' in it</DIV></p><p>This makes no sense.  The meaning is far deeper than simply using the term, 'inertial'. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that term means the opposite of 'non-accelerated'</DIV></p><p>I assume you just meant 'accelerated'... not non-accelerated.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>matter can be accelerated whereas photon speed cannot be changed by its very nature</DIV></p><p>As I'm sure you are aware of, speed and acceleration are not the same thing.  Acceleration is a change in velocity and a photon's velocity can be changed in a gravitational field.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in fact the constant photon speed c was taken as postulate on which SR and all its talk about IFR was built</DIV></p><p>Not a fact.  Inertial frames were not derived from the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light.  They were two separate postulates, when combined came things such as time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, ridding the notion of absolute space, etc.  If anything, inertial frames came first via Newton. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that's why IFR terminology only reffers to uniform velocities v which are always less than c and v can never equal c</DIV></p><p>Considering the postulate that physics are the same in any inertial frame, discussing the relation between velocities and the speed of light is irrelavent.  Even a speeds greater than c, in your own inertial frame, you would still measure stuff within your own inertial frame the same way as any other frame.  Only when there is an outside reference frame from which to make comparison would you realize that things are outside the realm of physics at speeds greater than C. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>recognition of photon as a particle is the source of the confusion</DIV></p><p>Recognizing that a photon can act as both a wave and a particle actually clears quite a few things up.  I can understand it being confusing if you don't understand the wave-particle duality of the photon, but the confusion can be cleared up quite well with a proper explanation. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>people talk about it like if it was matter and there could be perspective on universe taken from the point of view of photon which is all patent nonsense</DIV></p><p>Not sure what people you are referring to that talk about a photon as if it were matter.  It's only nonsense if don't understand Lorentz transformations and can be cleared up when given the proper treatment.  It's tricky to discuss the photon's reference frame, but it is certainly not 'patent nonsense'.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>to get some sensible view one must leave the official physics view behind which is what I do in the rest of this post (warning! don't talk about what follows to your physics teacher LOL)</DIV></p><p>Leaving official physics behind usually never clears up the confusion for anyone.  It will only add to it.  It, generally, leads to completely incoherent statement that make no sense. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>photon should be thought of not as a particle but as a 'photon of energy'</DIV></p><p>Photon of energy???  I'm already confused.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>which during its travel doesn't have localized 'particle' form</DIV></p><p>What is "localized particle form"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but is QMechanically spread in space</DIV></p><p>Huh???  Might you be referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle similar to an electron "cloud" around a nucleus? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and only localizes upon absorption or (attempts) at its detection</DIV></p><p>How does something "localize"?  Is this a reference, again, to the HUP and the wave function collapsing?  You're terminology is really confusing.  Not to mention, absorption is not the "only" phenomena measured when a photon interacts with other particles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it is also emitted in localized form but spreads in space immediately</DIV></p><p>So what are you saying here.  It is emitted as a particle, but changes to a wave when travelling?  I guess I have no idea what "localized form" means.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>photon is not a particle of matter as all the other particles are</DIV></p><p>Even based on the standard definition of "matter", this statement isn't true.  There are other particles that are not considered matter.  You really have to define what you mean when you say matter.  It's trickier than you might think. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but it is a photon of energy</DIV></p><p>I've tried to find context of what this means, but haven't figured it out yet. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and energy by its definition is not something that could be 'stopped' (as anything which can have its speed altered can also be stopped)</DIV></p><p>I have a really confused look on my face at the moment.  I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but how in the world does it relate to altering the speed of an object? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>photons are really 'waves' in ether of space carying quantized energy around</DIV></p><p>So the Michelson Morley experiment succeeded? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(waves can have spin and other properties that photon 'particles' have) and like all waves are purely dynamic phenomenon</DIV></p><p>Huh?  Waves spin???  What other properties are you referring to?  Waves are a dynamic phenomena?  What does this even mean in relation to physics (inside or outside the realm)?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if you stop them you got nothing left except the energy they carried along and they deliver that energy in localized form</DIV></p><p>Actually, I think I can agree with this statement.  It is worded terribly bad, but considering I'm familiar with the process, I get what you are attempting to say.  Others might not, though.  However, I'm still lost on what "localized form" means. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>actually it is not like that the photon of energy somehow localizes upon preparation for being absorbed, rather it is that the nature of matter is such that it accepts the photon wave energy from space in quantized and localized manner (it also emits it locally on particle level but once emited it spreads in space)matter absorbs photon energy waves in a local manner in the sense that it is individual particles of matter that get excited by the absorption and receive momentum from the photon wave etc., the macroscopic chunk of matter as such is affected by photon energy waves only in a secondary manner through the particles of matter that make it up</DIV></p><p>That's one hell of a run-on sentence with horrible terminology to simply say that a photon, dependent on the wave-particle duality, can transfer energy/momentum to another particle.  I was going to try to explain in phrase by phrase, but gave up. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>one can still wonder why we can't catch up with those photon waves or alter their speed, one way to look at it is by analogy - it is like if one wanted to catch up with one's shadow, real reasons I can't go into here <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>You can still wonder, but Einstein explained it fairly well. </p><p>And the shadow reference is totally from left field.  No idea how you threw that in there. </p><p> </p><p>So now.  What should I refer to this as.  Obviously, mumbo jumbo is acceptable.</p> <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>

derekmcd · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i agree with vandivx  about his above comment to a certain extent, there are people on this forum that are so quick to discourage other's new idea's. Although Dr. rocket has come to my aid in questions which i greatly appreciate, vandivx is right, mostly ridicoul will take place. The older physicist are good in this forum to guide, but physics will prevail and new imaginative idea's and leaps of thought and faith are the heart and soul of physics.........Let new idea's always come forth, but don't forget debating is also half the battle in physics! <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>New ideas are always welcome, but random, incoherent sentences that have no meaning are a waste of time and space.  MickyL is a classic example of that.  Complete word salad and nonsensical meanderings.  What you probably miss Is that Myself and DrRocket will often, at first, correct people and instantly be called closed minded.  Or that we don't think outside the box.  There has to be some folks here that can provide some type of sanity to this supposedly space/science forum.</p><p>If we didn't try to provide some balance, it would be overrun with nonsense and young kids with eager minds might be lurking and picking up on some of the junk.  I'm not very fond of that.  I don't profess to know everything, but I try to answer peoples questions and correct mistakes as best as I can.</p><p>This is the physics forum and it should be a place where 'real' physics can be discussed.  Lurkers and passers by looking for information shouldn't have to try to sift through pages of nonsense... we have a couple other forums for that.</p><p>Sorry If I'm sounding a bit harsh, but that's the way it should be.  This really isn't directed at you, just a general, all purpose "venting".  Don't take that the wrong way.  I like you and think you always ask interesting questions that I enjoy trying to answer when and If can.  I really enjoy that aspect of this forum.</p><p>It just gets terribly frustrating everytime an interesting topic comes up and some throws in their "two cents' and I question them or correct them and get blamed for being insensitive or what ever you all think of me.  I'm just trying to keep a little professionalism around here.</p><p> </p> <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>

derekmcd · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know about them ridiculing you, Im sure they have nothing against, but I have to agree that sweeping your rather lengthy post under the rug and simply labeling it as "mumbo jumbo" was completely uncallled and outright rude. derekcmd You should realize that you have some measure of power on this forum. Its not all fun and games anymore for you. You should more careful before you jokingly dismiss ideas especially when they are rather hard to understand at first. Some of you have a lot of clout, so you have to think before you simply ignore or snuff ideas. Some people don't give textbook answers. I've got books for text answers. If you ignore the ideas that have some measurable amount of truth in them you destroy what makes this forum worthwhile. That is one can get a well thought out response for a non-textbook question. However vandivx your post was rather off topic. <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I have as much power and clout as someone with 1 post.  Keep in mind, this isn't the first time VanDivx has completely derailed a good thread with some of his assertions that are "beyond the realm of physics".  And if we try to correct him, we get admonished. </p> <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>

DrRocket · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it always surprises me to see hostility and/or ridicule on science forums, here mainly from you and from drrocket on other threads, the fact that you are politically correct gender wise in the above quote puts a cap on it I try my best to answer, either using conventional physics view or from my own work in physics and it meets with slighting comments or else with silence, I would understand that people don't get what I tried to say there, if only because digesting new ideas is always difficult but I should think it certainly doesn't qualify as mumbo jumbo no matter what your level of understanding physics is at nobody has anything positive to say it seems or if they do they keep silent, perhaps so as not to take sides with the likes of drrocket here or other such outspoken forum guardians of established 'blue stock' physics, it was very telling when emperor_of_localgroup said in that thread on the topic of dimensions: "You are brave to make this post here." meaning brave to say how it is and thus potentially exposing myself to another scathing attack from DrRocket among others, however I should think that's how science should be done - not caring what people like but only what is true as one sees it and there shouldn't be intimidating atmosphere on science forums  its not like there are no real crank threads/posts on this forum but the thing is they usually elicit respectfull and arguing posts and very seldom are the posters ridiculed and put down as I am, besides scifi like threads not worth mentioning I recall Mmozina (or what was the nick) who argued for electric universe in countless threads, then there was that guy who made numerous arguments for gravitation as expanding matter (or was it expanding space) and both of these topics got numerous replies in respectfull manner even though people knew those theories were hundred percent wrong which of course they were and they told that to the proponets of those ideas in plain words but not ridiculing them or at least I don't remember that being so I suppose people knew those were trully cranky and therefore 'safe' topics - safe in obviously not running any danger that they might actually lead to new physics - which makes it seem that people are hostile when they sense that potentially new and correct physics are put forth that could mean a change to their belowed, well known and familiar established physical theories number of times DrRocket (and now also you) replied with ridiculling comment believing you got me on some particular point and when I ran the challenge successfully in subsequent post, you or him never said anything and kept silent henceforth regarding that point, so you wouldn't have to take back the ridicule or accede that there might be something to my arguments re: 'Rest in absolute space': "DrRocket: the notion of reducing the universe to absolute zero is somewhat unique in that it would simultaneously violate all the laws of thermodynamics.  That is pretty impressive*." and on similar note earlier "Bottom line:  You have made it quite clear that your notions have no basis in either the data from physical experiments nor can they be derived from accepted physical principles.  In fact they contradict both.  You don't know what you are talking about." * when I exposed the basic mistake you made and which he picked on (he couldn't help himself not to add the usual slighting attack "That is pretty impressive") as anybody could see that I was right and that you both have misinterpreted my theory, you didn't say a boo and neither did he to that, that is no manner to behave on what should be science forums where established as well as new ideas should be discussed and new ideas shouldn't be ridiculled even if they might in fact be wrong as the case may be  <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Good ideas are not ridiculed.   But ridiculous ideas are, by their nature, deserving.  It is one thing to put out an idea that is novel and quite another to foster notions that are patently false on the basis of either established theory (in a domain in which that theory is known to be accurate) or a large experimental basis or both. </p><p>It is important to recognize that in an open forum there are likely to be people lurking who are in the formative stage.<br />They may well not have sufficient background to be yet able to discriminate between novel but perhaps viable ideas and nonsense.  It is important for their benefit that nonsense be identified as such.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 1, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><p> Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">that term means the opposite of 'non-accelerated'</div><p>I assume you just meant 'accelerated'... not non-accelerated.   </p><p><br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p> </p><p>yes you're right, I spooted it today and edited my post accordingly before checking if anybody quoted it</p><p>such slips happen and with a bit of luck and goodwill they are recognized as such </p><p> </p><p>I haven't read the rest of your criticism yet, just thought to confirm this one detail right away given I edited it </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>--------------Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em>IFR only has meaning in respect to matter because of the term 'inertial' in it - that term means the opposite of 'non-accelerated' .... wonder why we can't catch up with those photon waves or alter their speed, one way to look at it is by analogy - it is like if one wanted to catch up with one's shadow, real reasons I can't go into here <br /> Posted by vandivx</em></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">---------------------------- </div><p>To me it makes perfect sense, <font color="#ff6600">but it does not really connect to the conversation, I see. In fact its sorta off topic.</font> What you stated is actually the way most physicist I would think consider a photon. However there is not such thing as a photon of energy. There is however a photon of light. </p><p><br /> Posted by why06</DIV><br /><br />how you mean off topic, it connected in very plain way to several preceeding posts and was even on topic as far as OP is concerned, at first I thought you referred to the second part of that post (where I went into the reasons that make people think photons have their reference frames but that would also be on topic IMO) but that is not so and you make me genuinely puzzled </p><p>if you didn't notice, before I posted what I did, UncertainH brought up that topic of inertial frames of a photon explicitly (OP also implied it) and then SpeedFreek answered why the reference frame of a photon is invalid idea, -> "<font color="#0000ff">No, in relativity a photon does not have a valid inertial frame of reference. If you think about it, you answered your own question. What is the purpose of an inertial frame of reference?</font><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font>"  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p>in his next post which I quote below, he expanded upon the above explanation but I I didn't find that explanation satisfactory and tried in my post to supply the real reason why IRF of a photon is not a valid reference frame, I'll say why SpeedFreek's explanation wasn't satisfactory following the quote of it here </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#008000"><em>------------------------ </em></font></p><p><font color="#008000"><em>Replying to:<br /></em></font> </p> <div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#008000"><em>Why is it not a valid inertial frame of reference ?   <br /> Posted by UncertainH</em></font></div> <div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#008000"><em>------------------------ </em></font></div> <p><font color="#0000ff"><em>Special principle of relativity</em>: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the <em>same</em> laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff"> – <cite>Albert Einstein: <em>The foundation of the general theory of relativity.</em></cite></font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">If I may rephrase that, K represents an inertial frame of reference <strong>if</strong> it is chosen so that the physical laws hold good in relation to it. That being the case, then the same laws hold good in relation to other inertial frames of reference.</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">But if light is K, the physical laws do <strong>not</strong> hold good in relation to it, as no time would pass for a photon. So, you answered your own question as to why it is not a valid inertial frame of reference. As you put it, "If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of physics whatsoever." In valid frames of reference, a second always lasts a second.</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">In the real world, nothing will ever be able look at things from the point of view of a photon. It, or anything moving at c, <em>has no point of view</em>. It is a null viewpoint</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">Or put another way...</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">Consider the point of view of a photon travelling at c. No time passes. Nothing ever happens. The universe doesn't exist. There's your frame of reference, but what use is it if the universe doesn't exist in that frame of reference?<br /></font> </p> <p><font color="#0000ff">Consider the point of view of a spaceship that manages to impossibly accelerate to c. The universe ceases to exist. Nothing more can ever happen from the point of view of that spaceship, whilst it is at c. Why? Because it will, from a valid (if you allow the impossible) frame of reference, continue to travel at c forever, or until some <em>(impossible?) </em>outside force causes it to decelerate. As no time is passing on the spaceship, it cannot change its own circumstances in any way.</font></p> <p><font color="#0000ff">So what if it meets something that impossibly slows it down? From its own (now impossibly valid again!) less than c frame, the universe springs into existence again (unless the ship hits something hard and is vapourised)! No time has passed since the ship achieved c. Whilst it was at c, it had no point of view, it had no frame of reference. For the people on that impossible spaceship, the universe they ceased to experience would be termed a <em>discontinuity</em>. From their valid (less than c) frames of reference, you might think the discontinuity represents instantaneous travel, but that is only if you invoke impossible conditions, which render the frame of reference invalid. </font></p><font color="#0000ff"> Posted by SpeedFreek</font></DIV><br /><br /><p>this explanation sidesteps real reasons for non-validity of inertial reference frames when it comes to photons because it says in essence that 'it wouldn't work - due to time stopping in them' with the consequence that 'no physics happens in them' and so one can't say that 'physics are the same in such a frame as in another one' because simply 'no physics happens' in such frames</p><p>that's somewhat like if one said one was dead or didn't exist during the times of dreamless sleep because one wasn't conscious of the time passage as one is when in awake state, one could as well argue that from the point of view of one for whom the time stopped that physics experiments would have been the same except that one couldn't do them - that is very much different from saying that they would have been different if one could have done them - which wouldn't be the case IMO - but accepting the terms of such arguments by taking them up is like arguing over how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle... </p><p><br /><br />the concept of inertial frames in which physics are the same is meant to distinguish such frames from accelerated ones (in which that is not true), not from frames in which time doesn't pass!!</p><p>while in principle I am not against such easy talk of the sort 'what is it like from point of view of photon...' I don't believe it is valid to use such (photon) frames in arguments, when one is explaining something like in this case, such explanation is not valid because such frames are unphysical, period.</p><p>such argument employs the very frames (of photons) which it then concludes are not valid frames </p><p> -------</p><p>I pointed out that SR was built around the concept of inertial reference frames as applied to matter/particles of it which have rest mass and which can be speeded up and slowed down and that rules out the photon frames</p><p>as OP wrote, Einstein started out by considering 'what it would be like if one was able to ride along on light wave' but the theory of SR with its idea of reference frames that he then built was based precisely on recognizing the impossibility of that</p><p>the idea of inertial reference frame doesn't apply to photons (to light) because photons 'violate physics of matter' so to speak, ie., their speed remains magically constant relative to matter which is not true for motion of matter relative to other matter (matter which has rest mass) </p><p>matter which has rest mass can be speeded or slowed down (relative to other such matter) but such concepts don't apply to photons and it follows that even the nature of its constant speed c is not like that of normal matter (it is not correct to reffer to its speed as 'uniform' given it can't be non-uniform by definition) and shouldn't be viewed as such - which is precisely what we do when photon we give photon an inertial frame of reference 'moving at speed c' </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>while in principle I am not against such easy talk of the sort 'what is it like from point of view of photon...' I don't believe it is valid to use such (photon) frames in arguments, when one is explaining something like in this case, such explanation is not valid because such frames are unphysical, period.such argument employs the very frames (of photons) which it then concludes are not valid frames. <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>I was trying to show why the frame of the photon was invalid, by trying to use it and finding that it is of no use. Then when DrRocket said that it was about length, rather than time, I pondered why one was more important than the other. I was under the impression that time-dilation and length-contraction were two sides of the same coin, as it were. Then comes the discussion as to whether length-contraction is "real" in the same way as time-dilation. </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

why06 · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have as much power and clout as someone with 1 post.  Keep in mind, this isn't the first time VanDivx has completely derailed a good thread with some of his assertions that are "beyond the realm of physics".  And if we try to correct him, we get admonished.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I understand where your coming from. And in fact it seems I've made a terrible error in supporting this derailing. Now that you have so "matter-of-factly" broken down vandivx post I can see the flaws more clearly. In this case "mumbo jumbo" would be a sufficient declaration. I probably should have spotted the word "ether" before I commented. Next time I should be more scrutinizing in hindsight, but I suppose thats my nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was trying to show why the frame of the photon was invalid, by trying to use it and finding that it is of no use. Then when DrRocket said that it was about length, rather than time, I pondered why one was more important than the other. I was under the impression that time-dilation and length-contraction were two sides of the same coin, as it were. Then comes the discussion as to whether length-contraction is "real" in the same way as time-dilation.   <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /> </p><p>I hope that I did not mislead you.  Time dilation and lenght contraction are two sides of the same coin.  Which one is explanatory depends on which reference frame you want to work in.   In the case of a photon, the "stoppage" of time is from the point of view of a reference frame other than that of the photon.  The infinite length contraction is from the point of view of the photon.</p><p>When you adopt the point of view of the photon, where length in the direction of motion has been reduced to zero it is hard to talk about anything that is meaningful.   From the perspective of an observer watching the moving photon, say an observer on Earth, the photon experiences no time.  But that doesn't mean much since photons don't decay and hence time doesn't mean much to a photon anyway.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... What you probably miss Is that Myself and DrRocket will often, at first, correct people and instantly be called closed minded.  Or that we don't think outside the box.  There has to be some folks here that can provide some type of sanity to this supposedly space/science forum....Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't mind and I don't think that you do either.</p><p>What is truly ironic is that the charges are usually levied by someone who is rejecting a body of physics, like quantum theory, relativity, or cosmology that requires a good deal of open-minded contemplation to understand and accept.  And they reject it on the basis that it does meet with thier personal concept of "common sense" -- which is a demonstration of being about as closed-minded as one can get.</p><p>What many people, especially the wackos, don't understand is that you cannot begin to learn and understand science and mathematics without being more open-minded than average (quite a bit more).</p><p>And most importantly they don't recognize the difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good ideas are not ridiculed.   But ridiculous ideas are, by their nature, deserving.  It is one thing to put out an idea that is novel and quite another to foster notions that are patently false on the basis of either established theory (in a domain in which that theory is known to be accurate) or a large experimental basis or both. It is important to recognize that in an open forum there are likely to be people lurking who are in the formative stage.They may well not have sufficient background to be yet able to discriminate between novel but perhaps viable ideas and nonsense.  It is important for their benefit that nonsense be identified as such.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>all I can say, ridicule and snide commenting etc. are not warranted on any half decent forum and certainly not on science forum, period. Only reason moderators didn't say or do anything is that they are not exactly on my side and for the same reasons that you are not, I have no illusions of impartiality </p><p> you can always say something is not correct (for the benefit of 'lurkers in the formative stage') or argue or ignore it, the reason you resort to slighting comments is because you lack real arguments</p><p> </p><p>pointing out that my ideas don't agree with the physics official canon is not an argument and you have a problem if you can't accept that it may need some correcting and or reworking from the ground up, also just because a theory has some calculational results that can't be disputed doesn't at all mean or guarantee it won't undergo change, even fundamental one, like being transmuted into newer better theory - Newton or later years defenders of his gravitational law and his absolute space etc., could argue in the past exactly as you do here but we know from history what happened to those theories when Einstein came in</p><p> </p><p>speaking of Einstein, the establishment also balked at his ideas he published in 1905 and some otherwise respected members of physics community never made their peace with it, some people simply can't cross their own shadow, on the same note Einstein himself never made peace with QMs and I don't remmeber anyone ridiculing his stand, at least not respectable scientists and it was well known at that time his objections couldn't stand up and were refuted time and time again in various experiments, still Einstein stood unpersuaded, unconvinced</p><p> </p><p>that said, you seem to read too much into my posts, I never once said 'throw it all out' about anything like about SR for example, just that it needs reworking into a new theory that will still yield all the results that are now valid besides other benefits </p><p> </p><p>when I argued on various specific points where your cherrished theories show inconsistencies or worse, like about that twin experiment disucssion we had recently, you soon stopped discussing the real point of the argument (is time dilation due among other also to travel at constant velocity? and does that not imply the existence of absolute space?) and slipped out by 'arguing' that GR gets the calculations right and that settled it for you, you are simply not open to any possibility that a theory could show some serious inconsistency which would have been like closing one's eyes to the theoretical ultraviolet catastrophe that ushered in QM</p><p>similarly went that discussion about the 'rest in absolute space' where I argued against your and derekmc's objections by clear argument but that only earned me silence henceforth on that thread, however such things are not forgotten and they spill into other threads, that's psychology 101 </p><p> </p><p>I grew up in a communist country and powers that be in those days always told people - you are free to do what you want, nobody is holding you from realizing your life whichever way you want it... but when it came to practical choices one could only choose from socialist/communist way of life and every other way was slighted, ridiculed, rulled out and forbiden (this last is the power od moderator here)</p><p> your open mindedness seems to me to be very much like that when it comes to physics </p><p> </p><p>I see that the only one siding with me washed his hands off me because of my mention of 'ether'... everyone always claims being open minded but when it comes to reality it is exactly like with communists, they also always said they were open to any discussion before the discussion started or as long as it went their way, the 'right way'... </p><p>I suppose everyone has his limits and can't rise above them, that's why I said that line about 'genius needing another genius to be recognized' in that other thread</p><p>heard, that is rank and file can only stick to well trodden path, that's how it always was and always will be and I was hoping somebody here might rise above it, ether (absolute space) is held today in such desrespect that any mention of it gets rejected outright (not talking about real cranks that are open to anything they might happen to favor) with nobody being even interested in any arguments regarding it, people's minds are made up regarding it, closed once for all, it is simply not 'safe topic' but one for which one might earn ridicule if not worse if one has career at stake for example</p><p> </p><p>even if I take the view of established physics, I don't see that absolute space by definition must be cranky idea, it can become cranky if its cause it taken up by cranks as any idea can (actually in old days it wasn't cranks that discredited it but your physics blue chip stock establishment) but I should think that I am putting and meeting arguments regarding it quite well if I say so myself - many times when my opponents believe they cought me out red handed I am able to meet the challenge satisfactorily and sometimes even show they made wrong attack, how cranky is that?</p><p>speaking about cranks and their ideas, you don't want to know what I think of those who discuss with serious face what the world looks like from the photon perspective, who discuss how the distances become nul and time stops... I thought that this prattle was settled once and for all for over a hundred years now that anything of the sort is plain nonsense that lives only in the imagination of true blue cranks and belongs to the fiction of the 'Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland' sort but not on any even half serious science forum </p><p>  -------------</p><p> this is now getting completely off topic and I don't feel I can respond to all posters to defend myself</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wondering the other day about Einstein thought experiment the one of how it would look if you were to ride on a light wave. Well i started to wonder if photons and light according to Einstein experience no time during there journey, what would happen if you were in a horizon and you shined a flash light or laser since the photon would have no place to go and photons journeys are timeless and only play apart once absorbed, reflected, refracted, ect. Would the power of the laser, flashlight, or star become less? Meaning the power of the source decreases........ <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">It is really strange, and I have difficulty with this somewhat, but I am thinking that you can not ride a light wave, you can not chase it closely either, light travels at c for all observers. You can not even go 1/2 c in order to see light pass you from behind slowly at 1/2 c.</font></p><p><font size="2">Here is a nice little animated thought experiment, Einstein and Bertrand shall demonstrate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dabiznuss · Sep 2, 2008

<p>E.M. waves provide power per unit area, power is defines as joules/second... ect. The rate at which energy is used or dissipated. ( these questions will be scattered and a little confusing at first glance) Is Planck"s constant which is action, (action=energy*time) could it be considered power? Now Kaluza regarded light as coming from the warping and kink"s in a higher dimensional space. Kinks in the E.M. field lines will occur  if two observes, observe a particle that moves from point A to point B, and one observer is inside a radius CT the other is outside this radius. A particle undergoing acceleration will than have kinks in its field lines and radiate E.M. waves. The intensity of the radiation from a single particle is related to the strength of the field and the energy of the particle, Correct ? Now the strength of a wave is related to power, and according to Maxwells theory field lines must start and end on a charged particle. So back to my original question a source of electrons or light are aimed at the observable edge of the universe (cosmological horizon), would the source lower its luminosity or power?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UncertainH · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A particle undergoing acceleration will than have kinks in its field lines and radiate E.M. waves. Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>I don't really understand your question. Are you implying Unruh radiation here? </p><p><br /><br /> </p>

SpeedFreek · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>speaking about cranks and their ideas, you don't want to know what I think of those who discuss with serious face what the world looks like from the photon perspective, who discuss how the distances become nul and time stops... I thought that this prattle was settled once and for all for over a hundred years now that anything of the sort is plain nonsense that lives only in the imagination of true blue cranks and belongs to the fiction of the 'Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland' sort but not on any even half serious science forum<br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Well I hope you don't think I am a crank, as my first statement was that the reference frame of a photon was invalid. Perhaps I should have just left it at that, rather than go on to try to use the invalid frame, often reiterating that it was invalid, to illustrate why I thought it was invalid. </p><p>On a related note, what is your opinion of those who discuss shifts in simultaneity?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is really strange, and I have difficulty with this somewhat, but I am thinking that you can not ride a light wave, you can not chase it closely either, light travels at c for all observers. You can not even go 1/2 c in order to see light pass you from behind slowly at 1/2 c.Here is a nice little animated thought experiment, Einstein and Bertrand shall demonstrate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ <br />Posted by john1r</DIV></p><p>That is correct.  All sorts of singularities and paradoxes come up when you do that.  You can conceptually attach a reference frame to a photon and apply the Lorentz transformation, but when you do that you wind up with things like infinite length contraction that make the interpretation of the results a bit dicey.  Basically, it not a useful perspective.</p><p>Nothing with mass could ride a light wave, since in most reference frames that would imply infinite mass and infinite energy.  And stuff that does not have a rest mass always travels at the speed of light.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... pointing out that my ideas don't agree with the physics official canon is not an argument and you have a problem if you can't accept that it may need some correcting and or reworking from the ground up, also just because a theory has some calculational results that can't be disputed doesn't at all mean or guarantee it won't undergo change, even fundamental one, like being transmuted into newer better theory - Newton or later years defenders of his gravitational law and his absolute space etc.,...<br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>It is quite true that existing theories may, and in fact almost certainly do, need fundamental revision, much as Newton's mechanics and theory of universal gravitation were replaced by special relativity, then general relativity and quantum mechanics.  Such revisions and upheavals are simply part and parcel of progress in physics.  I expect such revisions and look forward to them with anticipation.  That is what makes science interesting and exciting.</p><p>When fundamental scientific theories are revised there is a foundational principle, the correspondence principle, that must be observed.  The basic theories of physics, relativity and quantum theory, are known to produce exquisitely accurate predictions of the behavior of nature in all but a few rather extreme circumstances.  Similarly Newton's theories were and continue to be know to produce extremely accurate predictions in most circumstances and are still used in engineering applications and in many of the models used by physicists.  The correspondence principle simply says that in order for a new theory to be a viable candidate to replace an older and established theory (such as relativity or quantum mechanics) that theory must reduce to the older theory for circumstances in which the older theory is known to be accurate.  You are forbidden to throwy out the baby with the bath water.</p><p>Both relativity and quantum mechanics are know to be extremely accurate within a broad range.  Relativity is known to be accurate on a large scale of distance and for circumstances in which moderate to very large gravitational effects are important.  There is some question about the validity in regions in which gravitational forces result in infinite curvature of space-time and in which quantum effects are important.  Quantum mechanics has been shown to be extremely accurate, when gravitational effects are small,  from extremely small scales to large scales, but only seems to have a significant effect at the smaller scales.  No one has been able to formulate a quantum theory that is consistent with general relativity, although the relativistic field theories are consistent with special relativity.  Quantum theory and general relativity are not consistent with one another.</p><p>It is a given that either general relativity or quantum theory or both require modification in order to produce a complete self-consistent description of nature.  That may well, indeed probably will, require a fundamental change in thought in order to produce a unified and self-consistent theory.  No one knows how to do that at this time.  There are alternate approaches that are being considered.  One is string theory and the brane theories that have evolved from it.  Another is loop quantum gravity which also proposes quite a revolution in how space and time are viewed at an extremely small scale.  A third is black hole thermodynamics.  But all share one characteristic, they are constrained to agree with relativity and current quantum mechanical models in circumstances in which those theories are known to be accurate. </p><p>A revision of relativity and quantum theory is inevitable.  But any proposed revision that does not comply with the correspondence principle is not viable, and is to be dismissed out of hand.  To do otherwise would be to invalidate the huge body of existing experimental evidence for the established theories and the multitude of astoundingly accurate predictions that have been made using those theories.  Scientists are probably the most open-minded of all the denizens of this planet.  But they are forced to be open-minded and creative withing the onfines of the straigh-jacket that represents what is known and has been experimentally verified.  The established theories have been checked, tested, and re-checked and re-tested many times.  Ideas that contradict such well-established theories within their known domains of validity are not "novel", not "open-minded", but simply the product of extraordinary ignorance and wacko in the extreme.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 2, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><p><font color="#008000">I apologize for referring to your post as mumbo jumbo.  However, let dissect the reference post and see what else we can consider it to be. </font></p><p> </p><p>well then, don't appologize if you keep holding on to that view, you don't make sense, you wrote that out of pure spitefullness</p><p>------------- </p><p><br />Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#ff6600"><em>IFR only has meaning in respect to matter because of the term 'inertial' in it</em></font></div><p><font color="#008000">This makes no sense.  The meaning is far deeper than simply using the term, 'inertial'.</font> </p><p>I didn't mean to imply that that is all that reference frames are all about, just that this one aspect of them determines that they are referring only to matter and not to photons </p><p>clearly you are looking for a stick to beat the dog as the saying goes, you are switching the meaning of that sentence around by misinterpreting the word 'only' which can be read in this use in two different ways but you deliberately picked the one I didn't intend and it was clear from the context how it was meant - however context dropping is favorite with those who want to beat the dog, it gives them the excuse, flimsy as it is, but it passes only in the eyes of fools or those who also want to beat the dog and are willing to drop all standards of civilized discussion</p><p>------------- </p><p> Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">that term means the opposite of 'non-accelerated'</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">I assume you just meant 'accelerated'... not non-accelerated.</font>   </p><p>right </p><p>--------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">matter can be accelerated whereas photon speed cannot be changed by its very nature</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">As I'm sure you are aware of, speed and acceleration are not the same thing.  Acceleration is a change in velocity and a photon's velocity can be changed in a gravitational field.</font></p><p>that's nitpicking for its own sake, this forum is not exactly legal office is it? so make it that matter can be speeded up or slowed down as opposed to photons which always move at speed c (meant in vacuum of course, just in case you pick on that too, DOH) </p><p>--------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">in fact the constant photon speed c was taken as postulate on which SR and all its talk about IFR was built</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Not a fact.  Inertial frames were not derived from the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light.  They were two separate postulates, when combined came things such as time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, ridding the notion of absolute space, etc.  If anything, inertial frames came first via Newton.</font></p><p>also nitpicking </p><p>I meant that if light wasn't found to have constant speed c, then there would be no SR and no talk about inertial reference frames as we know it today, that terminology only took to the front stage in physics with SR </p><p>---------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#ff6600"><em>that's why IFR terminology only refers to uniform velocities v which are always less than c and v can never equal c</em></font></div><p><font color="#008000">Considering the postulate that physics are the same in any inertial frame, discussing the relation between velocities and the speed of light is irrelavent.  Even a speeds greater than c, in your own inertial frame, you would still measure stuff within your own inertial frame the same way as any other frame.  Only when there is an outside reference frame from which to make comparison would you realize that things are outside the realm of physics at speeds greater than C.</font></p><p>you may be dotting and capitalizing your sentences and yet they don't make sense (from grammatical as well as physics point of view) even if I read them many times over, trying to defipher what you're trying to say here, I think you should apply to yourself the medicine that you applied so liberaly to me (that one about mumbo jumbo and gibberish)</p><p>I should think that nobody would have problem with sentence like that one there and I fail to understand what your problem with it may be </p><p>---------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#ff6600"><em>recognition of photon as a particle is the source of the confusion</em></font></div><p><font color="#008000">Recognizing that a photon can act as both a wave and a particle actually clears quite a few things up.  <font color="#ff0000"><font color="#008000">I can understand it being confusing</font> if you don't understand the wave-particle duality of the photon, <font color="#008000">but the confusion can be cleared up quite well with a proper explanation.</font></font></font><font color="#008000"> </font></p><p>I have a news for you, nobody understands wave-particle duality of the photon or of any particle (I dish out to you the same treatment you give me) </p><p>to act as something can be very much different from what it is when it comes to photon, in fact the very terminology 'act as a particle' implies it is not a particle but only acts like it, that is it acts as if it was a particle, I repeat, nobody really knows today what it really is<br /> </p><p>if you read this forum you would see tons and tons of posts here referring to photons as plain particles and not just acting like that which was precisely my point there, unfortunatelly the particle-wave duality of QMs doesn't lend itself to easy popular understanding and the view (implicit or explicit) of photon as particle still prevails, sadly often even in the professional community </p><p>-------- </p><p> Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">people talk about it like if it was matter and there could be perspective on universe taken from the point of view of photon which is all patent nonsense</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Not sure what people you are referring to that talk about a photon as if it were matter.  It's only nonsense if don't understand Lorentz transformations and can be cleared up when given the proper treatment.  <font color="#ff0000">It's tricky to discuss the photon's reference frame, but it is certainly not 'patent nonsense'.</font></font></p><p>why, I refer to most people that participate in this thread, in particular that includes you and DrRocket here </p><p>indeed it is tricky because photon does <strong>NOT </strong>have reference frame in SR, period. it only has one in cranks' dreaming, so please spare me that nonsense and read some physics textbooks</p><p>------------ </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">to get some sensible view one must leave the official physics view behind which is what I do in the rest of this post (warning! don't talk about what follows to your physics teacher LOL)</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Leaving official physics behind usually never clears up the confusion for anyone.  It will only add to it.  It, generally, leads to completely incoherent statement that make no sense. </font></p><p>that's exactly what many thought of SR paper when it came out, most everybody was confused and it made no sense to them, some never made sense of it and even today many students struggle trying to understand it, this thread is prime example of laymen being confused by it, need I say more</p><p>on more pertinent note, offical physics is often confusing by itself without even leaving the confines of its established theories - take QM regarding which DR here conveniently quoted from Feynman as an example of whole physics discipline that nobody understands, I dare to claim that if ever QM is to be understood, official physics will have to be left behind because its physical interpretation of QM is pure gibberish and crankiness if I ever saw one, enough of that </p><p>------------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">photon should be thought of not as a particle but as a 'photon of energy'</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Photon of energy???  I'm already confused.</font></p><p>the other poster said that normally one says 'photon of light, not of energy', however he probably got his physics education by reading popular physics expositions that scientists write for general public, that reference to light is a human or friendly way to describe photon</p><p>while nobody knows what photon really is, one thing is certain and it is that it is a carrier or transporter of energy, more precisely of quanta of energy, energy of a photon is its frequency multiplied by h (QM  constant - a quantizing term)</p><p>while one could say about anything that it is 'energy' if one got fundamental enough point of view, with photon that is the best we can get to say what it is</p><p>I admit that terminology I used is not common but if you know your physics and are at least semibright, you should catch on fast, otherwise I advise you to get some tenured position in physics if you can to eliminate any danger of being confronted with anything not quite 'run of the mill' nature </p><p>--------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">which during its travel doesn't have localized 'particle' form</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">What is "localized particle form"?</font> </p><p>that refers to QM and its terminology of particle (statistical) location probability wave collapsing to a localized point particle form which is then detected on a detector, ie., the wave which was spread in some region of space gets localized upon detection to a point particle </p><p>------------ </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">but is QMechanically spread in space</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Huh???  Might you be referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle similar to an electron "cloud" around a nucleus? </font></p><p>yes but photons and electrons (and other particles) get smeared like that even while outside of atom as long as they are not disturbed by somebody trying to measure their position or location, so that <font color="#ff6600">QMechanically spread in space <font color="#333333">means that photons or electrons would exhibit wave behaviour in suitably set up experiments</font></font> </p><p>------------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">and only localizes upon absorption or (attempts) at its detection</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">How does something "localize"?  <font color="#808000">Is this a reference, again, to the HUP and the wave function collapsing?</font>  You're terminology is really confusing.  Not to mention, absorption is not the "only" phenomena measured when a photon interacts with other particles. </font></p><p>yes it is that reference again</p><p>absorption is not 'measured', it is what happens when a photon lands on a detector, however its wave function can collapse even while it is just being measured without necessarily suffering absorption in the process, if the measurement disturbs the particle enough (that's when Heisenberg Uncertainty principle comes in), its wave collapses and it stops exhibiting wave properties </p><p>------------ </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">it is also emitted in localized form but spreads in space immediately</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">So what are you saying here.  It is emitted as a particle, but changes to a wave when travelling?  I guess I have no idea what "localized form" means.</font></p><p>'localized form' is the 'particle form', particle is a local phenomenon where local means one can tell it is here or there or generally someplace, as opposed to the times when the particles changes to a wave form and one cannot then tell it is at any particular location </p><p>when that local 'particle form' spreads in space (when a photon or some particle is left to itself undisturbed, just resting or flying about) that local form becames 'wave form' which is 'unlocalized form', waves are not local phenomena as point particles are </p><p>-------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">photon is not a particle of matter as all the other particles are</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Even based on the standard definition of "matter", this statement isn't true.  There are other particles that are not considered matter.  You really have to define what you mean when you say matter.  It's trickier than you might think. </font></p><p>if you want to be very strict, you got a point there, yes it gets tricky</p><p>photon is a case in itself in that it alone moves at that special invariant speed reserved in nature only for it (which is that of light) so far as we can tell and from that point of view, if any particle has special and exclusive claim not to be counted as matter, that particle is photon and that was what I tried to say there</p><p> </p><p>however taking commonsense view, if matter is that which physically 'matters' as in having impact of some form in interaction with other matter, then all existents including photons are matter, it all depends who makes the definition, philosopher makes different from physicist etc </p><p>----------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">but it is a photon of energy</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">I've tried to find context of what this means, but haven't figured it out yet. </font></p><p>see previous comment </p><p>-------------------- </p><p> Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">and energy by its definition is not something that could be 'stopped' (as anything which can have its speed altered can also be stopped)</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">I have a really confused look on my face at the moment.  I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but how in the world does it relate to altering the speed of an object? </font></p><p>photon has its energy due to its motion and only due to its motion and as I said above, it can be seen as a transporter of energy par excellence and as such if you stopped it (or fictionally if you put yourself in its 'frame' traveling along with it), then you'd end up with nothing at all</p><p><em>photon is thus a wholy dynamic phenomenon and that makes it essentially different from matter </em>which can be regarded as a static container of energy so to speak which can be given any speed (sub c speed only of course) or brought to rest (one can put oneself into its reference frame unlike with photons)</p><p>photon's 'would be reference frame' is a useless concept since there would be no photon in it, nothing would be in such reference frame except your god like, that is abstract presence as an observer, you would be 'alone' in that frame and so it doesn't make any sense to talk about reference frames of photons or what they 'see'</p><p>you can ride on a locomotive say and see the world from 'its point of view' but there is literaly no point of view of photon</p><p>I''d advise anybody who has problem with putting photons existentially on par with matter such as assigning them  reference frames like one does to ordinary matter to ponder the amazing puzzle of the constancy of the speed of light</p><p>that should be like a mirracle to anybody who stops and thinks of that and if one can't explain it, perhaps one should have some measure of humble respect for photons and not treat them the same as one treats matter, namely assigning reference frames to them, inertial or non-inertial ones </p><p>------------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">photons are really 'waves' in ether of space carying quantized energy around</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">So the Michelson Morley experiment succeeded? </font></p><p>its like this: MM had certain idea how the light propagated in space IF there was really an ether filling it and they set up an experiment to test that idea</p><p>the experiment ended with null result and that was later taken as a proof that  the ether does not exist - the expected action of the 'ether wind' was absent, hence the null result and belief that the ether doesn't exist because otherwise it should have betrayed itself by that hypothesised 'ether wind' affecting the speed of light and creating interference patterns </p><p>but instead the null result only proved that their idea of how the light propagated in ether was false (given that there indeed was an ether in space) and that the ether might still exist with light propagating in it in some different way that would be immune to detection in their experimental setup</p><p>in effect that experiment did neither prove nor disprove the existence of ether, it said exactly nothing about its existence</p><p>one commentator who evaluated the interpretation of that experiment solely on its arguments regarding ether said that it is arrogant to impose one's views on how nature works by testing in experiment one's preconceived ideas about how its - the nature's machinery is set up and then when the results don't come out as one thought they should, one concludes that it is too bad for nature</p><p>in short, good science is not done by imposing one's preconceived and possibly misconceived ideas as criterion on the workings of nature which is what M&M have done (or later interpreters of their experiment have done) </p><p>------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">(waves can have spin and other properties that photon 'particles' have) and like all waves are purely dynamic phenomenon</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">Huh?  Waves spin???  What other properties are you referring to?  Waves are a dynamic phenomena?  What does this even mean in relation to physics (inside or outside the realm)?</font></p><p> in QM in Stern Gerlach experiment in which a 'particle' beam is split into two beams, one with spin up and the other spin down, those are not really particles that are being split into two beams but particles qua waves, that is particles which travel in wave form and so are not really particles and it is only thanks to this wave form of its 'particles' that the beam is split into two and is spin separated</p><p> if you tried to determine the spin of the 'particles' making up the unsplit beam before it was split, you'd end up with continuous line smear on detector instead of two distinct spots - the result of separated (sorted) beams hitting the detector in either spot depending on their spin (I talk only about spin up and down particles) </p><p>you only get this splitting (based on the spin) into two beams if the 'particles' are in fact not particles when they fly through the magnet but waves and hence why I say even waves have spin, I meant QMechanical waves of course </p><p>its the same as the double slit experiment where if you don't try to detect which way the 'particle' go and let them be waves, that is spread in space, you get interference fringes, else you get continuous smear on the detector </p><p>----------------------- </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font color="#ff6600">if you stop them you got nothing left except the energy they carried along and they deliver that energy in localized form</font></div><p><font color="#008000">Actually, I think I can agree with this statement.  It is worded terribly bad, but considering I'm familiar with the process, I get what you are attempting to say.  Others might not, though.  However, I'm still lost on what "localized form" means.</font></p><p> I have gone over that above, the localized form is the particle form</p><p>------------------ </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em><font color="#ff6600">actually it is not like that the photon of energy somehow localizes upon preparation for being absorbed, rather it is that the nature of matter is such that it accepts the photon wave energy from space in quantized and localized manner (it also emits it locally on particle level but once emited it spreads in space)matter absorbs photon energy waves in a local manner in the sense that it is individual particles of matter that get excited by the absorption and receive momentum from the photon wave etc., the macroscopic chunk of matter as such is affected by photon energy waves only in a secondary manner through the particles of matter that make it up</font></em></div><p><font color="#008000">That's one hell of a run-on sentence with horrible terminology to simply say that a photon, dependent on the wave-particle duality, can transfer energy/momentum to another particle.  I was going to try to explain in phrase by phrase, but gave up.</font></p><p>what I tried to say there is that when we speak of photon (and only of photon), those so called QM 'particle-waves' are really just waves and never particles</p><p>normally we speak of particles (when speaking about photons) because they get absorbed at a point on a detector and we think they travelled as such at least for some part of their journey but my point was that they always travel only as QM wave forms spread in space and when these waves meet with a detector, the wave collapses instantaneously and gets absorbed at a point on it, so it is not like a particle flew towards the detector but a wave was traveling untill it collapsed and was absorbed on the detector and there was never a particle</p><p> in double slit experiment, it is thought that when you measure to know which slit the photon went through and destroy the wave nature of photons, that they then travel the rest of way from slits to detector screen as particles and that's why there is no interference</p><p>but I am saying is that the measuring at the slits localized the wave form of photons into a particle like local form and so interference at the slits didn't happen and that  after that the photons travel from the slits to the detector again in wave form and when they arrive at the detector, the photon wave collapses to a point on it</p><p> that way there was never a 'particle' but only collapsed wave into a more local form - local meaning large spread wave collapsing to a very compact point like distribution</p><p>bottom line is, my view is that photons are QMechanical waves 100% of time, that collapse and uncollapse ('unspread'  and spread) depending if they hit something, be it measuring apparatus or detector screen, they never are 'particle' like' when they are in free space moving at speed c and in fact they never are 'particle like' in the QM sense</p><p>of course this view goes hand in hand with my view of particle-wave nature of ordinary matter which is also different from the official one - in fact the official physics doesn't have any view I think, all it has is the puzzling mulling of Bohr's where does the particle-wave duality go when one considers macroscopic chunks of matter </p><p>--------------------!! I will continue after I get some sleep !! </p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">one can still wonder why we can't catch up with those photon waves or alter their speed, one way to look at it is by analogy - it is like if one wanted to catch up with one's shadow, real reasons I can't go into here <br /> Posted by vandivx</div><p>You can still wonder, but Einstein explained it fairly well. </p><p>And the shadow reference is totally from left field.  No idea how you threw that in there. </p><p> </p><p>So now.  What should I refer to this as.  Obviously, mumbo jumbo is acceptable.</p><br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

why06 · Sep 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Im lost. I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion. Hell the Reply button wasn't even able to quote all of what you wrote so theres no way I can read all of it. Sorry dude. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" /></p><p>Umm... good effort though </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

vandivx · Sep 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well I hope you don't think I am a crank, as my first statement was that the reference frame of a photon was invalid. Perhaps I should have just left it at that, rather than go on to try to use the invalid frame, often reiterating that it was invalid, to illustrate why I thought it was invalid. On a related note, what is your opinion of those who discuss shifts in simultaneity? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>perhaps putting it like I did was a bit too strong and I admit it was in fact too strong, normally I wouldn't do something like that and you know it is not my usual way of behaving on forums BUT these days I am attacked from various points here and I too can hit back in the same fashion dishing out the same medicine to adversaries who mock and deliberately minsinterpret what I post trying their best to make it look that I don't know what I write about, that I write mumbo jumbo and don't know basic physics</p><p> </p><p>unfortunately one can't always hit back on precise address only, at least you said those frames are invalid which absolves you (and some others) from my scathing attack, normally I have no problem with people talking about physics in a fictional sort of way as speaking about reference frame of a photon is BUT if they want to be very strict in that way with me, then I can use that against them and I am strictly in the right because it really is nonsense (talking what the world looks like from the point of view of photon)</p><p> </p><p>however I know that as a rule such talk doesn't mean people don't know their physics and I cut them slack and even use such fictional talk myself at times BUT I get attacked and some people here jump eagerly on whatever I say which can be misinterpreted and that's hard to avoid, I don't care to write my posts like if I was writing legal document </p><p> </p><p>this forum is pretty easy one and even oddball speculations are allowed here and happen all the time, on the other hand there are forums where any speculations that go beyond the official physics are not allowed and those boards have very active moderators and typically students of physics are posting there asking questions and the likes of DrRocket keep tabs on sanity there and I can see the need for such forums to be out there </p><p>I suggest that all budding science acolytes that want to use a forum as a learning place go to such boards where they won't be confused by non-official physics being presented often with no clear borderline as separation line between what is official accepted view and what is not</p><p> </p><p>but all that justification of DrRocket - the case that he made for his guardianship here to protect people from being confused is false - as true as it otherwise would have been in normal circumstances - because his and now derekmcd's motivation in their attacking me is becoming hating me and the 'protection of people from non-standard physics' doesn't really come into it and only serves as a convenient cover or excuse</p><p> </p><p>last night I answered to derekmcd's 'disection' of my original post (just above here somewhere) and anybody who cares to read that long post must see the painstaking way I tried to explain every point he made, I can only wish that so called 'cranks' would post as I do because then I would find it interesting reading and food for thought even if I didn't buy into their view</p><p>but instead my posts are likened to someone who posted here some time back a totally meaningless collection of words that didn't make any sense at all, that's why I didn't spare derekmcd at all and at times replying to his objections I felt sorry for him because he picked on stronger adversary if I say so myself </p><p>his weakness is that his comments were mostly driven by need to attack me and such need is bad advisor, it clouds one's thinking and one opens himself up to justified counter attacks, myself on the other hand am mainly concerned with how the reality, that is physics is, and I put in justified attacks only as a cherry on top of the cake so to speak, however I felt for him, after reading the closing comments he made on that thread I don't feel sorry for him after all and he deserves all the acerbic lines I treated him with in my replies </p><p> </p><p>I said on that thread I would continue editing it today but the forum won't allow me to save any more changes to it (I didn't know how many more comments were still left there last night and it was 4am), maybe that post is too long now or what, so I will let that last comment of his stand without answer for anybody to see, it doesn't deserve answering really  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Sep 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On a related note, what is your opinion of those who discuss shifts in simultaneity? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br />normally I try to avoid bringing simultaneity into thought experiments in SR and I try to discourage people doing that, I think that unnecessarily complicates the examples and they are then difficult to follow in abstract thinking, it is much better to structure the thought experiment in such a way (if possible) so as not to have to employ the concept of simultaneity</p><p> </p><p>shift in simultaneity, I suppose that refers to the case when events which are simultaneous from a given vantage point are not so from another one</p><p>such shift is very simply due to the change in the length of a path that light has to travel from the event to observer and I have no problem with that</p><p> </p><p>suppose you have a triangle that has all sides equal (I forgot what its called, perhaps isoceless?) and two events happen at two of its corners and the observer is located at the third point, then he sees the two events as simultaneous provided they did happen simultaneously</p><p>now if the triangle is altered so that the observer has longer path to one of the events than to the other, then he won't see the two events happening at the same time even if they happen at the same time in fact (as before) and that's simply because light from one event (closer to him) got to him before that from the other (now farther from him due to triangle not being even sided anymore) </p><p>I can't see anybody having problem with such shifts, given the fact that light has finite speed they are bound to happen</p><p>also I don't want to be taken as some arbiter LOL as forcefully as I come across making my points, I got enough to keep handle of myself and I feel more comfortable in a give and take discussion and when being wrong doesn't earn me being attacked </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

UncertainH · Sep 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am strictly in the right because it really is nonsense (talking what the world looks like from the point of view of photon) Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Wow, this thread is getting ridiculous. I wonder if the original poster feels that his question was addressed. It is good to question things and look at things from different points of view and to question fundamentals while maintaining, of course, a good hold on logic (courtesy and humility too). The only thing I've learned from this thread is that a frame of reference moving at the speed of light is not considered an inertial frame by definition based on the assumptions of current theory. To question that seems to cause nothing but bickering. That is the nonsense ! Not the question.</p>

DrRocket · Sep 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I can see the need for such forums to be out there I suggest that all budding science acolytes that want to use a forum as a learning place go to such boards where they won't be confused by non-official physics being presented often with no clear borderline as separation line between what is official accepted view and what is not but all that justification of DrRocket - the case that he made for his guardianship here to protect people from being confused is false - as true as it otherwise would have been in normal circumstances - because his and now derekmcd's motivation in their attacking me is becoming hating me and the 'protection of people from non-standard physics' doesn't really come into it and only serves as a convenient cover or excuse last night I answered to derekmcd's 'disection' of my original post ...Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>I don't hate you at all.  You rather amusing, and in fact comical in your outrage.  I don't have any problem with non-standard physics at a research level either.  And at a research level the physics with which you are dealing may all be non-standard.  You need new and fresh approaches at that leve.  But those approaches must conform to the correspondence principle -- see earlier post.</p><p>But speculation that seeks to contradict standard physics in circumstances in which is is well-know to provide extremely accurate predictions and where that ability is supported by a massive amount of experimental data is not non-standard physics, it is not physics at all.  It is just delusional ranting that serves no purpose whatever.  It is not productive.  It is not creative.  It is not a sign of inspiration.  It is just wacko. </p><p>One never sees such notions stated with precision -- with mathematical formalism that permist evaluation of the implications of the idea.  Indeed one never sees a clear statement at all.  Statement such as there is an "absolute reference frame" are never accompanied by an example of such a reference frame that can be objectively evaluated.  Trash speculation deserves to be trashed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>shift in simultaneity, I suppose that refers to the case when events which are simultaneous from a given vantage point are not so from another one such shift is very simply due to the change in the length of a path that light has to travel from the event to observer and I have no problem with that<br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>I am referring to the shift in simultaneity experienced by the twins in the twins "paradox". It has little to do with the length of the path <em>that light has to travel</em> from the event to the observer. When the twin returns from his relativistic journey, he finds he is younger than his twin who essentially stayed in an inertial frame of reference throughout. To return, the travelling twin had to turn around, and during the turnaround the travelling twin is not in an inertial frame of reference. The more distant the two twins are when one turns around, the larger the shift in simultaneity.</p><p>The relativity of simultaneity is not about light-travel time - do you remember us having this conversation before? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

Horizons/power/photons

why06

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vandivx

Guest

vandivx

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

why06

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vandivx

Guest

R1

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

UncertainH

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vandivx

Guest

why06

Guest

vandivx

Guest

vandivx

Guest

UncertainH

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page