The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the driving force behind photons?  (Read 42482 times)

lyner

  • Guest
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #25 on: 11/12/2008 18:41:01 »
You can say that a photon has energy and momentum but not mass.
This is yet another thread in which some people seem to be determined to explain something 'new', just in terms which are 'old'. It really can't be done. The Victorians tried it and had to give way to Modern Physics.
 

Offline labview1958

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #26 on: 13/12/2008 10:07:16 »
My hunch is that SPACE has something to do with energy.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #27 on: 18/12/2008 05:28:00 »
Let us all agree on that photons are a mystery:)
What one should knew though is that they always seem to choose the path of least resistance.
And if we define the 'shortest path' as the one costing least energy to traverse.
Then the photons follows it too.

Some folks like the photons to be waves, as that makes them more 'treatable', for example when explaining tunneling.
Fewer like them to be particles, the problem here being that we only need to touch ourself to know what a particle is. Namely 'Matter'.
But there are definite proofs, even without the 'two slit' experiments, showing us the photons 'particle-like' qualities.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4806905/The-Fisika-Nobel-Prize-in-Physics-2005

We say that the photon have an 'instant motion'. That means that it has no acceleration what so ever.
We also say that it is 'massless', I believe in that:) and to me it explains it's 'speed'.
But it also creates a problem as it obeys spacetime (gravity that is)
Why does it do so, without any invariant mass/rest mass to it?

One solution could have been its momentum, as that behaves much the same as an added 'mass'.
But considering my thread at http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18809.msg211722 where I try to explain acceleration as a 'gravity well' at the stern?

On the other hand, momentum, if seen as something geometrically defined to any given object, will place itself at the front of a objects velocity, am I right there?
And as light has no acceleration but only a uniform motion :)

But photons/waves are very strange objects.

-------

i forgot one other thing that also mystifies me.
Internally a photon is seen as being timeless.
So if there was something inside a photon observing one could expect it to see the universe die.
As it was traveling at 'c'.

That is what would happen if we ever succeeded accelerating matter near 'c' enough.
But then it would be about 'accelerating' right:)
Not just instant 'coasting' as our photon does.
So if you like you could see that as a proof of the difference between 'uniform motion' aka 'coasting' and acceleration.
Especially if we accept that photons also are particles, even if massless?
Ah well, well come to the headache::))
« Last Edit: 18/12/2008 05:40:05 by yor_on »
 

Offline labview1958

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #28 on: 23/12/2008 10:35:41 »
When we throw a stone in a pond, waves are produced. Similarly when an atom is disturbed it causes space to move in such a way as to appear the photon is moving. That's the driving force.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #29 on: 24/12/2008 17:48:18 »
It seems to me that 'time' is 'the' component 'binding' what we call spacetime?
Giving us a whole experience of it, and to waves too:)

If invariant mass is what creates 'space' and that other expression that we see as gravity?

And if photons are massless and move at 'c' in a vacuum:)
But still follows spacetime (gravity)
Then there might be a definition for them relating more to spacetime itself than to what we see as external sources.
But as I still see suns as true 'sources' I don't understand how?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #30 on: 24/12/2008 19:09:13 »
Hi All!

I wonder if some sharp heads can explain what is the driving force behind the movement of electromagnetic radiation - why does light move - if it does. Does light use some energy to move it self or it does not move any resistance?

Thanks!

Manjit

<Mod edit - Formatted the subject as a question - please do this to help keep the forum tidy and easy to navigate - thanks!>

The answer to this is simple.

Photons do not contain rest mass. I would show you the math, but i can't be arsed doing all the math, but i will if you ask. It means, that rest mass is what stops a particle from displaying a speed which is similar to tht of the speed of light, because it would need an infinite amount of energy to do so, and even if it could the laws of conservation state it would require more than what the universe could yield, as i said in another thread.

You can also say, according to relativity theory, a photon has no rest-inertia, where it can decelerate under a force. This was different to a mass who's acceleration can differ under material influence. Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever... and if we are to trust relativity here, this MUST ALSO MEAN space as well, so a photon doesn't really go anywhere, according to theory.

In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere, it suggests that even if it did move at light speed (as in Dirac's Hole theory), it could go no where!!!! It would travel in jagged paths that soon converge on themselves again. so there are a lot of things to consider what keeps a photon in motion, but the best i feel is that it is an innate property of energy.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #31 on: 24/12/2008 20:47:02 »
The answer to this is simple.

Photons do not contain rest mass. I would show you the math, but i can't be arsed doing all the math, but i will if you ask. It means, that rest mass is what stops a particle from displaying a speed which is similar to tht of the speed of light, because it would need an infinite amount of energy to do so, and even if it could the laws of conservation state it would require more than what the universe could yield, as i said in another thread.

You can also say, according to relativity theory, a photon has no rest-inertia, where it can decelerate under a force. This was different to a mass who's acceleration can differ under material influence.
Ok.

Quote
Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever...
A photon's point of view doesn't exist.

Quote
and if we are to trust relativity here, this MUST ALSO MEAN space as well, so a photon doesn't really go anywhere, according to theory.
Incorrect. Think about it another time.

Quote
In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere, it suggests that even if it did move at light speed (as in Dirac's Hole theory), it could go no where!!!! It would travel in jagged paths that soon converge on themselves again.
Did you smoke strong stuff?   :)
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #32 on: 24/12/2008 21:00:45 »
The answer to this is simple.

Photons do not contain rest mass. I would show you the math, but i can't be arsed doing all the math, but i will if you ask. It means, that rest mass is what stops a particle from displaying a speed which is similar to tht of the speed of light, because it would need an infinite amount of energy to do so, and even if it could the laws of conservation state it would require more than what the universe could yield, as i said in another thread.

You can also say, according to relativity theory, a photon has no rest-inertia, where it can decelerate under a force. This was different to a mass who's acceleration can differ under material influence.
Ok.

Quote
Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever...
A photon's point of view doesn't exist.

Quote
and if we are to trust relativity here, this MUST ALSO MEAN space as well, so a photon doesn't really go anywhere, according to theory.
Incorrect. Think about it another time.

Quote
In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere, it suggests that even if it did move at light speed (as in Dirac's Hole theory), it could go no where!!!! It would travel in jagged paths that soon converge on themselves again.
Did you smoke strong stuff?   :)

Don't patronize me. I can assure you what i said was true.

For starters, according to Lorentzian Geometry, rotations in space are time dependant. This is what allowed Minkowski to develop a mathematical ntheory based on Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, making space time, and time space. They where the same, being called the ''four dimensions of space,'' with tine being the ''imaginary space dimension.'' It meant that if something does anything in time, it must do it in space. This is a basic law of relativity.

And your latter comment only shows how ignorant you are of phsyics. Diracs Hole Theory, was his prediction of positron, a positive anti-electron. If two electrons woukd be created from one place, would experience entanglement. But it also meant, that when the electron was created from the vacuum, its birth created an anti-partner: This meant the real particle left behind a hole. His theory worked so well, it corrollated strongly with Pauli's Exclusion Principle, where electron must obey energy patterns of cancellation, was in fact, the grail, and meaning of why we have the materials we have today. 

If you want to know more, i'd be happy to help?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #33 on: 24/12/2008 23:19:47 »
I think we need you both :)
At least I do.

It's the 'kick' of my life reading and learning from you guys and gals.
It keeps my mind 'working', if ever so confusingly.

And...

A merry Christmas and a (hopefully so) good new year to you all.

------

Forgot to say, yes mr. S if you got time:)
I got some eyes:)

Keep it on, what you presented so far sounds like you've been 'mulling it over' for quite some time.
Seeing the way and ease with which you seem to 'bind ideas together' interests me.
And the way you treat time.

Presenting an idea or view 'anonymously' doesn't crave the stringency and mathematical proofs one might be expected to use when presenting that concept to one's 'peers', so, if I was an scientist, I would love to test my ideas here.

Also it gives one the chance to see if one really know ones ideas 'in depth' as a clear mind (as I see it) should be able to make sense using words too.

As well as allowing people like me to understand you guys/gals :)



« Last Edit: 25/12/2008 00:01:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #34 on: 25/12/2008 00:07:29 »
Quote
It meant that if something does anything in time, it must do it in space

This is not so.  While the temporal dimension can be considered to be the same as the spatial dimensions, it does have different characteristics.

For example...

Think of a number.

Divide it by two.

Right - there we have created and then changed something in the temporal dimension without involving any of the spatial dimensions.  The value that we were working with occupies zero spatial size and any numerical operation we perform upon it will have no effect in any spatial dimension.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #35 on: 25/12/2008 00:11:41 »
Quote
It meant that if something does anything in time, it must do it in space

This is not so.  While the temporal dimension can be considered to be the same as the spatial dimensions, it does have different characteristics.

For example...

Think of a number.

Divide it by two.

Right - there we have created and then changed something in the temporal dimension without involving any of the spatial dimensions.  The value that we were working with occupies zero spatial size and any numerical operation we perform upon it will have no effect in any spatial dimension.

You are kidding yes?

I can't believe this around here. What knowledge of this subject do you possess? Because it sounds right now like you know very little....
 

lyner

  • Guest
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #36 on: 25/12/2008 00:25:11 »
Why can't you have half a second in the same way as you can have half a metre?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #37 on: 25/12/2008 00:49:21 »
LeeE?
Isn't this called 'spacetime'.

Whatever it is, it have time as one 'foundation'.
To me it seems that there is no possible way to isolate time from space.
Whatever we do, eat sh* or think, we are doing it inside spacetime, and as in all our endeavors (a sad sad joke is mine mind:) involving entropy (energy transformations:)
Even 'mere' thinking will cost you, energy wise.

To me it seems very difficult to lift out 'time' on its own.
Not caring for how to see it, as a 'flow' or as 'events'.
Time and space goes together even though we don't know why.
At least I don't.

But we are starting to get an inkling towards 'how' if Einstein got it right:)
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #38 on: 25/12/2008 17:34:57 »
Don't patronize me. I can assure you what i said was true.
I'm not sure what "patronize" exactly means in this context, anyway, if you have something interesting to say I'm interested in. But of course if you make a statment concerning some new theory, you can't expect from us that we could believe you without something more.

Can you explain better what means:
"In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere"
"Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever"
"it suggests that even if it did move at light speed"
(why, a photon does NOT move at light speed? ???)

Quote
For starters, according to Lorentzian Geometry, rotations in space are time dependant. This is what allowed Minkowski to develop a mathematical ntheory based on Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, making space time, and time space. They where the same, being called the ''four dimensions of space,'' with time being the ''imaginary space dimension.'' It meant that if something does anything in time, it must do it in space. This is a basic law of relativity.
Don't know how you want to interpret special relativity, but if you stay still in a point and let time flow...you have moved in the time but not in the space.

Quote
And your latter comment only shows how ignorant you are of phsyics.
Thank you, I had indeed some suspect about it... :)Actually, we all are always ignorant about physics, as well as anything else, however it's a pleasure to have it told to us, sometimes... :)

Quote
Diracs Hole Theory, was his prediction of positron, a positive anti-electron. If two electrons woud be created from one place, would experience entanglement. But it also meant, that when the electron was created from the vacuum, its birth created an anti-partner: This meant the real particle left behind a hole. His theory worked so well, it corrollated strongly with Pauli's Exclusion Principle, where electron must obey energy patterns of cancellation, was in fact, the grail, and meaning of why we have the materials we have today. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

Quote
Inelegance of Dirac sea

Despite its success, the idea of the Dirac sea tends not to strike people as very elegant. The existence of the sea implies an infinite negative electric charge filling all of space. In order to make any sense out of this, one must assume that the "bare vacuum" must have an infinite positive charge density which is exactly cancelled by the Dirac sea. Since the absolute energy density is unobservable—the cosmological constant aside—the infinite energy density of the vacuum does not represent a problem. Only changes in the energy density are observable. Landis also notes that Pauli exclusion does not definitively mean that a filled Dirac sea cannot accept more electrons, since, as Hilbert elucidated, a sea of infinite extent can accept new particles even if it is filled. This happens when we have a chiral anomaly and a gauge instanton.

The development of quantum field theory in the 1930s made it possible to reformulate the Dirac equation in a way that treats the positron as a "real" particle rather than the absence of a particle, and makes the vacuum the state in which no particles exist instead of an infinite sea of particles. This picture is much more convincing, especially since it recaptures all the valid predictions of the Dirac sea, such as electron-positron annihilation. On the other hand, the field formulation does not eliminate all the difficulties raised by the Dirac sea; in particular the problem of the vacuum possessing infinite energy.
« Last Edit: 25/12/2008 18:02:32 by lightarrow »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #39 on: 26/12/2008 00:15:44 »
Quote
You are kidding yes?
No.

Quote
I can't believe this around here
That's up to you.

Quote
What knowledge of this subject do you possess? Because it sounds right now like you know very little...
I'm not going to answer the first part because I don't need to.  I'm curious as to what you expected to achieve by the second part, but no so curious that I can be bothered to find out.
----

From a more polite post:

Quote
LeeE?
Isn't this called 'spacetime'.

Yes, is is.  While the both the spatial and temporal dimensions can be regarded as equivalent to each other, they have different characteristics from our point of view.  For example, let's consider a stationary object and say that the object changes over time but does not move in space.  In this case the object has changed it's temporal coordinates but not it's spatial coordinates.  When we consider a moving object though, both it's temporal and spatial coordinate are changing.  The key difference between the temporal and spatial dimensions then, from our point of view, is that any change cannot occur without a change in time but it can occur without a change in space.

This doesn't upset the idea of a single spacetime concept but you do have to be aware of your point of view within it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #40 on: 26/12/2008 15:24:23 »
See your point LeeE, the problem here being mine and yours definitions.
You do not 'drop out' of mine by defining it like this:)
As the object never is seen to exist outside of 'spacetime'.

In the first example you were discussing a pure thought experiment and there I had this principal objection that thoughts too costs energy so even then you're 'working' inside our spacetime.

To prove otherwise seems very difficult as you need to disconnect time from space.
That is not necessarily the same as to say that they are equivalent and/or exchangeable.
One of my strongest beliefs is that time is 'unique' in some way:)
But I can't prove it, in fact I can't even think up a experiment for 'treating' time on its own.
The arrow exist but loses its coherence in QM. but even there it is connected to our other 'dimensions' as far as I understand.

Maybe it's possible?
But it will have to be free of those other 'dimensions'.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #41 on: 26/12/2008 16:12:30 »
Lightarrow

I was speaking about the electron moving at lightspeed, was i not? This is a consequence of wedding relativity and quantum mechanics together; and whilst there are inelegences of the Dirac Theory, it is however a theory with most of its components with good experiemental and observational qualities to that of reality, such as the prediction of an existence of an opposite electron.

Right, you want me to go over the comments:


Can you explain better what means:
"In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere"
"Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever"
"it suggests that even if it did move at light speed" (why, a photon does NOT move at light speed? )


1] A photon, from its frame of existence, makes it a null path through the four dimensions of space. This means, because moving at the speed of light freezes all moments passing outside, it can't go anywhere! If you could travel up to the speed of light, you would notice movement outside slowing down, and upon reaching lightspeed, it stops completely, including your trajectroy along a given distance.

2] If it doesn't move through a distance in space, Minkowskian Geometry of Relativity leaves the experience of time as well obsolete. Because you cannot have a rotation in spacetime without a movement in time, it makes both space and time not only complimentary, but also invaraint under being the same thing, hence ''spacetime.'' So if you move through no space at lightspeed, you also experience no time.

3] No the point was, ''despite knowing it moved at lightspeed,'' because from our point of view (the only point of view which remains valid), is that a photon does travel across distances. But from its point of view, it goes no where.

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #42 on: 26/12/2008 17:00:03 »
Lightarrow

I was speaking about the electron moving at lightspeed, was i not? This is a consequence of wedding relativity and quantum mechanics together; and whilst there are inelegences of the Dirac Theory, it is however a theory with most of its components with good experiemental and observational qualities to that of reality, such as the prediction of an existence of an opposite electron.

Right, you want me to go over the comments:


Can you explain better what means:
"In fact, because a photon can't move anywhere"
"Instead, if you could see life from a photons point of view, it experiences no time whatsoever"
"it suggests that even if it did move at light speed" (why, a photon does NOT move at light speed? )


1] A photon, from its frame of existence, makes it a null path through the four dimensions of space. This means, because moving at the speed of light freezes all moments passing outside, it can't go anywhere! If you could travel up to the speed of light, you would notice movement outside slowing down, and upon reaching lightspeed, it stops completely, including your trajectroy along a given distance.

2] If it doesn't move through a distance in space, Minkowskian Geometry of Relativity leaves the experience of time as well obsolete. Because you cannot have a rotation in spacetime without a movement in time, it makes both space and time not only complimentary, but also invaraint under being the same thing, hence ''spacetime.'' So if you move through no space at lightspeed, you also experience no time.

3] No the point was, ''despite knowing it moved at lightspeed,'' because from our point of view (the only point of view which remains valid), is that a photon does travel across distances. But from its point of view, it goes no where.



1. "A photon, from its frame of existence". Its frame of existence doesn't exist.
"This means, because moving at the speed of light freezes all moments passing outside, it can't go anywhere."
If you intend to say that the interval is zero, that's another story.
"If you could travel up to the speed of light, you would notice movement outside slowing down."
Nonsense.

2. The fact distances are Lorentz contracted from the ref. frame of you in a fast moving spaceship, let's say 200,000 km/s, doesn't mean that you don't travel in space: if you divide the space travelled in your ref. frame by the time elapsed in your ref. frame, you still get 200,000 km/s as speed of the external objects moving with respect to you.

3. See up.
« Last Edit: 29/12/2008 18:28:14 by lightarrow »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #43 on: 26/12/2008 17:42:41 »
Mr S you say that " upon reaching lightspeed, it stops completely, including your trajectory along a given distance. "

I kind of like it :)
Even though my headache now reaches Gigantic proportions...

Because what you are introducing here is what our 'thinking photon' would notice.
If time is bound to acceleration/'uniform motion' and those other three dimensions that give us what we call 'distance'.

But I would first expect this proof to work out mathematically as well?
We use three spatial dimensions for defining our 'place' in a 'uniform' space.

The fourth is for relating that point in and to, you guessed it, :) 'time'.
But as LeeE described, one could 'look away' from time by define our object to the exact same spatial references not caring for the time passing.
Even though it's 'impossible' to do as I see it (for now:), if we could, then motion and distance would become something else.

If this statement is correct then either 'time' is something we don't describe right, or those other 'coordinates' we use is a direct outgrowth of 'time'.

Or is there some better way to look at it?
« Last Edit: 26/12/2008 17:51:34 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #44 on: 26/12/2008 18:46:41 »
The thing here is that I do know that this is related to different 'frames of reference'.
But it is with that as with treating what I see as 'particles' as being the same as waves.
In my ordinary world, the one I believe we all are living in:), distances, as well as matter, do exist.
And evidence to the contrary I still differ between time and distance, light and matter.
Somewhere there must be an explanation for how it 'meets'.

It's the same problem as viewing a photon interact with us.
It may or may not be of one 'uniform' frame when 'traveling'.
If we look at some 'construct' like a spaceship accelerating it seems that it breaks up in an 'infinite' amount of frames looking at red and blue shift as seen inside it.
The photon just 'coast', is by definition massless, and without any accelerating 'attributes'.

But it do interact with us, at all times, and we do have major sources for it, placed at a distance.
At times I just stop to look at what you write here.
Searching for that 'holy writ' explaining it all, and other times I forget what I already learnt reading you:)

If we choose a wave patterned explanation it still won't explain the difference between 'matter' and light.
Or have anyone succeeded in defining 'matter' in form of waves?
And time?

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

If we looked at solely in form of 'frames'.
Each one containing differing 'attributes' we deem as 'time' 'density' and 'space'.
Or does 'density' cover 'space' too?
'Time' and 'Density' then?

Depending on what we call 'acceleration' those 'frames' becomes 'more' (splits up?), than seen as something 'uniformly coasting' (photons).
Each one containing its own amount of 'time' unique for that frame.

Where/how would we place/describe waves in those 'frames' as observed inside that same frame?
« Last Edit: 26/12/2008 19:13:25 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #45 on: 26/12/2008 20:03:45 »
Mr S you say that " upon reaching lightspeed, it stops completely, including your trajectory along a given distance. "

I kind of like it :)
Even though my headache now reaches Gigantic proportions...

Because what you are introducing here is what our 'thinking photon' would notice.
If time is bound to acceleration/'uniform motion' and those other three dimensions that give us what we call 'distance'.

But I would first expect this proof to work out mathematically as well?
We use three spatial dimensions for defining our 'place' in a 'uniform' space.

The fourth is for relating that point in and to, you guessed it, :) 'time'.
But as LeeE described, one could 'look away' from time by define our object to the exact same spatial references not caring for the time passing.
Even though it's 'impossible' to do as I see it (for now:), if we could, then motion and distance would become something else.

If this statement is correct then either 'time' is something we don't describe right, or those other 'coordinates' we use is a direct outgrowth of 'time'.

Or is there some better way to look at it?


Quite right. All did was took real physics, and just applied the photon with a consciousness, so that we can observe the world and see what would happen. A weird consequence of relativity, is that everything freezes at lightspeed around the object, so time would pass normally for ticking atomic clocks, but not ones frozen by their null path speeds. These are bosons, particles that have no physical, or invaraint mass.

There is proof, as well. I could show some Cardesian Coordinates as highlighted by special relativity, we would see that space is entangled with the time variable. It acts just like an space dimension, and so, is irremovable from space itself. So time becomes, ''spacetime.''

But the difference is, there can be no escaping the effects of relativity, (as you asked),

''one could 'look away' from time by define our object to the exact same spatial references not caring for the time passing''

Makes little difference. You can't deal with space and time seperately in a true relativistic map of motion, and passing moments. Time cannot simply disappear. It's an invariant of space.

As for describing time, we have a theory, the onlt vague interpretation of Minkowskian Geometry, is the Neuroscientific Theory of Consciousness concerning the psychological arrow of time, and various concepts thus relating the physical and the subliminal.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #46 on: 27/12/2008 00:49:27 »
Now I don't know what to say Mr. S.
To me time seems to be crucial for my understanding?
(for now, and always:)
 
I think I can follow what you write here.
And the most interesting idea you lift forward, to me, is the one about "I could show some Cardesian Coordinates as highlighted by special relativity, we would see that space is entangled with the time variable. It acts just like an space dimension, and so, is irremovable from space itself. So time becomes, ''spacetime.''"

It's very elegant, and if one consider a photon, then there can be no 'travel' if it's considered a 'particle.
The problem seems ( at the very least :) two folded.

Either it is 'double-edged' and somehow choose/becomes 'forced' to express its wavelike attributes while traveling?
Or it is 'us' that somehow makes it express 'one' of those attributes by observing.
Our experiments define/locks the outcome so to speak.

But when you come to 'time' you lose me?

You write
"As for describing time, we have a theory, the only vague interpretation of Minkowskian Geometry, is the Neuroscientific Theory of Consciousness concerning the psychological arrow of time, and various concepts thus relating the physical and the subliminal."

I absolutely agree to that we will need to explain/understand consciousness as that is 'the observer' and without a observer, our questions (and therefrom answers) wouldn't 'be'.
Also in some QM phenomena it is very 'visible' that our observing do have an 'effect'.

But the theory you are considering?
"the Neuroscientific Theory of Consciousness concerning the psychological arrow of time, and various concepts thus relating the physical and the subliminal."

It is new to me, and 'subliminal'.
Below the threshold of conscious perception?

I will have to know a lot more on how it treats spacetime to even dare to have a view there:)
But I do not doubt that you have thought about for quite some time.

Is there any experimental evidence for those thoughts that you could lift forward?
No offense meant here.
It's just new to me.





« Last Edit: 27/12/2008 00:53:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #47 on: 27/12/2008 02:21:04 »
Now I don't know what to say Mr. S.
To me time seems to be crucial for my understanding?
(for now, and always:)
 
I think I can follow what you write here.
And the most interesting idea you lift forward, to me, is the one about "I could show some Cardesian Coordinates as highlighted by special relativity, we would see that space is entangled with the time variable. It acts just like an space dimension, and so, is irremovable from space itself. So time becomes, ''spacetime.''"

It's very elegant, and if one consider a photon, then there can be no 'travel' if it's considered a 'particle.
The problem seems ( at the very least :) two folded.

Either it is 'double-edged' and somehow choose/becomes 'forced' to express its wavelike attributes while traveling?
Or it is 'us' that somehow makes it express 'one' of those attributes by observing.
Our experiments define/locks the outcome so to speak.

But when you come to 'time' you lose me?

You write
"As for describing time, we have a theory, the only vague interpretation of Minkowskian Geometry, is the Neuroscientific Theory of Consciousness concerning the psychological arrow of time, and various concepts thus relating the physical and the subliminal."

I absolutely agree to that we will need to explain/understand consciousness as that is 'the observer' and without a observer, our questions (and therefrom answers) wouldn't 'be'.
Also in some QM phenomena it is very 'visible' that our observing do have an 'effect'.

But the theory you are considering?
"the Neuroscientific Theory of Consciousness concerning the psychological arrow of time, and various concepts thus relating the physical and the subliminal."

It is new to me, and 'subliminal'.
Below the threshold of conscious perception?

I will have to know a lot more on how it treats spacetime to even dare to have a view there:)
But I do not doubt that you have thought about for quite some time.

Is there any experimental evidence for those thoughts that you could lift forward?
No offense meant here.
It's just new to me.







I'll start by saying, that we require an observer interdependant model of physics, because the special theory of relativity is purely an observational theory. So it stands to reason we need a quantum model of consciousness.

The subliminal actions of an observer; are the mindless ponderings we never come to observe. There are many theories relating this subject to the absolute square of the wave function, or the collapse of the wave function. There must be many occasions, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when we don't specify enough information in a given frame of time; and if the wave function hasn't correlated well with it, it may continue to be in a state of superpositioning with another statistical value.

Fred Alan Wolf, PhD has come to interpret this as saying, we could theoretically gather enough minds together to create some past event, if that event in question wasn't detailed enough through our observations. Fred reminds us that this subliminal world of thought was not only taken seriously by ''World of Idea's,'' but Roger Penrose, and Amit Goswami both beleive in this subliminal world where the wave function collapses and forms the outside. Penrose says it's analogous to Plato's World of Idea's, and Amit likes to remind us of the statistical side of this.

I have come to interpret the mind as a dimension itself. It seems to have its own degree of freedom, (visually - it experiences three dimensions of perception and awareness). The ability for us to reconcile how a two dimensional image (transopsed) onto the retina is signalled into the three-dimensional networks of the human mind is beyond our fathom of understanding.

We also have a sense of time, also known as the psychological arrow of time. There are several arrows in cosmology, and this psychological arrow represents a forward directionality in time, as do all the arrows. We believe this is caused because there was a very small amount of entropy at the beginning of the universe, and the gradual displacement of matter throughout the universe would imply an increasing chotic system of particles, which we just so happen to call it entropy.

The evidence for time however is debatable. There are ways to have circular arguements including the notion that time is not a real dimension of space, but rather a very clever production of a complex mind.


 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #48 on: 27/12/2008 23:31:49 »
One does not know how to interpret this.
If one said that the arrow of time just was a function of 'expectations' based on the imposing of others 'views'.
What would that make ones 'free choice'?

I like your thinking but have definite problems 'gripping' that?
As for 'time' i do see it as a 'expression' of spacetime.
But in a way I can't help but wonder if it and our 'reference frames' are the same.
As it seems that 'time' is 'reference frames':)

And i will refuse (for now:) to discuss if 'time' is a 'flow' or 'events'.
Why?

Well, I'm yellow:)
or at least in the black.

wandering into blue.

But as I say, you seem to have thought about it.
and even if you people find me flippant, I'm not.
Not really, just questioning.

Nothing is holy, not even I.
Do you get it?

-----

Just one thing.
you are the first I know of, except GoodElf and me that 'admits' that consciousness can't be 'counted out' if one want to create a TOE.
Thats crucial, and to my eyes rather brave:)

So I will expect you to have a lot of 'ground' under your feet here:)
But I believe you have.

so I'm listening.
« Last Edit: 27/12/2008 23:58:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #49 on: 28/12/2008 16:50:13 »
You say
"We also have a sense of time, also known as the psychological arrow of time. There are several arrows in cosmology, and this psychological arrow represents a forward directionality in time, as do all the arrows.

We believe this is caused because there was a very small amount of entropy at the beginning of the universe, and the gradual displacement of matter throughout the universe would imply an increasing chaotic system of particles, which we just so happen to call it entropy."

Do you define this as a 'psychological arrow of time'?
Entropy and time goes hand in hand to me?

And will do so when I'm long dead and gone too??
So to me its an 'objective arrow of time' in that I don't direct it.
Spacetime does, not me as far as I know:)

So how do you define it?
Like I do, or is there something more you add into it when defining it.
« Last Edit: 28/12/2008 16:55:34 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is the driving force behind photons?
« Reply #49 on: 28/12/2008 16:50:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums