Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: manjit on 25/09/2008 09:03:01
-
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!>
-
A little correction
Hi All!
"Does light use some energy to move it self or it does not move any resistance?"
There should be:- Does light use some form of energy to move it self or it does not meet any resistance in the space.
Thanks!
Manjit
-
I think you mean "What gives a photon its velocity?". Unfortunately, I cannot provide an answer.
-
Light is electromagnetic (EM) radiation; put simply this is a changing electrical field which induces a changing magnetic field which in turn produces a changing electric field, and so on. This field propagates from the source like ripples on a pond. There's nothing at ehe edges of the pond pulling the ripples towards it, they move there because this is the way to maximally disperse the energy that caused the ripple in the first place.
So these ripples spread out from their point of origin; it's the same with a radio transmitter. At the ripple source there is a lot of energy in this one place which is dispersed as the waves move further from the source because the energy is effectively being spread over a larger volume of space. This is why the inverse square law applies; that is, if you double the distance the energy falls to 1/4 of what it was previously.
Chris
-
The speed of photons is dictated by the geometry of spacetime. All waves in the vacuum (when left to their own devices and not interacting with matter or any other fields) will travel at one and the same speed "c". This is a fundamental constant of nature that has a geometric origin in the fact that space and time together form a single continuum called spacetime. For this to be possible some fundamental constant, "c", should allow the conversion of length units into time units. This c has the units of speed.
-
Could c be different if spacetime were dramatically curved or warped? I'm thinkng of some of the extra-dimensional models such as RS2.
-
Thank you evreybody who has taken some moments to put forth some thoughts in relation to my post!
I just wanted let it be known that I do not have any formal education in physics. Also my english is not very good. Anyway I do have burning interest in some basic natural phenomons. So I hope that every body much more educated than me in these subjects would not mind me posting some questions here in hope to learn more about the nature and hopefully also contribute to the forum afterwhile.
I think you mean "What gives a photon its velocity?". Unfortunately, I cannot provide an answer.
. Thank you! That is what I ment.
Chris I understand that photons are changing magnetic and electric field. But here I also wonder:- Electric field in the first place originate from electrons. When we think about EM radiation propagating through vacuum, there is no electron in the vacuum - or there shoud not be. So how is the electric field generated there?
After reading these valuable posts I now think that there must be some pushing force between the different photons, even consisting of the same frequency. Do photons consist of both north and south magnetic pole? I believe they should. Does electric field have any polarity?
In simple words, the space for me is something related to volume and time is related to some sort of change in a given system, for example the relative laction of the sun or some other process. Can someone please throw some more light on it and also on spacetime?
Many thanks for any thoughts!
manjit
-
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!>
There is only one driving force for everything. It is energy who changing to not so density energy!
-
There is only one driving force for everything. It is energy who changing to not so density energy!
I think JukriS may be referring to entropy here.
-
Could c be different if spacetime were dramatically curved or warped? I'm thinkng of some of the extra-dimensional models such as RS2.
I guess it could be but I suspect that 'c' is always the same within it's space-time frame, although that space-time frame could be distorted and, when viewed by a distant observer, could appear to be different. For example, if we could somehow distort a 1x1x1km volume of spacetime so that it fitted in to a 0.5x0.5x0.5km volume of space and then consider a photon of light passing from 'normal' space, through the 'compressed' region and then back into normal space, to a distant observer the distorted region of space would only appear to be 0.5 km across and light would seem to slow down when it traverses it. The photon of light itself, however, has actually had to travel a full 1km of distance to cross the 0.5km gap between the two regions of 'normal' space.
This would be akin to the pair of clocks that end up recording different periods of time when one is moving and the other is not except that the two differing viewpoints record a different distance instead of time.
-
Could it be that the photons are travelling into the future. The photons disappear and reappear every nanosecond. Thus the photons are stationary. Only space moves. To us it is as the light is moving.
-
Thus the photons are stationary. Only space moves.
Bearing in mind that photons are moving in all directions, which direction is all of space moving`?
-
Propagated by gravity waves that travel in a similar manner to background radiation, travelling at C and moving in all directions.
-
What does 'movement' actually mean in that context?
It does not seem to fit in with the accepted meaning so are you rewriting absolutely everything?
-
Quite right, I should probably have said a constant forward velocity C, and acting in a similar way to background radiation.
-
Could c be different if spacetime were dramatically curved or warped? I'm thinkng of some of the extra-dimensional models such as RS2.
I guess it could be but I suspect that 'c' is always the same within it's space-time frame, although that space-time frame could be distorted and, when viewed by a distant observer, could appear to be different. For example, if we could somehow distort a 1x1x1km volume of spacetime so that it fitted in to a 0.5x0.5x0.5km volume of space and then consider a photon of light passing from 'normal' space, through the 'compressed' region and then back into normal space, to a distant observer the distorted region of space would only appear to be 0.5 km across and light would seem to slow down when it traverses it. The photon of light itself, however, has actually had to travel a full 1km of distance to cross the 0.5km gap between the two regions of 'normal' space.
This would be akin to the pair of clocks that end up recording different periods of time when one is moving and the other is not except that the two differing viewpoints record a different distance instead of time.
That's compression, not warping. Warping involves every point in an area of spacetime being curved in n dimensions. An analogy would be the bell of a trumpet.
On a more technical note, the difference between warping and curvature is that every slice through a warped spacetime has the same geometry; that is not so with curvature.
-
The only difference I can see between compression and warping is when the compression is linear across a region. If the degree of compression changed over distance then I'd say it was curved. I think [:)]
-
The only difference I can see between compression and warping is when the compression is linear across a region. If the degree of compression changed over distance then I'd say it was curved. I think [:)]
I'm not sure about that. I don't know enough about it. Even Lisa Randall got confused by it and had to be corrected by a mathematician.
-
Heh, I'm not sure either, but if you plotted the degree of distortion against distance from a gravity source you'd get a curve. The problem seems to be that you can't fit the curve to any specific direction, except radially from the source, and it's like looking at the graph edge-on, so you only see the axis and not the curve. Dunno for sure though.
-
Maybe space is being "burned" by the em wave as energy is needed to move. Thus in order for light to move space is somehow converted to time.
-
If we put gunpowder in a straight line and light it. The fire will move along the path of the laid gunpowder. Space could be "burned" to provide energy for the light to move through it. Possible?
-
Err...using the same logic would not any object moving through space 'burn' it? Why would photons be special?
You also seem to be assuming that time and space are absolute and inter-convertable, whereas relativity tells us that both are relative.
We can regard movement through space/time as a whole - the more you move through space, the less (relatively) you move through time (and vice-versa) with the total always being c...
-
To return to the original question.
The question is a classical example of conventional terrestrial thinking where objects do not move unless you push them and stop moving if you stop.
It is important to remember one of the fundamental laws of the universe, that is the law of the conservation of energy.
A photon is energy and nothing else and as described above it always moves at the velocity of light. Each photon also represents the smallest possible quantity of energy at that frequency.
It follows that a photon moves from the moment it is emitted until the moment it is absorbed and no additional energy could possibly be needed, gained or lost.
-
A photon is mass/energy. Could it be a photon is mass/energy/space. Which means a photon energy converts to space and back again. This gives the impression is moving forward.
-
A photon is mass/energy
I'm not sure that's a good or helpful way to think of energy.
While photons and matter are both forms of energy it's not really correct to say that they are the same as each other. It's a bit like saying that cider is the same as apple pie, when the fact is that neither of them are apples.
-
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.
-
My hunch is that SPACE has something to do with energy.
-
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::))
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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? [:)]
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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....
-
Why can't you have half a second in the same way as you can have half a metre?
-
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:)
-
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? [???])
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.
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... [:)]
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
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.
-
You are kidding yes?
No.
I can't believe this around here
That's up to you.
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:
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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Let us go back to Newton's law :- A moving body continues to be in motion at the same speed unless acted upon by external forces. So, initially photons get energy from the source from which they are created(for example they are continuously being formed in our sun). Then the photons continue to be at their own velocity as they travel in the space as space is vacuum meaning there is nothing to hinder its motion. Notice that speed of light decreases as it passes through denser medium. So that should basically answer your question.
-
As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors
-
As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors
That's right. Newtonian Physics fail in the New Physics, because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M. Plus, photons do not have a mass, so F=Ma fails generally.
-
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.
Difficult to answer this post. There isn't really any direct questions.
-
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.
I don't personally detail this as times directional definition, but it is the general opinion of most scientists, such as Dr Hawking.
Instead, i believe physical and material functions of the human brain can filter out relativistic laws, and create the illusion of a past and future by specificating an illusionary flow of the perception of time. In much the same sense, time in the way we understand it may not even exist.
-
Do you mean that our perception of time is, somehow, an artificial construct which allows us to function?
That's a bit Zen, isn't it?
How can we consider time 'before' the arrival of homo sapiens?
-
Do you mean that our perception of time is, somehow, an artificial construct which allows us to function?
That's a bit Zen, isn't it?
How can we consider time 'before' the arrival of homo sapiens?
I never quite said that, however, one could say that time as we know, it remains a subjective phenomena, which is purely pyschological. The time we experience, may be very different from any physical time dimension that is objective.
In fact, as far as we can tell concerning the time dimension as described by relativity, a past and a future does not exist... however, subjectively we know from our experiences that there is some kind of distinction of a past and a future, hence again, the illusionary construct of the mind.
What about time before homosapians?
Well, there may not have even been one, in the sense of time as we now know it. But this does leave open a second ineterpretation of time, which means it could have existed, but again, never in the sense that we come to call time a distinction of past and future, where we are stuck in the present.
-
Got to admit that I had come home after ah, having a slightly 'humid' dinner writing that first post.
I should stay away at such times :)
You guys and gals are to sharp for me::))
But that's what new years resolutions is for, right?
to better one responses.
It was more of a 'reflection' actually, as introducing 'consciousness' as a direct influence of our arrow of time seems to go in to so many other ideas 'we' have.
What will it do to our 'observations' for example and to those experiments we've done.
You are questioning where 'time' comes from if I get it right.
And you see it much like photons, defined differently depending on circumstances?
But you see a 'physical' definition that is 'objective'?
As well as a part that is purely a 'construct' of living 'consciousnesses'?
And where should the line be drawn?
We are all animals :)
And we have a fauna too that 'lives' and breaths.
So yes, it is difficult to encompass, as it seems to have so far reaching effects
Can you link us to some experiments differing between those cases of 'time'.
As for living in the 'now'.
We don't, everything we react to by thinking or otherwise 'treat' is a result of events already passed to me.
But I think you mean that 'instant now' that ticks by at all 'times' even though we won't 'notice' it until after its passed.
-
Yes you will find similar thoughts to mine by:
Stuart Hammeroff;
you will find an interview of him on youtube, i think under ''time''
-
:)
-
By the way, i don't think i have ever answered the OP's question.
The answer to what is the driving force of a photon, is that fundamentally speaking, it has energy and momentum, but has a zero-invariant mass.
This is why.
-
Stuart Hammeroff is interesting.
I remember reading about "microtubules, tiny tubes constructed out of a protein called tubulin that make up the skeletons of our cells, including neurons. Tubulin proteins can take at least two different shapes--extended and contracted--so, in theory, they might be able to take both states at once." some years ago? It was interesting but then it seemed to 'die out'.
Now I found an article telling of a guy that have tried to 'count' on the probability of it.
"In the February issue of Physical Review E, Tegmark presents calculations showing just what a terrible environment the brain is for quantum computation. Combining data about the brain's temperature, the sizes of various proposed quantum objects, and disturbances caused by such things as nearby ions, Tegmark calculated how long microtubules and other possible quantum computers within the brain might remain in superposition before they decohere. His answer: The superpositions disappear in 10**-13 to 10**-20 seconds. Because the fastest neurons tend to operate on a time scale of 10**-3 seconds or so, Tegmark concludes that whatever the brain's quantum nature is, it decoheres far too rapidly for the neurons to take advantage of it."
But then on the other hand do one really need a 'quantum computer' for explaining the brain?
A analog signal contains so much more 'information' than a digital, and the brain is definitely not digital.
Also it works both chemically and electro-magnetically.
Maybe one could see it as three information highways interacting?
Wouldn't that quantum computer always win when you flipped that coin?
We don't :) so I think the brains capacity have more to do with its analogue structure than anything else
-
I may not agree with the Tubulin Theory, however, i do believe that quantum mechanics is adiquate, if not complicated to explain an equally complicated subject as human awareness.
-
As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors
That's right. Newtonian Physics fail in the New Physics, because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M. Plus, photons do not have a mass, so F=Ma fails generally.
Newtonian mechanics can't even explain classical light...there is no need to talk about photons.
Furthermore, the reason why photons are not explained by classical physics is certainly much more complex than this. Have you ever heard "Blackbody spectrum", "Photoelectric effect" "Compton effect" ecc. ? Did you notice that an entire new big theory, that is "Quantum Mechanics" had to be developed to explain those phenomena?
-
As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors
That's right. Newtonian Physics fail in the New Physics, because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M. Plus, photons do not have a mass, so F=Ma fails generally.
Newtonian mechanics can't even explain classical light...there is no need to talk about photons.
Furthermore, the reason why photons are not explained by classical physics is certainly much more complex than this. Have you ever heard "Blackbody spectrum", "Photoelectric effect" "Compton effect" ecc. ? Did you notice that an entire new big theory, that is "Quantum Mechanics" had to be developed to explain those phenomena?
Of course i know all these. I was simply showing that F=Ma failed in relativistic math; we needed new math, which Newtonian math could not explain.
-
Of course i know all these. I was simply showing that F=Ma failed in relativistic math; we needed new math, which Newtonian math could not explain.
Ok. I just wanted to point that Newtonian Physics doesn't fail in the New Physics only because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M.
-
Idea of expanding atoms!
Onesimpleprinciple
New model of an atom
The atomcores expand three-dimentionally, opening up energywaves that have
the nature of electron and photon.
So, also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and thats why we have a old light who is redshifting!
-
In reviewing old threads, I came across this one. I'm surprised that among all the very good answers, none really pin pointed the direct cause of the speed of light being c. My view is that it is a fundamental property of space; actually two properties of space. Those properties are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. James Clerk Maxwell wrote down the equations that compute the speed of light using those properties.
Somebody said that it was a property of space-time. My own speculation is that it is properties of space alone. Time is a fixed independent parameter and not a variable as we are recently coming to realize. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20576.0) Albeit kicking and screaming in opposition as we are forced to do so.
-
My view is that it is a fundamental property of space; actually two properties of space. Those properties are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. James Clerk Maxwell wrote down the equations that compute the speed of light using those properties.
I agree with this position Vern but that raises a few questions that need to be answered. For one; If c is determined by the character of space itself, then wouldn't an expanding universe cause c to be a variable unit changing with the passage of the expansion? And; If c appears to be constant throughout the observable universe, doesn't that suggest a static universe and not the expanding one we are lead to believe in?
-
Exactly, Ethos. That is why I like the idea of a static non-expanding classic flat space-time. Tie that together with the notion that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. and you are forced to imagine a universe such as I have imagined it.
That notion is so restrictive that it should be easily disposed of. However, it has never been disposed of and it has been around well over a hundred years. It is a fact that every physical reality that has ever been observed can be easily explained without deviating from the notion that, again, the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Now, given that and the application of Occum's razor, we would expect that different notions would prevail over the notions that have prevailed during these dark ages of Quantamania.[:)]
-
Exactly, Ethos. That is why I like the idea of a static non-expanding classic flat space-time. Tie that together with the notion that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. and you are forced to imagine a universe such as I have imagined it.
This idea is one that has been floating around in my imagination for a while now. I'm going to start a new thread where we can research this topic Vern, and I would appreciate your participation. The title will be: Is our universe static and infinite?
-
I'll look for it.