0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference.
I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist.
A model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--
--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.
Photons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.
Dark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.
They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction
so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.
This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.
Quote I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist. Then why mention them if they do not exist?
Quote from: GoC on 29/09/2015 21:23:55Quote I believe that the word, "virtual" is meant to imply that they don't really exist. Then why mention them if they do not exist?I remember a professor of particle physics saying we should forget we ever saw the word “particle” in virtual particle. It is not a particle at all but a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own and is caused by the presence of other particles or fields.Probably not a good analogy, but I think of 2 ships passing, their bow waves hit each other and cause both to rock, we might say they have exchanged a virtual particle. Don't know if that helps or hinders []
QuoteA model using virtual particles gives the exact same predictions as a model using only a field--Ok, What is the physical make up of a field then.Quote--it's just more intuitive to think about particles than fields for some phenomena.Either way particle or field what is the field constructed from?
QuotePhotons are real particles that carry energy, and which we can manipulate.What is the photon constructed from?
QuoteDark mass and dark energy, in my opinion, are fudge factors.How are they different from Mathematical gizmo's, virtual particles and fictitious forces?Quote They correct our older models, which worked just fine at the scale of the solar system without any correction But now they need correction?Quote so that the models still agree with observations of galactic scale and bigger. As we gather more information (and maybe with some luck) I am confident that we will one day understand much more about the universe, to the extent that dark matter and energy are no longer mysterious.Understanding is always a worthwhile endeavor. Quote This may come about by adopting new models, or by maintaining current models and understanding better what these currently mysterious factors are.If we are all in the box of respect for the standard model and the mysteries are outside of the respected box will we ever have a chance for understanding? I am not against the standard model but I am against all fudge terms that bring more questions than they answer. I am not happy with someone throwing fairy dust on me while I try to climb the tree of knowledge.
or does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?
Quoteor does the existence of a background radiation provide the answer to this?Does the light not pass through the background radiation on its journey as obviously the background radiation is in the light’s path?Could the background radiation be the light?
Photons?
Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct.
If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.
Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?
Imaginary numbers don't "exist."
Quote from: puppypower on 29/09/2015 21:14:35Photons travel at the speed of light, which will be the same in all references. At the same time, they also show finite expressions of wavelength and frequency that are dependent on reference. One reference may see a red shift and another a blue shift, but the speed of light will not change for either reference. Photons are invisible to sight in space, this is constant to all observers in all reference frames. We see through the light and do not actually see photons until they interact with something.
Quote from: chiralSPOImaginary numbers don't "exist." That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself.
Quote from: GoCCalling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. That too is incorrect. There are things which are 100% correct by definition such as what energy is. In the present case the box thought he could define energy to the way he thought it was and in that case he's just plain wrong. Definitions are not up for change in any new theory.Although energy can't strictly be defined it can be adequately described so that there's little or no uncertainty in what it is. Also what is known is the current theories which are extremely accurate in that they predict and describe nature to something like 10 decimal places.Are you confining energy into your understanding?
In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.
Quote from: GoCIf you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest.I don't discuss such things. I have no interest at all whether someone believes there is an aether or not. That's there problem, not mine.
By the way: to make sure what I said about protons I contacted an acquaintance of mine, a nuclear physicists at Stanford, and he confirmed for me that protons do not change their proper mass and can neither absorb or emit photons. Those are experimental facts.
Quote from: GoCLets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?What's so hard about that? It's off topic for this thread and as such I won't go there.
Quote from: PmbPhy on Today at 07:52:36Quote from: chiralSPOImaginary numbers don't "exist." That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself. I mean that they do not exist as physical entities (which is also true of any other numbers, all of which are concepts).
Photons are invisible because they are in the speed of light reference. These two things are connected invisible and speed of light both being seen the same in all inertial references. Matter cannot move at he speed of light and therefore cannot see energy directly. At the speed of light the universe appears as a point-instant; all things in the inertial universe appear to occur at the same time and place. What we see, is by affect, connected to the second aspect of energy; inertial wavelength and frequency; bridge to inertial. Say we go back in time to time zero before the BB. Next, say we only have extreme energy photons, but before they begin to split into matter and anti-matter. There is no inertial material yet in existence for this energy to make itself known. It appears invisible in any reference, since there is nothing yet for it to interact with and make itself known. From inertial reference the universe appears void, since we cant see C and all photons appear invisible until they can interact to produce affect. When these photons finally begins to split into matter and antimatter, then energy becomes visible, because it now has inertial based material to make itself known by affect. Matter and anti-matter can't move C, so inertial interaction makes the second leg of energy appear as a bridge between C and less than C; inertial. It is the appearance of matter/antimatter that will "let there be light"; becomes affect becomes possible; a bridge is formed so energy as we know it, appears.
That's incorrect. They most certainly do exist. They came into existence the moment they were first defined. Ask any mathematician, such as myself.
Your a mathematician and you do not even understand what Maths is?
Maths is a language no different from English, that describes processes and actions. Numbers do not exist , numbers never came into existence that would should suggest materialised. Numbers are virtual representations.
Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?
Ignorant statement.
Quote from: GoC on 30/09/2015 15:06:28Can a pure circle exist in a three dimension world?A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.
A circle is only a circle because we define it as a circle, if we had defined a circle a square then it would be square, but neither would be relative to shapeless space, only matter can have form.