1
New Theories / Re: Re: Law of Conservation of Energy?
« on: 16/10/2021 08:36:27 »
Some of the lights energy in this idea is given up to collisions as well which I should have said, but it's still all accounted for.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: Re: Law of Conservation of Energy?
« on: 16/10/2021 08:32:08 »
When light is stretched? Are you referring to tired light? This is just a redshift on light. There's no missing energy.
3
New Theories / Re: Time as an observable
« on: 16/10/2021 08:27:38 »
I did at one time explore a line element in which you treat time as an operator along with the usual space dimensions. But that would be for extended discussion outside the scope of this post. The real thing I want to explore is whether curvature manifests time in a natural way to be itself observable. We can see curvature, and certainly GR uses time in a clever way to manifest curvature as a warping of space.
4
New Theories / Re: Time as an observable
« on: 16/10/2021 08:22:24 »
It's a tad difficult following this last post. Are you saying time is something to do with the observer? I mean I do agree. The theory of relativity is an observer-dependent theory. Another issue, is whether time can be made into an operator. There is an invariant time operator of the form R/c however, it might be argued this is trivial. There's also the unitary operator of time evolution, but again, is this a non-trivial operator?
5
New Theories / Time as an observable
« on: 16/10/2021 03:06:15 »
One issue quantum mechanics has is that while space is an observable, time isn't. I'd like to challenge this if we can.
General relativity treats time as quite special, as a leg of the Pythagorean triangle and in fact with it, general relativity was capable of manifesting curvature.
It is by this, that I say, time is manifested an observable from the curvature of space. Space bends because of time. Therefore when we observe curvature, we are seeing time "in" space, or at least, the effects of the warping of time and space.
General relativity treats time as quite special, as a leg of the Pythagorean triangle and in fact with it, general relativity was capable of manifesting curvature.
It is by this, that I say, time is manifested an observable from the curvature of space. Space bends because of time. Therefore when we observe curvature, we are seeing time "in" space, or at least, the effects of the warping of time and space.
6
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 02:33:17 »
I think this could be too confusing the whole Newtons thing, because gravity, while it is true the acceleration is a gravitational field strength (g) in Newtons per kg. But the idea of Newtonians field and that described by Einstein are very different.
7
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 02:25:43 »
But that's what you would be saying from this dichotomy. If you accept gravity is the curvature of space, and you think its a force, then stating it's a real force that is measured in Newtons.
8
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 02:18:19 »Newtons are a measure of force, by definition. If you are measuring newtons, you are measuring force.
You need to update yourself. Newtons idea of gravity was long overthrown by General Relativity. Spacetime is not mediated by a Newton. It's not mediated by particles which can exert a force as Newtons.
9
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 02:13:10 »No because general relativity is from first principles, a classical pseudo force. What do we mean by this?
It's equivelent to saying gravity is a "false" force.
Centrifugal force is a "false" force too, but it's still a force nonetheless. Otherwise, you couldn't measure it in newtons.
No if you actually investigate, you will be told the same thing. There are four classical forces, which aren't really forces. Here, I've taken the liberty to find you information.
"As a frame can accelerate in any arbitrary way, so can fictitious forces be as arbitrary (but only in direct response to the acceleration of the frame). ... Gravitational force would also be a fictitious force based upon a field model in which particles distort spacetime due to their mass, such as general relativity"
Wiki
10
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 02:01:56 »You're failing, intentionally, to listening to what I am saying.
I know what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't produce a force.
No because general relativity is from first principles, a classical pseudo force. What do we mean by this?
It's equivelent to saying gravity is a "false" force.
11
New Theories / Re: Energy equals !
« on: 16/10/2021 01:58:10 »That equation doesn't make sense. You can't put a physical objects like electrons and protons into an equation.
Of course not but you can create a physics formula that describes the physics without any falsities and very simple to understand instead of energy equivalents that come across as nonsense to most people .
Everyone can understand that an atoms components are composed of Protons and Electrons and atoms have a volume .
Atoms are energy are they not ?
Of course you can also expand on this and do numbers if you like but this is easy to understand and also applies to quantum fields emitted by the convergence of a proton and electron .
I hope that Bogey person reads this thread !
You've been told this isn't how you make an equation. Worst yet if we did entertain an equation of this sort, the dimensions are utterly wrong. It's strange as well you divide it with volume. You do this for energy density, not energy.
12
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 01:55:15 »F = mg is completely redescribed by curvature in GR. Not force.
You know that that "F" in that equation is force, right?
If course I am aware. What I'm trying to make you aware of is that force falls out of GR. It's replaced with some partial derivative of the metric g_00. You're failing, intentionally, to listening to what I am saying.
13
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 00:35:31 »
You'd know these things if you derived GR from Newtons classical equations.
14
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 00:34:49 »It's not a force.
Then my bathroom scale wouldn't measure anything.
F = mg is completely redescribed by curvature in GR. Not force.
15
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 16/10/2021 00:08:16 »What you experience is space pushing down on you.
And that push is a force.
It's not a force. It's the manifestation of curvature. One has to be careful to distinguish between pseudo forces and quantum force fields.
16
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 15/10/2021 23:30:37 »Not quite. A real field that exerts a force requires a mediator. Gravity is manifestly a pseudo force.
If you don't think gravity exerts a force, then I'm guessing you've never used a bathroom scale before.
Gravity is not a force in GR. It's just as simple as that. What you experience is space pushing down on you.
17
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 15/10/2021 22:42:05 »A photons path is bent by bent space so certainly there must be a force on the photon? (change of momentum occurs).
Yes, in that case, gravity does indeed exert a force on the photon in question.
Not quite. A real field that exerts a force requires a mediator. Gravity is manifestly a pseudo force.
18
New Theories / Re: Are there Forces on a Photon?
« on: 15/10/2021 22:04:46 »A photons path is bent by bent space so certainly there must be a force on the photon? (change of momentum occurs).
A photons path is not ''bent'' by ''bent'' space ! Firstly the word we use is curvature , not ''bent'' .
A photon travels in general a straight path unless it is deflected or reflected etc . Additionally photons tend to travel where ever the energy is required but this is also what we call linear vectors .
A single photon has a very limited force because of the formula E=mc^2 but a ''packet'' of photons can exert more force as observed in the photon electrical effect .
When considering the mass and force involved in photons it is better to consider them in a XY format rather than a singular photon !
Visual matter can absorb a single photon potential energy no bother but when bombarding with lots of photons , Newtons third law applies and the visual matter ''pushes back'' in the form of photon electrical effect .
There are some ways you can talk about the mass of a photon, but reading this I feel you have the wrong idea. Yes mass decreases like (m - M)c^2 as a photon is emitted from a box. Virtual photons can also have mass. But you'll recieve bad attention saying it is a rest mass. A photon can have a relativistic mass. The correct formula is when rest mass m=0 and the energy of a photon E =pc.
19
New Theories / Re: How Many Numbers Exist?
« on: 15/10/2021 21:47:47 »
It's sort of the point here. Physics breaks down below this length.
20
New Theories / Re: How Many Numbers Exist?
« on: 14/10/2021 19:08:11 »@BilboGrabbins
Hi there!
🙋
I have a Query, Especially for You.
Interested?
A_______B
A simple line.
Start point A.
End point B.
I suppose i can keep dividing it into Halves.
But considering Planck's Length, Can i Divide it until Infinity?
If i Know the Line's point of Origin(A) & am Aware of the Line's point of Cessation(B)...Does that sound like Infinity?
Or if i didn't know the Origin, n was clueless bout the End.
Infinity!
Ps - Thanks E_S for the suggestions.
I've Realized my capacity to understand & learn is Not infinite.
Hence i do not bother myself, & also spare Others of goin thru the troubles of explaining me things which i Firmly Believe i shall never understand.
(Reason i Request for short & brief answers, i Hate it when Teachers waste their Precious Time on Futile Things)
: )
No, to divide through the Planck length infinitely many times would be equivelent to a singularity. That is itself equivelent to a breakdown in physics.