Post by: talanum1 on 16/04/2020 16:45:07
Does F = ma apply, so that zero mass and finite force imply infinite acceleration?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/04/2020 16:49:35
My theory has it that a tiny force keeps exerting it's influence on a Photon. Why doesn't the Photon keep accelerating?
The fact that it doesn't keep accelerating would be strong evidence that your idea is wrong.
Post by: talanum1 on 16/04/2020 17:57:42
Post by: Kryptid on 16/04/2020 20:08:47
It needs a force to start moving.
How do you know that?
Post by: Janus on 16/04/2020 21:05:06
It needs a force to start moving.Nope. A photon is already moving at c upon its creation.
Quote
Does F = ma apply, so that zero mass and finite force imply infinite acceleration?a = F/m where m equals zero results in a division by zero, which is undefined, not infinite.
This is not a problem for the photon as it never accelerates.
Post by: evan_au on 16/04/2020 21:27:12
Quote from: OP
My theory has it that a tiny force keeps exerting it's influence on a Photon. Why doesn't the Photon keep accelerating?A Metaphor - Waves on a Pond
One of the enduring (and useful) metaphors for light is that of a wave - like a stone dropped in a pond has ripples spreading out.
The stone represents an initial input of energy.
- The waves/ripples carry that energy off "to infinity" (unless it runs into a bank, or reeds, etc).
- Nothing has to accelerate the ripples - they will keep a steady speed assuming that they are in a uniform medium (water of of constant density and depth, and constant gravity, etc).
- Nothing has to retard the ripples - they will keep a steady speed assuming that they are in a uniform medium
- The ripples do get lower in intensity as time goes by - the constant energy is spread over a larger and larger area.
Back to Light
Light (photons) has an initial input of energy, from an electron dropping from one shell to a lower one.
- The electromagnetic waves carry that energy off "to infinity" (unless it runs into a brick wall, a sheet of paper, etc).
- Nothing has to accelerate the waves - they will keep a steady speed assuming that they are in a uniform medium (usually a vacuum, but any medium of constant permittivity & permeability will also work).
- Nothing has to retard the waves - they will keep a steady speed assuming that they are in a uniform medium
- The waves do get lower in intensity as time goes by - the constant energy is spread over a larger and larger area.
Quote from: George Box
all models are wrong, but some are useful
Post by: talanum1 on 17/04/2020 09:39:17
How do you know that?
I don't know, but it seems logical.
Nope. A photon is already moving at c upon its creation.
Can you prove that - it seems illogical. We have E = pc and this requires a force: E is related to work (W = f ds). "They start out with a velocity" is equivalent to having infinite acceleration.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 10:28:23
Can you prove thatYes.
The only possible speed for light is c.
You can calculate it from Maxwell's equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations,_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light
Since it can't aheva speed other than c, it can't accelerate.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/04/2020 15:16:01
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 15:19:14
protophotonYou need to prove that such an entity exists.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/04/2020 15:53:44
Physically they exist if the fields are different from Maxwell's Equations close to the emitting surface. I have no equipment to test this.
Post by: Janus on 17/04/2020 16:08:42
They must exist otherwise there is no mechanism for a photon to reach lightspeed.Just because you don't grasp how a photon can come into existence already moving at c doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Physically they exist if the fields are different from Maxwell's Equations close to the emitting surface. I have no equipment to test this.
"I don't understand it, so it must be wrong" is not a valid argument.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/04/2020 16:23:28
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 17:34:00
Then you must provide a mechanism whereby they start to exist at light speed. I can provide one.Yes, but your idea doesn't work.
Why bother to invent the "protophoton" to bolster a model that gives the wrong answer anyway?My theory has it that a tiny force keeps exerting it's influence on a Photon. Why doesn't the Photon keep accelerating?
The fact that it doesn't keep accelerating would be strong evidence that your idea is wrong.
Post by: talanum1 on 17/04/2020 17:39:24
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2020 17:43:36
Post by: Bobolink on 17/04/2020 22:00:16
I can change my model to give the correct answer.Quite easily since your "model" is essentially 2 sentences long.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/04/2020 14:14:57
Why not just use the "old" model which already gives the right answer?
The old model does not give a mechanism to accelerate photons to light speed.
Quite easily since your "model" is essentially 2 sentences long.
It is actually longer see attachments:
Physics from Axioms Advanced.pdf (64.69 kB - downloaded 429 times) Physics from Axioms clean.pdf (124.44 kB - downloaded 552 times)
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 15:07:26
The old model does not give a mechanism to accelerate photons to light speed.Guess again.
Post by: Bobolink on 18/04/2020 15:10:46
The old model does not give a mechanism to accelerate photons to light speed.Did you miss the post on Maxwell?
It is actually longer see attachments:No thanks. If you have more to say, then post it.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2020 15:15:24
Why doesn't the Photon keep accelerating?The propagation of electromagnetic radiation is completely described by Maxwell's equations, which have two constants ε and μ that determine the propagation speed.
Post by: talanum1 on 18/04/2020 16:26:11
Just that "accelerating electrons produce an EM field" is not a sufficient mechanism. There must be an interaction with the EM field for example, and a production operator must be activated. Thus the EM field must read the electron and the photon must come from somewhere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 16:41:29
and a production operator must be activated.Only because you made it up.
My model has electrons encoded with a marker that specifies for the EM field what Riemann Sphere to copy in order to generate a protophoton that becomes a photon.The old model just has physics.
Post by: Bobolink on 18/04/2020 16:56:44
Just that "accelerating electrons produce an EM field" is not a sufficient mechanism. There must be an interaction with the EM field for example, and a production operator must be activated. Thus the EM field must read the electron and the photon must come from somewhere.Here is a crazy thought, why don't you learn a little bit about the field of physics before you try to explain it?
Post by: talanum1 on 18/04/2020 17:01:21
The old model just has physics.
Insufficient physics: the photon must come from somewhere: conservation of structure, implied by conservation of energy.
Here is a crazy thought, why don't you learn a little bit about the field of physics before you try to explain it?
What am I missing?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/04/2020 17:08:40
conservation of structure
This is not a conservation law I have ever heard of before. Can you provide a link to a reputable source describing it?
Post by: talanum1 on 18/04/2020 17:20:30
Can you provide a link to a reputable source describing it?
No, not where it is stated explicitly.
Post by: Bobolink on 18/04/2020 17:23:12
conservation of structureThat must be related to the conservation of conversation.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/04/2020 22:34:43
No, not where it is stated explicitly.
We know that many particles can result from a collision of only two particles (this happens in particle accelerators all the time). This can also happen when single particles, like muons, decay. So that is evidence against this "conservation of structure" you posit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 22:53:14
Insufficient physics: the photon must come from somewhere: conservation of structure, implied by conservation of energy.Production of photons is not in any way inconsistent with the conservation of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2020 22:54:05
What am I missing?An understanding of the law of conservation of energy as it applies to the formation of photons, for a start.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2020 23:15:18
Post by: talanum1 on 19/04/2020 12:53:32
Quite simply, a photon is energy.
It is a Riemann Sphere with events of spacetime left out to encode a kind of passive mass charge that gives it momentum.
No, not where it is stated explicitly.
We know that many particles can result from a collision of only two particles (this happens in particle accelerators all the time). This can also happen when single particles, like muons, decay. So that is evidence against this "conservation of structure" you posit.
I have to look at every case, but I think conservation of Baryon number and Lepton number implies conservation of structure.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2020 13:10:42
I have to look at every case, but I think conservation of Baryon number and Lepton number implies conservation of structure.Are you saying that a gamma ray is the same as an electron?
Or do you not understand the implications of what you are saying?
Post by: puppypower on 19/04/2020 13:31:49
Since mass cannot go the speed of light, then inertial reference, which is an artifact of mass and matter, has to be at higher potential, than the speed of light reference. The speed of light reference is at the lower potential implicit of photons. Once photon become matter and anti-matter, at highest potential, inertial reference can appear.
When photons form, from matter, they immediate occupy the ground state reference at the speed of light. Traditions and conventions have this reference priority backwards. This question is not easy to answer when things are upside down by tradition.The photon does not keep accelerating faster than C, because C is already the zero point in absolute terms. As an analogy, once the earth's surface water; rivers, reach the ocean and sea level, that is as far as they can go, even if the river accelerates into the ocean; has already reached the lowest potential.
The traditions assume increasing velocity, toward the speed of light, increases potential. This is the kinetic energy equation and is true for matter up to a point. However, mass cannot reach the speed of light. There, we have a discontinuity and this logic breaks down.
Once the anti-matter of the universe was eliminated, in bulk, matter could no longer directly lower potential and convert directly back to energy. The discontinuity at C for matter reflects this. In the oldest days, matter could go back and forth, because anti-matter created an activation energy bridge. Without this activation energy bridge, matter and mass needs to lower potential, piecemeal, through the forces of nature. Little by little, it gives off photons and adds to the ground state at C.
This analysis can be done more formally by looking from the POV of the C reference. If we plug in C into the equation for special relativity there is a discontinuity in time, distance and mass since these all become infinite. This discontinuity also breaks the unity of space-time, such that time and space can act independently. Space-time is an artifact of inertial and is at higher potential.
One way to explain this is with the concert of entropy. If time and space would act independently, one could move in time without the constraints of space, and one could move in space without the constraint of time. Space-Time places inertial limits on this, so time is more sequential and moves forward.
At the speed of light, time is not sequential. It is more like internet surfing versus reading a book, where one can skip around. Therefore, at the speed of light reference, non sequential results in entropy being maximized, since all states can occur simultaneously. Since entropy needs to absorb energy to increase, the speed of light contains all photons, plus.
In the inertial reference of higher potential matter, all states are not possible, simultaneous, became of the limits of unified space-time. Therefore, inertial contains the potential to increase entropy; second law, toward the infinite entropy of the ground state. Matter and mass has the entropy potential it needs to return, piecemeal; via second law. As matter increases entropy, and absorbs energy, new states appear with an activation energy channel, needed to further lower the potential of matter back toward the C ground state.
Life is a state of perpetual entropy increase; metabolism and other affects. This would imply that th state called life is near the discontinuity zone, between matter and energy. Consciousness is at the zone between imagination, where all seems possible; maximized entropy, and sensory where reality has practical limits; space-time. The entropy potential with the ground state drives the evolution of life and consciousness and all other inertia change.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2020 13:52:05
These simple observations tells me that matter and antimatter are at higher potential than energy and photons."Kind of wrong". The particles have mass. Energy and momentum are conserved in the initial photon-nucleon interaction (photons don't decay spontaneously) so the recoil nucleon and the e-p pair have momentum and kinetic energy as well as their mass energy. When the "positronium" self-annihilates it turns into exactly two photons at 511 keV and 180 degrees to each other. The nucleon being at least 500 times heavier than the pair, the kinetic energy of the pair is negligible.
Not a good idea to build an edifice leading to complex biochemistry, on such an unsound foundation.
Post by: talanum1 on 19/04/2020 16:33:43
Are you saying that a gamma ray is the same as an electron?Or do you not understand the implications of what you are saying?
No I'm not saying that. I don't understand the implications totally.
Post by: talanum1 on 29/04/2020 12:30:28
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 13:37:12
Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.Are you saying that a gamma ray is the same as an electron?Or do you not understand the implications of what you are saying?
No I'm not saying that. I don't understand the implications totally.
So, which particular variety of being wrong are you going to choose?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 13:37:46
There is no force mechanism (in Maxwell's Equations) specified to accellerate a protophoton (copied electron-part) out of the electron trowards light speed. Stating that photons always goes at the speed of light (by Maxwell's Equations) is not relevant since we are dealing with a protophoton.Word salad.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 15:57:36
protophotonYour making up new particles now?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 16:12:24
He made that one up earlier. It's a particle that exists to cover for his lack of understanding of physics.protophotonYour making up new particles now?
They must exist otherwise there is no mechanism for a photon to reach lightspeed.
It is interesting that tantalum is roughly half as dense again as lead.
That's really quite dense.
Post by: talanum1 on 29/04/2020 16:29:06
Your making up new particles now?
With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.
Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.
Why does it imply that?
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/04/2020 17:14:45
Your making up new particles now?
With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.
Why does it imply that?
Do you understand the fact that most of the knowledge we have about photons comes from observation? You can't actually observe an individual photon close up to see what it actually is so no one knows exactly what it is. Not even you.
Since you seem to have carried out zero experiments and made zero observations you have no idea what you are talking about. Since this is the case you need to start being a little more humble in your approach.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 17:48:21
Why does it imply that?Because , if a positron hits an electron, they annihilate each other , and what's left is a pair of gamma ray photons.
Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.
That's obviously bollocks.
So we are forced to conclude that your suggested conservation is also bollocks.
With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.
Post by: talanum1 on 29/04/2020 18:38:02
Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.
I claim that the positron has anti-structure (totally picturable in my model), so positron-electron annihilation has a sum over structures that cancels. I don't know how to be modest about this.
Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.
Maxwell states that a photon start out at light speed. But the particle it came from must have gone slower than light. So exactly what happens at the moment the particle emits a photon? Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 18:55:06
Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.You somehow think that, in the century or so since he published his work, nobody noticed this omission, rather than, for example, thinking that there is an explanation, but you didn't understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 18:55:45
I don't know how to be modest about this.Good point. How does one show modesty about publicising ignorance.
Post by: Bobolink on 29/04/2020 19:13:46
I don't know how to be modest about this.I suggest you remain ignorant and never learn any physics. If you did learn even a little physics you would look back on these posts and be so embarrassed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2020 19:40:28
(totally picturable in my model)OK.
Draw us a picture.
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/04/2020 22:51:42
Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.
I claim that the positron has anti-structure (totally picturable in my model), so positron-electron annihilation has a sum over structures that cancels. I don't know how to be modest about this.Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.
Maxwell states that a photon start out at light speed. But the particle it came from must have gone slower than light. So exactly what happens at the moment the particle emits a photon? Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.
I think the model you are looking for is an action figure. Let's call him photon man. I can imagine you with photon man in your hand pretending to fly him around the room. Wheeee! Maybe you should take a break for 5 minutes and have a nice cup of tea and some scones. I think the lockdown is giving you cabin fever.
Post by: talanum1 on 30/04/2020 13:43:36
You somehow think that, in the century or so since he published his work, nobody noticed this omission, rather than, for example, thinking that there is an explanation, but you didn't understand it?
I understand: accelerating electrons emits photons and they obey Maxwell's Equations, and photons always move at the speed of light. This is not enough of a explanation.
Draw us a picture.
Here is the attachment in PNG format.
If you did learn even a little physics you would look back on these posts and be so embarrassed.
I studied Maxwell's Equations until 3rd year university level. I am not embarrassed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 14:20:53
Post by: BrunoA on 30/04/2020 17:02:05
Post by: talanum1 on 30/04/2020 18:51:54
Did it occur to you to come up with a picture that makes sense?
I just tried to use the code that space understands, but there is an error in the figure.
Rather, a photon is already traveling at light speed c when it is created
What is the mechanism this happens by (following Maxwell's Equation is not enough of a mechanism: at the very least the emitting particle must interact with the Electromagnetic Field).
Rather, a photon is always traveling at c, from the moment of its creation
That's why I invented the protophoton that becomes a photon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2020 19:06:41
just tried to use the code that space understands,Did it occur to you to use words that make sense?
That's why I invented the protophoton that becomes a photon.That also doesn't make sense.
Photons only exist at C. They don't need a "protophoton".
And, when your idea predicts something silly like a continuously increasing speed of light, it's time to ditch it.
Post by: talanum1 on 01/05/2020 09:40:06
Photons only exist at C. They don't need a "protophoton".
What is the mechanism for photon production then?
And, when your idea predicts something silly like a continuously increasing speed of light, it's time to ditch it.
It does not predict an increasing speed of light anymore, I changed it.
There is errors in the figure: for the electron the filled circle on T_2 must be deleted and two open circles must be added to S_4. For the positron the open circle on T_2 must be deleted and two filled circles must be added to S_4.
Post by: talanum1 on 01/05/2020 09:52:15
Post by: Colin2B on 01/05/2020 10:55:29
Since a photon has no inertia, one needs a constant force on it to keep it moving at the speed of light.Rubbish
Post by: talanum1 on 01/05/2020 11:58:43
Rubbish
What is the mechanism for photon transmission then?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 12:24:01
Do you not recognise that the diagram makes no sense?Photons only exist at C. They don't need a "protophoton".
What is the mechanism for photon production then?And, when your idea predicts something silly like a continuously increasing speed of light, it's time to ditch it.
It does not predict an increasing speed of light anymore, I changed it.
There is errors in the figure: for the electron the filled circle on T_2 must be deleted and two open circles must be added to S_4. For the positron the open circle on T_2 must be deleted and two filled circles must be added to S_4.
Post by: talanum1 on 01/05/2020 12:37:22
Interpret the circles as circles in the corresponding Riemann Sphere and stretch the circles (not the small circles) until they all overlap.
Post by: Colin2B on 01/05/2020 12:52:14
What is the mechanism for photon transmission then?It is an electromagnetic wave - a varying electric and magnetic field - which propagates at c in a vacuum. As such it has no rest mass and in accordance with Newtons laws will continue to propagate until something stops it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2020 13:03:50
What part of it does not make sense?Is there anyone reading this who knows what any part of tantalum1's diagram means?
Post by: Bobolink on 01/05/2020 13:47:14
Is there anyone reading this who knows what any part of tantalum1's diagram means?It is hard to get meaning from something meaningless, even though he did arbitrarily throw in the scientific term Riemann Sphere.
Post by: talanum1 on 02/05/2020 12:01:45
If space paths are helixes then speed through it determines angular momentum. Therefore the size of the magnetic moment of an electron would be proportional to speed. Is this the case?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 12:04:00
It doesn't make sense if it does not specify a known property or if it is inconsistent with a formula. Please specify what it is inconsistent with.No, it just doesn't make sense.
It is "not even wrong".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Post by: talanum1 on 02/05/2020 13:02:25
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2020 17:11:10
If space paths are helixes then speed through it determines angular momentum. Therefore the size of the magnetic moment of an electron would be proportional to speed. Is this the case?
No. The electron's magnetic moment is a constant: −9.284764 × 10−24 J/T
Post by: talanum1 on 02/05/2020 17:39:47
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2020 18:55:58
What part of it does not make sense?Is there anyone reading this who knows what any part of tantalum1's diagram means?
Post by: talanum1 on 03/05/2020 09:40:40
It is an electromagnetic wave - a varying electric and magnetic field - which propagates at c in a vacuum. As such it has no rest mass and in accordance with Newtons laws will continue to propagate until something stops it.
But it has no inertia, and inertia is required to keep moving at the same velocity.
I can keep the forces on the photon and just specify that there is resistive forces due to the permittivity and permeability of space. The forces point in the direction opposing the momentum direction. At the speed of light the four forces cancel.
This gives a reason why the speed of light is c m/s. It also gives a mechanism for the reduced speed of light in a medium: the resistive forces are larger.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 09:52:32
inertia is required to keep moving at the same velocity.It has momentum.
This discussion would work better if you learned some science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 09:55:05
This gives a reason why the speed of light is c m/s. It also gives a mechanism for the reduced speed of light in a medium: the resistive forces are larger.Congratulations. You just worked out what Maxwell's equations told everybody about 150 years ago.
Post by: talanum1 on 04/05/2020 14:16:32
The photon must copy itself onto the next spacetime event and destroy the previous copy. It must do so repeatedly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 15:11:59
The photon moves according to Newton's Laws.Would you like another guess?
The photon must copy itself onto the next spacetime event and destroy the previous copy. It must do so repeatedly.Or it could just... you know... move.
Post by: Colin2B on 04/05/2020 15:25:50
The photon must copy itself onto the next spacetime event and destroy the previous copy. It must do so repeatedly.It doesn’t copy anything. Does an ocean wave move by copying and destroying?
Post by: talanum1 on 05/05/2020 16:25:43
Does an ocean wave move by copying and destroying?
I got to an answer of "no" after picturing it, but I don't know why.
An object "O" moves if: it is no longer at point x, it is now at point x + delta x, by virtue of having momentum in the x direction. Does this describe a sufficient mechanism for propagating an object?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/05/2020 16:29:58
Does this describe a sufficient mechanism for propagating an object?
Yes. If an object is travelling at constant speed, and there are no forces to speed it up or slow it down, then it will continue to travel at that constant speed.