Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
14860
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 21:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
My feelings..
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 21:33:00 -
[32] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
lol awesome.
Evei Shard wrote:
Question from the uneducated peanut gallery...
Has science looked at whether or not photons have some sort of anti-mass (not to be confused with anti-matter, but something that allows them to act a given way without some of the effects normal mass deals with. Perhaps call it dark-mass).
I have never heard of such a thing, but that is a pretty awesome question. Anti-mass.... kind of cool. I don't even think that the Star Trek writers ever did that one.
|
Ranzabar
Ratio 1.618 Corp
103
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 00:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
Sigma 5. I'm satisfied Abide |
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 01:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: I have never heard of such a thing, but that is a pretty awesome question. Anti-mass.... kind of cool. I don't even think that the Star Trek writers ever did that one.
It's just a thought from an uneducated mind. It's hard to describe. I'm not really fond of the term "anti-mass" because it sort of implies the literal opposite of mass, which would include things such as anti-gravity. I'm thinking more along the lines of what if photons had their mass, if any, tied directly into another dimension, or perhaps into time itself (as a dimension). Photons have always fascinated me, because they appear to break all sorts of rules. Profit favors the prepared |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 01:49:00 -
[35] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote: Photons have always fascinated me, because they appear to break all sorts of rules.
Just between you and I because I do not wish to derail my own thread... this is an image of a wave in motion
It is amazing how many of those contradictions disappear all together if you simply visualize space-time as being something instead of nothing and photons as literal waves permeating through it. Suddenly inertial mass and 0 resting mass are no longer issues. Doppler shift and the speed of light is explained. Light and gravity become unified and so does the basic elements of electromagnetism.
Just don't tell those 2,000 something scientists working at CERN... because they do not want to hear about it.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 02:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ah, the old Luminiferous Aether idea. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 02:22:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:Ah, the old Luminiferous Aether idea.
Just because people in the 1900's could not locate a hypothetical aether wind does not mean that the theory could not have been modified to fit modern day observations.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 02:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
To me it sounds like it should be more of an ocean than a wind, if light were to react the way that would fit the idea that explains it's motion in all directions.
I'd also think such a field in space would drag on the planets and eventually fall in to the sun.
I'm sticking a pin note to come back, play time has begun! You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 03:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: The two mirrors are moving in space? I am pretty sure that I made that part clear. I am not sure what to tell you... this is basic laser physics. All electromagnetic radiation is blue shifted and red shifted in this way. This Doppler shift is how radar works. If you do not understand the principle then i invite you to read up on it. It is very interesting stuff.
Wikipedia wrote: The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift), named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague, is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source.
The two mirrors are, according to you, not moving relative to each other. For each reflection, the reflecting mirror is the observer, the other mirror, where the light was reflected previously, the source. It doesn't matter whether they are both "moving through space" (which depends on how you choose your reference frame anyway) if the photon is just bouncing between them, only their movement relative to each other matters.
And if the original source of the photon moves relative to the mirrors, then the light will arrive shifted at the mirrors, but there will not be a difference in shift between both mirrors. If red light from a source moving towards mirror A, thus is blue-shifted for A, arrives at A it looks exactly the same as light from a source not moving relative to mirror A, which had the same, shorter wavelength to begin with.
I mean, we only know that the light from very distant galaxies arrives here red-shifted, because we know where certain spectral lines in that light should be, and we see them shifted towards the red side of the spectrum, not because the light itself somehow carries the information "I was shifted".
Going to read through the rest of the posts it later. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1366
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 03:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: Why is that? Because it's not explained by school physics? Neither is Mercury's orbit. I seem to recall mercury's orbit being of interest in the fifth grade, so I am not sure what you are referring to.
I was under the impression that it was under Netownian Mechanics where the discrepancy in Mercury's orbit showed up. A tiny variance in orbital accuracy prediction, that was fixed under Einsteins theory of space-time being curved by the mass of an object. A problem that later re-occurred in early GPS systems.
A lot of what Einstein theorised took time to be proved, some things took 50 years.
My general understanding of Quantum Mechanics and the 'Unifying Theory' is .... we don't know **** yet. This is highlighted by our inability to fully explain phenomena such as Black Holes, the universe before 'expansion', which in itself is still only just another theory, and several other aspects of both macro & micro cosmic features and events.
So long as we continue to ask questions, we're mostly moving in the right direction. We also need people to ask "Is the Standard Model the 21st Century's equivalent of Phlogiston. |
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 04:22:00 -
[41] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] It is very very important to understand that our failure to find proof of a photon's rest mass is not proof that it's mass is identical to 0. We cannot trap or slow down a photon... atm we do not know for certain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Even if you are a proponent of the Standard Model (which I am not but you seem to be) the Standard Model does not even need photons to have 0 mass to make it all work. The Standard Model will keep on trucking just fine if photons have an insanely tiny mass. This Explains It A BitSo where as you may say that a photon probably has exactly 0 mass. I am saying that nor you or anyone else can prove it... and it seems like it does based upon everything we know about the observable universe. Therefore:It requires an imaginary leap to make a particle with 0 mass have momentum, because it deviates from all other observable phenomena. It requires no leap of the imagination to suggest that a photon has insanely small mass and make some minor adjustments to the current models. So why is everyone INSISTING that a photon cannot have a little mass? Honestly... I do not know. But it's not very good science. [...]
I've now read that article. It basically says: Photons could have mass, but it'd be so tiny that we can't distinguish it's behavior from the one it would have if it were massless.
Btw, I think the comparison with neutrinos in the article isn't completely fair. I mean the "but we haven't detected a difference between the speed of light and the speed of neutrinos either, despite them having mass". Neutrinos hardly interact with anything at all and are notoriously hard to even observe, while light is more or less the opposite of that. Of course it's harder to experiment with neutrinos.
Anyway, where you say "don't shoe-horn the concept of a massless particle with energy and momentum into the model if not necessary" I say "Why assume a mass we haven't observed, when we have a perfectly working description, with simpler equations, assuming a massless particle?"
As you say, these equations are just descriptions, we need to keep in mind that even our best-working models are probably not "the truth" but just a description. So why not choose the simpler description?
Having an electromagnetic field simply weakening with the square of distance seems simpler and more elegant to me than having those additional exponential terms to provide a shorter range. Having photons move at the speed of light seems simpler to me than having them move at a "speed we can't yet distinguish from the speed of light".
That said, you can of course choose to assume photons with resting mass if that doesn't conflict with observations (which means, as far as I understand, assuming a mass so small that the behavior, to our current experimental sensitivity, doesn't differ from massless ones). Actually, I agree that we should keep the possibility of a photon having resting mass in mind for the cases where it matters.
But as far as I can see it doesn't matter for your original thought experiment. Maybe you can explain to me where it matters? Sorry for being dense, but I really don't see it, just as the point you're trying to make with the doppler shift. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 04:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Today's physicists have cultivated a culture that suppresses their innate conceptual understanding of the world around them. They have taught people like you to do the same. They say, like you just said, that the human brain did not evolve to understand the macroscopic universe of particles and photons.
Overtime people like you reluctantly accept abstract quantum mechanic concepts and regard conceptual understanding as a remnant of classical physics.
However there is another possibility too... the alternative is that our limitations to conceptually understand the theories being put forth are not limitations of our human intellect at all. It is just as likely that we are using the wrong models. There is no reason to presume that the human mind is incapable of understanding anything in nature provided that the correct models are used to describe it . Those models should be compatible with existing laws and equations of physics. You should not have to make special exceptions.
Saying that a photon has inertia but no mass is an exception based on all other factors in the known universe. Stating that an invisible field that can slow down particles but not exert acceleration on them or transfer energy is another exception. These are exceptions made in order to fill the holes in current models. They have counter intuitive explanations and do not seem to be able to exist when compared to observable phenomena in the real world.
Is it so implausible that there may be other possible explanations?
It's not implausible that there may be other explanations. But I haven't seen any others which describe the universe, or rather the experimental data we have of it, as completely. Which is why I was asking whether you could point me to those other explanations you've mentioned.
Of course I'd like to understand the universe using simple rules without exceptions.. Of course I want scientists to keep their minds open for all possibilities.
But keeping your mind open for all possibilities also means that the unintuitive could be possible. The complicated and hard to understand way. Which is why I find it good, when we try to not be restricted by our intuitive understanding of the part of the universe we can experience directly. That doesn't mean we should dismiss any explanation using common sense, if it works.
I'm just saying be open for weird concepts as much as for "normal"-looking ones. Weird, complicated concepts may be a result of a lack of understanding, or the result of things actually being that complicated. We just need to constantly reevaluate this all as new evidence/experimental data and/or ideas arrive.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Regarding You Question Of The Higgs Field Strait from the horses mouth, the Fermilabs...Quote:The Higgs field is not considered a force. It cannot accelerate particles, it doesn't transfer energy. However, it interacts universally with all particles (except the massless ones), providing their masses.
I still don't see where it says the Higgs field slows down particles. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 04:45:00 -
[43] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:[.. photons having inertial mass ..] That is what people say yes, and the result is you are springing forth mass from something that had none to begin with. But putting that aside for a moment... if photons do not interact with the Higgs field and said Higgs field gives everything mass than where is the inertial mass coming from? If all particles are massless until they interact with the Higgs field... then where can a photon soak up this invisible mass if not from the Higgs field?
As far as I understand, the higgs field is responsible for resting mass. The inertial mass, or at least the part additional to the resting mass, is a result of movement and comes from that mass-energy equivalency thing, and has nothing to do with the higgs field. As I've read in some article a while ago: "It's unfortunate that there are two different things we both call 'mass'." |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1211
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:33:00 -
[44] - Quote
This is probably the most engaging debate I have had on these forums thus far... could it be that all of this time Akita was some how sabotaging them?
At anyrate... time to answer responses one by one. Here we go!
Kijo Rikki wrote:To me it sounds like it should be more of an ocean than a wind, if light were to react the way that would fit the idea that explains it's motion in all directions. I'd also think such a field in space would drag on the planets and eventually fall in to the sun. I'm sticking a pin note to come back, play time has begun!
This actually exists already. Simple google orbital decay and study it's physics a little bit. Orbits do decay over time it just so happens that it occurs over extremely long periods and a dozen physical laws tend to balance each other out.
Earth has to push through the solar wind, gravity waves, magnetic fields and various debris that ultimately cause drag. It just so happens that when a planet slows down and moves closer to sun it's angular moment causes it to speed up instead of slow down. This is the law of conservation of momentum. It is the same thing that makes an ice skater speed up when they pull their outstretched arms closer to their torso.
So the earth can be GÇ£slowed down by dragGÇ¥ only to be sped up do to angular momentum conservation.
There is also the PoyntingGÇôRobertson effect which describes how sloar radiation can cause forward drag on tiny dust particles. Should then the earth be exempt? Or is it that the effect is just so miniscule that no one has noticed it yet?
These same forces slow down the earthGÇÖs rotation as well. About every hundred years or so the earth takes one five-hundredth of a second longer to complete a rotation. When the earth was formed the day lasted about 14 hours compared to todayGÇÖs 24 hours. These days we add leap seconds to ever couple of years to compensate for this discrepancy. Even the tidal forces of the oceans slows the earth and cause the moon's orbit to decay in the process.
Therefore:
We now know for certain that drag does exist in space and does in fact effect planetary bodies. Orbits decay, it is fact. So your presumption that a drag caused by space-time would result in a planet falling into the sun is nullified by the fact that we already are. It just so happens that physics finds a way to find equilibrium. So we will never really get there. The sun will lose it's mass first and that will ultimately result in us moving away from the sun not inward to it.
Although i do admit I cannot yet account for inertia only giving resistance during acceleration and deceleration (yet ) I am still working on it!
But your notion that an aether wind cannot exist solely based upon the drag that it may create does not stand against scrutiny when you realize how much drag is already present. Food for thought.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1211
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
The two mirrors are, according to you, not moving relative to each other. For each reflection, the reflecting mirror is the observer, the other mirror, where the light was reflected previously, the source. It doesn't matter whether they are both "moving through space" (which depends on how you choose your reference frame anyway) if the photon is just bouncing between them, only their movement relative to each other matters.
And if the original source of the photon moves relative to the mirrors, then the light will arrive shifted at the mirrors, but there will not be a difference in shift between both mirrors. If red light from a source moving towards mirror A, thus is blue-shifted for A, arrives at A it looks exactly the same as light from a source not moving relative to mirror A, which had the same, shorter wavelength to begin with.
I mean, we only know that the light from very distant galaxies arrives here red-shifted, because we know where certain spectral lines in that light should be, and we see them shifted towards the red side of the spectrum, not because the light itself somehow carries the information "I was shifted".
Both mirrors do not have to be moving relative to each other to cause a Doppler shift, they only need to be moving relative to the speed of light. Since the speed of light is fixed at any given moment in time the speed of each mirror is either added or subtracted to the fixed speed of the photons impacting it.
If a mirror moves away from the forward vector of a photon it is the fixed speed of light minus the speed of the mirror. In other words it is the same thing as if the mirror was falling away from the stream. And it is the exact opposite for a mirror moving towards the photon.
What you fail to consider is that light is the observer here, not the mirror But it is a very easy mistake to make.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1211
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:55:00 -
[46] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: That said, you can of course choose to assume photons with resting mass if that doesn't conflict with observations (which means, as far as I understand, assuming a mass so small that the behavior, to our current experimental sensitivity, doesn't differ from massless ones). Actually, I agree that we should keep the possibility of a photon having resting mass in mind for the cases where it matters.
But as far as I can see it doesn't matter for your original thought experiment. Maybe you can explain to me where it matters? Sorry for being dense, but I really don't see it, just as the point you're trying to make with the doppler shift.
The reason is as follows...
On the one hand we have the standard model. It is observing photons and seeing they have a neutral charge, no mass and yet they can exert a force as if they some how have inertia. They appear to have inertia but not mass in violation of all other known physical laws.
The standard model regularly accounts for these discrepancies by coming up with terms like "virtual" or "relative". There are even terms like this in the Higgs field explanation. There are "virtual higgs bosons" too.
The term "virtual" is a mathematical function not something observable. It is something you plug into an equation in order to make your equation work, much like plugging 11 dimensions in to string theory is needed to make those equations work.
The problem than arises that you are making no real attempts to explain why a photon can seemingly gather momentum without measurable mass even at the speed of light. That is a very bad thing...
Super Simplified & Summarized
"Inertial Mass" is the same as saying "Virtual Mass" because it is inertia that is coming from no where and not tied to mass like it should be. It is then violating basic universal laws inherent to all things. "Virtual" is a math function... it is not observable in reality. It is just a way of accounting for forces/things that do not exist and cannot actually be observed.
Yes, light seems to have a property that defies normal known laws of inertia.
But shall we presume that it is violating the laws of mass and inertia or can we instead presume that we are mistaking what light actually is?
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1211
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 14:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:[.. photons having inertial mass ..] That is what people say yes, and the result is you are springing forth mass from something that had none to begin with. But putting that aside for a moment... if photons do not interact with the Higgs field and said Higgs field gives everything mass than where is the inertial mass coming from? If all particles are massless until they interact with the Higgs field... then where can a photon soak up this invisible mass if not from the Higgs field? As far as I understand, the higgs field is responsible for resting mass. The inertial mass is a result of movement and comes from that mass-energy equivalency thing, and has nothing to do with the higgs field. (Edit: the resting mass affects it, but isn't the only factor) As I've read in some article a while ago: "It's unfortunate that there are two different things we both call 'mass'."
You do not think that resting mass added to velocity creates the energy of momentum? How can they then be two different things or independent from each other?
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2001
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 14:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Both mirrors do not have to be moving relative to each other to cause a Doppler shift, they only need to be moving relative to the speed of light. Since the speed of light is fixed at any given moment in time the speed of each mirror is either added or subtracted to the fixed speed of the photons impacting it. If a mirror moves away from the forward vector of a photon it is the fixed speed of light minus the speed of the mirror. In other words it is the same thing as if the mirror was falling away from the stream. And it is the exact opposite for a mirror moving towards the photon. What you fail to consider is that light is the observer here, not the mirror But it is a very easy mistake to make.
I'm afraid now you've completely lost me. If the light is the observer, what does it observe? Because any observer moving just as fast as the light would be unable to observe the light, obviously, as it never reaches him. This is assuming photons with mass, since if they don't have mass and thus moves at c, I don't think it's even possible for an observer to move like that. And I don't want to even start with the relativistic effects like time stopping and space contracting to zero length in the direction of movement when you move at the speed of light, as it makes my head hurt.
Yet, if you talk about the light being doppler-shifted, it has to be the light which is being observed.
And you don't add the speed of the mirror to the speed of light, precisely because of that "speed of light is fixed" principle you were mentioning. No matter how the mirror moves, light moves at exactly the same speed from the mirror's perspective. Or any other perspective as well.
To me it sounds like you want to introduce some "global reference frame" of special importance you can say the mirrors move in relation to, but there is no such thing. You can always find a reference frame in which the mirrors don't move (given they aren't accellerating).
And even if you have an observer moving with the light, then it moves towards mirror A prior to it being reflected just the same as it moves toward mirror B after the reflection from A, prior to being reflected by B. Even then I wouldn't see any difference. |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 14:38:00 -
[49] - Quote
I had a thougth this morning.
So this argument is based largely off the premise that light must have mass. If light indeed had mass, it would require an infinite source of energy to maintain its momentum across billions of light years in the universe, right? You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2002
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 14:48:00 -
[50] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:I had a thougth this morning. So this argument is based largely off the premise that light must have mass. If light indeed had mass, it would require an infinite source of energy to maintain its momentum across billions of light years in the universe, right?
Not if you assume the mass is so small, that you can accellerate it to a speed which is so close to c that we can't (yet) experimentally tell the difference, without needing a lot of energy. Presumably whenever light is created, the energies involved accellerate the massive photon to such a speed, and it continues to move with that speed, until it hits something. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1212
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 14:57:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ok... this is exactly why I am here I am going to try and super simplify this even more!
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:To me it sounds like you want to introduce some "global reference frame" of special importance you can say the mirrors move in relation to, but there is no such thing. You can always find a reference frame in which the mirrors don't move (given they aren't accellerating).
You are taught that there is no such thing, but there is such a thing. The universe does have a prefered frame of reference. This is called the Cosmic Microwave Background Rest Frame. The sun appears to be moving at 360 km/s in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMB. This motion towards the CMB creats a doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation that can be detected as a redshift.
Each location in the universe has a unique frame of reference that is stationary relative to the CMB.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:And you don't add the speed of the mirror to the speed of light, precisely because of that "speed of light is fixed" principle you were mentioning. No matter how the mirror moves, light moves at exactly the same speed from the mirror's perspective. Or any other perspective as well.
Because the speed of light is fixed and always the same, but matter travels at variable velocities, we can get the effect that allows a cop to catch you in a speed trap. Radar is Doppler shifted as it reflects off of an approaching car (exactly like sound) as the car moves forward or away from the radar gun.
It behaves the exact same way as sound waves propagating through air of uniform density.
So a light beam moving this way
Will be reflected as the same frequency if it is being reflected off of a surface that is stationary.
But a light beam moving this way Falling onto a surface that is moving in the same direction (this way )
Will experience a redshift because of the motion of the mirror.
Does it make sense now?
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1212
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:INo, if there was an all pervasive field that affected all particles of light it would certainly be more noticeable.
How about an all pervasive field that affects all matter in the universe... aka the Higgs field? Shouldn't that be more noticeable too by your reasoning?
Kijo Rikki wrote: And you sitll have to explain how light can move in any direction against a wind. It would have to be an ocean, and that's the problem I have with it, it has to be an all encompassing field that affects light but somehow wouldn't impact the orbits of large bodies of matter in a noticeable way.
Well i did say that I did not think such a wind existed.
But did you know that the momentum of light in a laser beam can be lessened if said laser is shot upwards against the force of gravity? This is to do the gravitational gradient in between. Would this constitute "light against the wind?" in your eyes?
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:18:00 -
[53] - Quote
But that's my point, you are trading one field of pony magic for another with it's own flaws.
Quote: Not if you assume the mass is so small, that you can accellerate it to a speed which is so close to c that we can't (yet) experimentally tell the difference, without needing a lot of energy. Presumably whenever light is created, the energies involved accellerate the massive photon to such a speed, and it continues to move with that speed, until it hits something.
If all light has mass, the universe is absolutely filled with the stuff in all forms, one would stand to reason that a large percentage of light would never reach the Earth because it would be stopped from light coming in all directions.
That's an interesting thought. A universe filled with staionary light particles....we'd never be able to see them but they'd be there with a mass we theorize in this thread, contributing to the energy and momentum of the universe while being completely undetectable. Interesting indeed. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1212
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote: That's an interesting thought. A universe filled with staionary light particles....we'd never be able to see them but they'd be there with a mass we theorize in this thread, contributing to the energy and momentum of the universe while being completely undetectable. Interesting indeed.
An interesting idea yes, but it is an also an abstract imaginary one being that we cannot make a photon stationary.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
If we assume the photon has mass then we can assume the photon can lose momentum.
You are trading the Higgs field, with its magical powers of granting mass to particles, for a field that light can propagate through, in which light has mass. The light can be affected by it with its minuscule mass but large bodies of mass would not have a noticeable effect. That's the problem. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1215
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:30:00 -
[56] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:If we assume the photon has mass then we can assume the photon can lose momentum.
Neutrinos have mass.. can they be brought to rest?
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
867
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 15:36:00 -
[57] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Kijo Rikki wrote:If we assume the photon has mass then we can assume the photon can lose momentum. Neutrinos have mass.. can they be brought to rest?
Neutrinos barely interact with anything though. We know light can be reflected and absorbed so we know it interacts with matter. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1216
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:20:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Kijo Rikki wrote:If we assume the photon has mass then we can assume the photon can lose momentum. Neutrinos have mass.. can they be brought to rest? Neutrinos barely interact with anything though. We know light can be reflected and absorbed so we know it interacts with matter.
That is a pretty good counter argument, you surprised me with that one
But light can lose or gain inertia in the form of frequency. It however cannot be slowed down by any known interaction. You are neglecting the most important part of all of this, light is the only thing in the universe that can change it's momentum without changing it's velocity.
Stating that you could some how slow it down is like saying you can slow down sound (without changing the density of the medium it is traveling in)
Light is like this. Water waves can deliver more inertia without changing their velocity too. Waves do not weigh more than the medium they are in. If you were measure that wave it would be indivisible in mass from the medium that made it up. Waves can carry variable inertia without a change in velocity or mass.
Light behaves more like this than any other known phenomena and that should be telling us something.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
870
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:37:00 -
[59] - Quote
Score one for the layman!
Continuing our discussion, I remember this thread a week or so ago concerning the ability to slow light down, in the case of the article linked, down to 38 mph. I am not sure if this will detract or assist your argument but I felt it relevant to share. In this instance I would question whether light moving through this medium carried more inertia.
For now, I do not have a counter argument or another point to discuss. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2002
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:41:00 -
[60] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[.. special global reference frame stuff ..]
You are taught that there is no such thing, but there is such a thing. The universe does have a prefered frame of reference. This is called the Cosmic Microwave Background Rest Frame. The sun appears to be moving at 360 km/s in the direction of Virgo relative to the CMB. This motion towards the CMB creats a doppler shift in the cosmic background radiation that can be detected as a redshift.
Each location in the universe has a unique frame of reference that is stationary relative to the CMB.
That's true, but there is nothing special about that reference frame. What special relativity says is that no matter the reference frame, the laws of physic are the same.
So whether you are at rest compared to the CMB, or moving with constant velocity compared to it, you won't be able to tell without looking at the CMB. Specifically, two mirrors stationary to each other and stationary to the CMB behave and experience exactly the same as if they were moving relative to the CMB.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:And you don't add the speed of the mirror to the speed of light, precisely because of that "speed of light is fixed" principle you were mentioning. No matter how the mirror moves, light moves at exactly the same speed from the mirror's perspective. Or any other perspective as well. Because the speed of light is fixed and always the same, but matter travels at variable velocities, we can get the effect that allows a cop to catch you in a speed trap. Radar is Doppler shifted as it reflects off of an approaching car (exactly like sound) as the car moves forward or away from the radar gun. It behaves the exact same way as sound waves propagating through air of uniform density.
Your example with the radar gun works precisely because the reflecting car moves relative to the emitting radar gun. If radar gun and car don't move relative to each other, it doesn't matter one bit how both of them are moving relative to the CMB or any other reference frame: The radar gun will not see any doppler shift and report a speed of zero.
Nice website for the doppler effect btw: http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/light/dopplershift.html you can drag emitter and receiver of the wave around and watch how the received wave changes.
You need both emitter and receiver for doppler shifting, and they have to move relative to each other.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:So a light beam moving this way Will be reflected as the same frequency if it is being reflected off of a surface that is stationary. But a light beam moving this way Falling onto a surface that is moving in the same direction (this way ) Will experience a redshift because of the motion of the mirror. Does it make sense now?
In both examples you are observing the light beam from a certain reference frame, and it has a certain wavelength in that reference frame. As in your second example the mirror is moving relative to that reference frame, yes, it will experience the light beam red-shifted.
But if you place another mirror (or let's maybe just take a normal receiver, a photo cell or something) stationary relative to the first mirror (which in the second example means moving in the same direction at the same speed) where the first mirror reflects the light towards, then that receiver will see the exact same wavelength as the mirror. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |