0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
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.
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?
Quote from: yor_on on 28/12/2008 22:38:51As 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_eigenvectorsThat'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.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 28/12/2008 22:53:33Quote from: yor_on on 28/12/2008 22:38:51As 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_eigenvectorsThat'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.
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.
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.