Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1204
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 12:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a follow up on this previous Threadnaught
Unfortunately I have not seen Akita T posting here in a while, and he/she always made these threads fun. This an extension of my own personal theories being submitted for debate... not peer review. Because peer review is ultimately debate anyway and I find this to be much better practice to practice debate. Always have. If you have never done the peer review thing before then you probably don't know what I mean.
Anyway... you are entering another Eternum thread!!! Dun, dun DUN!
First Some Things You Should Know
Every sci-fi nerd who thinks he has a doctorate in Star Trek style inverse tachyon physics knows that the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant at all times. But to add to that here are a few additional tidbits of information you will need for this discussion.
All light exerts a radiation pressure on all surfaces. The more reflective the surface the greater the pressure... and no this has nothing to do with charge. Photons are presumed to have a resting mass and they are presumed to deliver their momentum to matter during reflection and absorption.
The greater the frequency of light the greater this pressure (provided that absorption and reflection remains constant)
When anything moves through space reflected light either redshifts or blue shifts.
Momentum, mass, inertia are all indivisible. This is why in order to explain radiation pressure scientists had to come up with the idea that photons have a "rest" mass and are not in fact without mass. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant because it is a part of their theory of everything.
The Higgs Field
Is supposed to be an invisible and undetectable (in other worlds magical! ) field in space. Whenever matter interacts with this field they are given their mass through some unknown (perhaps pony magic?) mechanism. In order to make their theory work they also had to make exceptions for Photons and Gluons which reportedly interact with some other "not ordinary" component of the higgs field used to describe how photons travel at the speed of light. But all other matter does not.
Ok so... the higgs field requires pony magic!
Now An Experiment -- Much Like The Train In The Theory of Relativity
I, Eternum, have set up a laser inside of the box car of a stationary train. I am shining this laser on to a mirror A which is being reflected onto mirror B. I am measuring the radiation pressure between both mirrors as the light passes back and forth. It is equivalent to about the weight of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms laying on it's surface under the force of gravity. So long as the train stays stationary and the lasers frequency stays the same... so does the radiation pressure on both mirrors.
But upon the conductor moving the train forward, the frequency of the laser light will shift depending on what direction the train is traveling. This happens because the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed... and the speed of the train is not. If the train travels forward the light is blue shifted on mirror A and red shifted on mirror B. If backwards the light is red shifted on mirror A and blue shifted on mirror B. .
This means that I can control the radiation pressure landing on both mirrors by giving the conductor commands. Bear in mind that the laser is still emitting the exact same amount of photons per unit of time and the laws of conservation of momentum apply as the light bounces between the two mirrors. Nor is the speed of light changing.
Yet... there is a detectable discrepancy between the radiation pressure on mirror A compared to mirror B.
Result
I have changed the inertia being delivered by the photons as they fall onto both mirrors, which is in turn is tied to the resting mass of the photons. I have however not changed the photon's velocity because that is impossible. I have not changed the amount of photons in the stream as they are being emitted from the laser and reflected between the two mirrors. The photon count is identical. Only the trains velocity changes. The laws of conservation of energy apply. The speed of light remains the same. No new energy is being delivered to the photons besides the fact that they are shifted blue or red do to velocity change.
So then how is it blue shifted photons deliver more radiation pressure through their resting mass then red shifted ones? If the photon count is the same? Hmmmmm????
This experiment seems to prove that NOT ONLY can the inertia of photon be altered. They do so without the need of a Higgs field. The only variable that changes is the velocity of the train. Care to explain anyone?
Screw you Nobel comity... We do not except pony magic and pseudoevidence as justification for science's highest honors.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
1998
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 13:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
* There is momentum without mass, at least according to this article: Edit: (sorry, had wrong article linked, I meant this one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (see Physical Properties). And this momentum is dependent on the frequency of the particle, as you said in your second "thing to know", since the energy of a photon depends on its frequency. * Emitted light red- or blue-shifts as well, if you move away or towards the emitter. Not only reflected light.
I still need to read past your "things to know" list, but these things already go against the things I know, or believe to know, so can you please explain in more detail or give some sources, so I can read up on these things? |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
1998
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 15:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
According to your theory each photon should have the same momentum, no matter whether the train is moving relative to the mirror or not.
But if you move towards the mirror (and your light gets blue-shifted), it means you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor. Thus more photons will arrive at the mirror within the same time compared to a non-moving train. Thus more momentum will be transferred to the mirror, thus higher radiation pressure. |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
858
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 15:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Now I may be a simple country Hyperchicken, but I thought the frequency of the wave is directly tied to how much energy the particle possesses. As in how much it vibrates as it travels at the speed of light. Why would mass have anything to do with it? Why do you say the trains motion is adding mass to the photons and not energy?
In my mind, the speed of light is constant, the train can't add or take away from the speed of light no matter what direction it travels, so the only thing it can do is add or take away from the energy of the photons, and we see that as redshifts or blueshifts.
Also as Riyria said above, emitted light also redshifts/blueshifts. Otherwise, how could we tell that distant galaxies are redshifted?
Finally, as mind boggling as the concept of the higgs field is, the whole point was to help the standard model explain why particles of the same family can have wildly different masses. I don't think the energy of a train is going to help explain that difference considering it took the LHC running at full power to produce a higgs boson. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1205
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 17:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:According to your theory each photon should have the same momentum, no matter whether the train is moving relative to the mirror or not.
But if you move towards the mirror (and your light gets blue-shifted), it means you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor. Thus more photons will arrive at the mirror within the same time compared to a non-moving train. Thus more momentum will be transferred to the mirror, thus higher radiation pressure.
Thank you Kijo Rikki and Riyria Twinpeaks for your two engaging posts. I am at work atm so I'll have to site the sources you asked for when I get home. If I may ask, which part of the list went against what you thought you knew?
Anyway...
Your view of a photon "you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor" is very commonplace. Let me explain and perhaps rephrase a little bit.
Picture if you will a single photon (defined as an elementary particle and/or a single quanta of light) traveling back and forth between two particles of glass. This photon or quanta of energy is presumed to actually exist being that they are observed in particle accelerators and certain types of experiments.
So This Single Photon
Is traveling back and forth between two glass particles right? Those particles of glass are now acting as mirror A and mirror B. This single photon of light can be blue shifted or red shifted. When it is blue shifted it will deliver more energy to Mirror A then it will when it is red shifted and interacting with Mirror B.
Therefore... the actual effect that we see is not coming from there being more or less photons impacting the mirror at any given moment. Since a single photon can be blue shifted or red shifted.
Edit: I'll have to answer Kijo Rikki's question later... back to work I go!
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 19:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
So if the mirror moves towards the approaching photon, it gets blue shifted. As the energy of a photon depends on the wavelength, the blue shifted photon has more energy. And as the momentum of a photon is higher if its energy is higher, the momentum transferred to the mirror is as well.
So for the mirror moving towards the approaching photon, the photon still moves at c, of course, but has higher energy than for a mirror moving in the same direction as the approaching, then red-shifted photon.
I don't see the connection to the higgs field, though. And that's related to the point I don't agree with in your assumptions: that photons have a resting mass. They can have momentum without resting mass. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1206
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 20:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Edit: Btw, I think I don't understand the settings for your thought experiment. I don't understand why the shifting would be different for each of the two mirrors.
Or do the mirrors move relative to each other, too?
For the sake of simplicity let us say that the mirrors are 100% reflective. Photons would be bouncing back and forth between them endlessly. As the train travels through space so are the mirrors. The forward mirror is always falling away from any photon that hits it, where as the rear mirror is always falling towards the photon that hits it.
That additional motion added or subtracted to the fixed speed of light is what creates a red or blue shift in light.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:I don't see the connection to the higgs field, though. And that's related to the point I don't agree with in your assumptions: that photons have a resting mass. They can have momentum without resting mass. This will also serve as an answer to Kijo Rikki's questions.
I think that in a rush I miss-spoke or oversimplified the part about the photon's mass. Allow me to correct this...
More Accurate Version
It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. There is a really big problem here, because zero multiplied by infinity is still zero. Where as light definitely has momentum at the speed of light.
In the case of light we are asked by "those who know more than us" to simply ignore this paradox. We are told that it does not matter. I call BS on that... it does matter. It matters very very much. But that is another discussion all together.
With regards to the Mirror experiment, the standard model tells us that all leptons and quarks get their inertia from an imaginary higgs field. So if light falling onto a mirror exhibits a force equal to that of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms it suffices to say that a higgs field interaction of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms would be required. Right? Is that not where mass is supposed to come from in the first place? And if that force is not coming from the higgs field why is it there?
And yet... photons said to have no mass and no interaction with this so called higgs field some how exhibit the same equivalent inertia. Hmmmmmm......
Super Simplified
We are being told that...
An invisible field that we cannot see or detect Is giving all particles in the universe mass Through an interaction that we do not understand But does not interact with photons... which is why they have (or are supposed to have) zero rest mass
And yet...
Photons seem to have inertia at the speed of light, which is universally associated with mass despite the fact that they do not interact with said Higgs field? 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 (aka ya know... pony magic )
I am not the only person in the world seeing a huge gaping contradiction in logic here. It is just that the Higgs detractors do not get on the news very much. As it turns out... there is allot of money and ego in particle physics. People do not like to be wrong.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 22:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
You are making me do research to keep up, I like it.
Here is what I found in regards to my initial assumption:
"wikipedia" wrote: n empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[14]
E^{2}=p^{2} c^{2} + m^{2} c^{4}. The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (++) or inversely, its wavelength (++):
E=\hbar\omega=h\nu=\frac{hc}{\lambda} \boldsymbol{p}=\hbar\boldsymbol{k}, where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k = |k| = 2-Ç/++), -ë = 2-Ç++ is the angular frequency, and -º = h/2-Ç is the reduced Planck constant.[15]
Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is
p=\hbar k=\frac{h\nu}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}.
"wikipedia" wrote: Electromagnetic radiation is quantized in particles called photons, the particle aspect of its waveGÇôparticle duality. Photons are best explained by quantum mechanics. Although photons are considered to be zero-rest mass particles, they have the properties of energy and momentum, thus exhibit the property of mass as they travel at light speed. The momentum of a photon is given by:
p = h/++ = mc where p is momentum, h is Planck's constant, ++ is wavelength, m is mass, and c is speed of light in vacuum. This expression shows the waveGÇôparticle duality.
E = mc2 = pc is the mass-energy relationship where E is the energy. Then
p = E/c. The generation of radiation pressure results from the momentum property of photons, specifically, changing the momentum when incident radiation strikes a surface. The surface exerts a force on the photons in changing their momentum by Newton's Second Law. A reactive force is applied to the body by Newton's Third Law.
The orientation of a reflector determines the component of momentum normal to its surface, and also affects the frontal area of the surface facing the energy source. Each factor contributes a cosine function, reducing the pressure on the surface.[5] The pressure experienced by a perfectly reflecting planar surface is then:
P_{reflect} = \frac{2E_f}{c} \cos^2 \alpha ( N-+m-2 or Pa ) where P is pressure, Ef is the energy flux (intensity) in W/m2, c is speed of light in vacuum, +¦ is the angle between the surface normal and the incident radiation.[6]
Again, alot of this is over my head but the gist I believe is that the energy is carried in the frequency of the wave, not by its mass times the speed of light. Light gets a different set of rules, much like many things in quantum mechanics. "Those that know better than us" (certainly me) tell us this. Having seen the double slit experiment and hearing explanations of quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, I am inclined to believe them for now, there is clearly alot general relativity cannot explain about the quantum world.
I guess a question I would pose if photons did have mass would be, so where does that mass come from? When I turn on my lights in my house, as those photons are being created are they stealing the mass from the filament in my lightbulb? What about your laserbeam? A microwave oven? Radio Broadcast Towers?
In regards to your last statement, I feel you judge particle physicists too harshly. There is still so much more physicist at the LHC have to explore including super symmetrical particles (which as to date isn't looking good for the home team) and studying the beginning of the big bang.
I love to watch all things concerning astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics. How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and even off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe with NDT. In all of these shows, I never got a sense that anyone being interviewed or narrating thought that the Higgs was guaranteed to be there. Alot of people "believed" that something like the Higgs would be found. Peter Higgs even said that during an interview
"Through the Wormhole" wrote: Antony Valentini of Clemson University is a quantum heretic. He loudly proclaims that physics went off the rails in the 1920s when it embraced the doctrine of quantum uncertainty, which says that nothing is real until we look at it. Valentini champions the theory that got left behind. It was created by one of the pillars of early 20th-century physics, Louis de Broglie. Louis de Broglie's original idea is an electron is both a wave and a particle all the time. It's not the case that, well, sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave. There is a wave guiding a particle at all times. And de Broglie called this a pilot wave. In quantum theory, there's something called the probability wave, a purely mathematical object that tells you the chance of finding an electron at any point in space. Pilot wave theory treats this wave as a real physical object. So, a simple analog is a bottle. Someone is on an island, and they want to send a message. So they write something on a piece of paper, put it in a bottle, close it, and throw it in the ocean. And water waves simply push the bottle along. There is a crucial difference between the waves we know and the pilot wave. According to the theory, pilot waves exist in hidden dimensions of space beyond the three we know. If true, this means that, contrary to the accepted theory in physics, quantum objects obey the same rules as large objects. They do not exist in two places at once. They're part of the real world. I think that quantum mechanics itself is not even a candidate for the truth about the microscopic world, because it simply doesn't attempt to describe precisely what the microscopic world is. The mere fact that there are different theories about what the answer might be doesn't mean that there's no answer. And eventually one of them is found to be the correct one.
You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 22:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
I actually ran out of space to type there, I had hoped to link Peter Higg's actual response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImBwsQyEXds You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Something Random
The Barrow Boys
622
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 23:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Im a proven numpty however i have always had one thought here
Other than a guy on the internet challenging the greatest minds universities have to offer.....
Mine is of course simple.
Light is apparently a constant, light is apparently a wave. Presumably the speed of light is taking into account this, wave. So something - oh the photon - is always travelling faster than 'light' as its a wave and doesnt traverse a straight course ?
Not sure - need to be numptied more. I like learning. "caught on fire a little bit, just a little." "Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangsn++ all here!" I love Science, it gives me a Hadron. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1206
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 23:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Whoohoo! An intelligent debate... You have no idea how hard it is to get one of these \0/
You are correct. The assumption is that the energy of light is being carried in the energy of the wave. The problem is that this does not actually work even by elementary school mathematical standards. An object with 0 mass can deliver 0 force onto an object no matter how fast it is traveling.
But we live in a world where it is ok for the people at Cern, the people featured in How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and the off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe... are allowed to invent as many dimensions, virtual fields, branes, strings, dark matter, dark energy and what I have been referring to as pony magic necessary in order to explain away the obvious discrepancies in their theories of everything.
In most classes on quantum mechanics, or forums covering this material, the discussions revolve around properties of sub atomic particles that are counter intuitive and not conceptually understandable. Subatomic particles can jump from one point to another without passing through the space in between. Two entangled photons can communicate faster than the speed of light over larger distances. Many such ideas that cannot be understandable when analyzed through current conceptual models of particles and forces.
There is enough evidence in particle mechanics and astrophysics to reasonably conclude that the current calculations it uses are either incomplete, contain at least one error or are in fact totally wrong. When a calculation falls apart and results in impossible answers like infinity, or if they require fields like the Higgs field that fly in the face of all known observable phenomena in order to make it all work... it is a tell tale sign that something is wrong.
I mean... listen to CERN's description of the Higgs field and see for yourself. I actually pulled this from their website
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.
You tell me... what field in the universe can interact with matter but not exert a force? Is that not a ridiculous contradiction when you think about it? It interacts with all matter, but it cannot accelerate a particle or transfer energy? What field of any shape, composition or form in our entire existence does not transfer energy?
What business do string theorists have calling for 11 dimensions in order to make their equations work when we have no evidence suggesting that others even exist? Not 1, or 2 or 3... they need 11 in order to make it all work. This is a tell tale sign that their math is wrong, or at the very least flawed.
Scientists need to understand quantum mechanics in terms that violate the normal observable laws of the universe is a clear indication that they are using the wrong model. But instead of fixing that model at a fundamental level... they do stupid stuff like 11 dimensions and fields that violate all know physical laws. It is not coincidence that we have not discovered them yet... it is because they are not really there. They are figments of imaginary processes.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1208
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 23:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
I totally agree with him.
Quantum electrodynamics is something we understand pretty well. We have some idea of what mass and velocity will do to particles at this point. We can make predictions of what we can expect to find when we smash things together at certain energy levels. Thus, we can expect to find a particle with Higgs-like properties because it was based on quantum electrodynamic understanding.
This is like Buckminsterfullerene, a geodesic dome of carbon atoms that has unique properties in chemistry. They were predicted to exist before they were generated in a lab. We could predict that carbon atoms and their bonds could result in such a combination.
This is the same thing that allowed Higgs to predict the existence of a particle with certain properties existing at a certain energy level. It should be there...based upon what we know.
BUT....
When push comes to shove... the particle that they found doesn't do anything interesting as far as we can tell. It is very bland, average and boring besides the fact that it has 0 spin--but it is not the only particle that has 0 spin. There is absolutely no reason to think that it has any exotic qualities at all. The properties they are pertaining to the "Higgs Particle" is as absurd as those who won the Nobel prize for manufacturing Buckminsterfullerene suggesting that a dome of Carbon atoms could defy newtons law of gravity. Or something to that effect.
It is fantastic that we can predict the existence of a particle through interactions of mass and energy. It is terrible that science can apply an interaction to such an idea that has never been observed and cannot be validated through experimentation... and then award science's highest honor for it.
I do not think I am being to hard on the people at CERN. They have a tremendous emotional involvement and billions of dollars in grants are on the line. None of which is the least bit relevant to the true and pure search of science.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 23:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Something Random wrote:Im a proven numpty however i have always had one thought here
Other than a guy on the internet challenging the greatest minds universities have to offer.....
Mine is of course simple.
Light is apparently a constant, light is apparently a wave. Presumably the speed of light is taking into account this, wave. So something - oh the photon - is always travelling faster than 'light' as its a wave and doesnt traverse a straight course ?
Not sure - need to be numptied more. I like learning.
That is an interesting thought, just as I am at rest at my computer, the rotation and forward momentum of the Earth combined with the motion of the Sun, Galaxy and Expansion of the Universe means I am moving much faster. Conversely, the added motion of a wave to the speed of light is an interesting proposition but I believe this is partially (if not fully) why we have redshifted and blueshifted light.
The doppler effect is more or less for sound waves or similar things. Light is constant in a vacuum for all obververs, no matter their motion in a frame of reference. Therefore , the photons cannot actually exceed the speed of light, so they must slow down to a certain percentage of C to make the frequency of their wave + their forward motion = c. I'm not sure if that is correct but it's been explained that anyone on a train travelling at the speed of light who tries to move forward will slow down in time so that they never break light speed. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.26 23:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Whoohoo! An intelligent debate... You have no idea how hard it is to get one of these \0/
Glad to be here, while I never went to college, lately I've found this field of science extremely fascinating, at least when its brought to me in a digestible form for my simple mind to take in.
Quote: But we live in a world where it is ok for the people at Cern, the people featured in How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and the off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe... are allowed to invent as many dimensions, virtual fields, branes, strings, dark matter, dark energy and what I have been referring to as pony magic necessary in order to explain away the obvious discrepancies in their theories of everything. ...
There is enough evidence in particle mechanics and astrophysics to reasonably conclude that the current calculations it uses are either incomplete, contain at least one error or are in fact totally wrong. When a calculation falls apart and results in impossible answers like infinity, or if they require fields like the Higgs field that fly in the face of all known observable phenomena in order to make it all work... it is a tell tale sign that something is wrong.
Most if not all of the speakers for the shows I watch have pointed out the flaws in the standard model and especially in string theory. String Theory was only ever seriously spoken about on Through the Wormhole, and that show is more about exploring the fringes of Science and asking controversial and spiritual questions. The epidose of TTW after the Higgs Discovery announced was jam pakced with "well now we found it, now here's a ton of other problems that pop up even with the Higgs" and vaguely, those problems can be solved by finding an additional 4 higgs bosons, an y and z boson, unparticles.... basically, even with the Higgs there are still unexplained problems. And they know it.
Quote: Scientists need to understand quantum mechanics in terms that violate the normal observable laws of the universe is a clear indication that they are using the wrong model. But instead of fixing that model at a fundamental level... they do stupid stuff like 11 dimensions and fields that violate all know physical laws. It is not coincidence that we have not discovered them yet... it is because they are not really there. They are figments of imaginary processes.
http://xkcd.com/171/
Laurence Krauss showed that comic during his presentation of A Universe From Nothing. NDT said "There's not a shred of evidence to support it, nor does it make any predictions from which we can test (paraphrasing).
Michio Kaku said quite bluntly, "It's the only game in town". I think most physicist and scientific public speakers are quite honest about the state of String Theory.
You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 00:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I do not think I am being to hard on the people at CERN. They have a tremendous emotional involvement and billions of dollars in grants are on the line. None of which is the least bit relevant to the true and pure search of science.
Do they not have other experiments to keep them busy? Have they exhausted the search for super symmetrical particles, or their study of how the universe began? Do you honestly believe that Higgs or No Higgs, pursuing the truth one way or another was not in the interest of pure science? We need to know one way or the other.
Personally I believe the grants will come, in different forms for different research. The people who run countries are smart enough to know that understanding leads to technology and technology can lead to wealth and power.
A little thought experiment for myself, when the Higgs was discovered, I wondered what technology might arise from knowing it is there. If we know it is there, perhaps in the future we can figure out how to interact with it and manipulate it. Two technologies immediately came to mind, warp drives and gravity bombs.....guess which one I assumed would be made first, and by whom?
Anyway I think the only person who should have been emotionally involved is Peter Higgs himself, everyone else should have been happy to find the truth one way or the other and I just can't accept that the only reason they "found the higgs" is for their pride and grant money.
You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1208
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 00:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:A little thought experiment for myself, when the Higgs was discovered, I wondered what technology might arise from knowing it is there. If we know it is there, perhaps in the future we can figure out how to interact with it and manipulate it.
Probably not much considering that it takes 1 trillion (10^12) proton collisions just to see one.
The kicker is... we know that it is there now and we can interact with it now. It is a positively charged particle that we can play with like anything else--much like a proton. Being that it has no perceivable unique qualities whatsoever, like it does not pass through matter and magnetic fields like neutrinos. Nor does it behave like light. It is just kind of there... benign.
Link - You Mean This Guy
IMO he is one of the epitome's of today's "fame oriented" physics. That is why you are seeing him on TV so much in the first place. As stated, show boat science has allot of money and ego involved. Time traveling wormholes have no relevance to me outside of the next great Star Trek episode.
This guy is starting to say stuff like "it is the biggest game in town" because he has too... the more time passes the more the standard model begins to reveal it's limitations. People have realized that the standard model in it's current state cannot lead to grand unification. They just do not grasp how deep the rabbit hole really goes. How far off it might actually be from describing the universe as a whole.
Kijo Rikki wrote:Do they not have other experiments to keep them busy? Have they exhausted the search for super symmetrical particles, or their study of how the universe began? Do you honestly believe that Higgs or No Higgs, pursuing the truth one way or another was not in the interest of pure science? We need to know one way or the other.
Did you know that CERN was originally built for nuclear weapon's research and not pure scientific interest? It was about the Atom bomb and the fear of adversaries having it in a post second world war world.
Did you also know that in order to get the data they have they have to throw away massive volumes of data? Labeling it as "already awarded the nobel prize for this so we do not have to analyze it?"
Higgs or no Higgs... truth or no truth... the single most important thing is adhering to the scientific method. That very same thing that you and I learned in elementary school. You cannot award the Nobel prize for an interaction that has never been seen and has never been tested. Hell... they could not even wait for CERN to finish it's upgrades in a year to further study this so called particle. They just slapped a label on it with no regard for the pure art of scientific endeavour. That... is not the search for truth my friend. That is bad science.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
863
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 01:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
I get that Michio Kaku is a show boat scientist, but you must understand making science flashy is just a means of getting people who would otherwise pay no attention to science to take an interest. The general public is largely ignorant of even the most basic concepts to come out of physics and cosmology in recent years. I've met people who will argue with me that the Sun and the stars are two entirely different things. Having a public so largely ignorant is dangerous, especially when corporate, political, or religious interests so frequently take advantage of that ignorance.
I did not knoe those things about CERN.
Quote: Higgs or no Higgs... truth or no truth... the single most important thing is adhering to the scientific method. That very same thing that you and I learned in elementary school. You cannot award the Nobel prize for an interaction that has never been seen and has never been tested. Hell... they could not even wait for CERN to finish it's upgrades in a year to further study this so called particle. They just slapped a label on it with no regard for the pure art of scientific endeavour. That... is not the search for truth my friend. That is bad science.
Now this I will agree with 100%. I was not aware they had already awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course more testing and examination of the data should be done, and I would hope you are being facetious when you say the data was just filed away after the fact. I was under the impression that there is so much data they have to use algorithms and programs to try sifting through hundreds of petabytes of data just to find what they are looking for.
I won't necessarily lay the blame on the people at CERN, though. If I recall correctly, they gave a Nobel Prize to a certain president just for being elected and nothing else. Seems ot me the voting committee is just so eager to hand those awards out before the news of random occurences like the first black president or the discovery of a particle dies down. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1209
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 01:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
I can get on board with most of what you said there.
Kijo Rikki, do you realize that at this point we are coming to and understanding between each other's opposing views and meeting each other on a common middle ground? Could this be a first in the history of the EVE Forums
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
864
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 01:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
It's possible. The universe is old and big and rare things happen all the time!
Now if only such a rare event would happen in something like politics.... You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 05:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Just woke up, and before I'll read all of these certainly interesting posts (at work, probably ;P), I want to respond to your (the OP's) attitude that we live "in a world where those physicists are allowed to come up with all sorts of weird things to explain away the obvious discrepancies of their theories" (paraphrased).
If their "weird things" explain the experimental results, and can predict more experimental results, and there aren't experimental results they can't explain, then that's the best theory we have so far. Their "weird things" improved the theory to be able to explain what's actually happening.
So, while I enjoy a debate like this, I don't really understand why you seem to occasionally fall into a rant about the apparent arbitrariness of complicated explanations, when those explanations work with our current experimental data, as far as I know. |
|
Candi LeMew
Rolled Out
3069
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 05:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
Wow, this thread.
/inteligasm !
"I been kicked out of better homes than this" - Rick James
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 11:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
It seems the discussion moved to the topic of "current particle physics is over-hyped and the standard model too full of arbitrary inventions" or something like that, which I find a little sad, but oh well.
First a reply to the thought experiment part, though.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...]
For the sake of simplicity let us say that the mirrors are 100% reflective. Photons would be bouncing back and forth between them endlessly. As the train travels through space so are the mirrors. The forward mirror is always falling away from any photon that hits it, where as the rear mirror is always falling towards the photon that hits it.
That additional motion added or subtracted to the fixed speed of light is what creates a red or blue shift in light.
When you look at the light from right next to mirror A, and the train moves towards mirror A, then the light is blue-shifted. But an observer next to mirror B, looking at the light reflected by A, will also see it blue-shifted, as B is not moving relative to A.
When you look at the light from the train, and the train moves towards mirror A, then the light looks "normal" to you, as you move with the same speed as the emitter. The reflected light will look "double-blue-shifted" to you. This is because the mirror receives blue-shifted light, and thus reflects blue-shifted light, which gets blue-shifted again as you are moving towards it. Maybe it's better to imagine like this: Basically the train's "mirror image" moves towards the original train at double the speed than the train moves towards the mirror, so the observer on the train sees doubly as much blue-shifting than the observer at mirror A.
Since mirror B does not move relative to A, from your perspective it moves away from the reflected light, so you can assume that the light arriving at the mirror will look, for the observer at mirror B, red-shifted compared to what you are seeing. Since you are seeing it double-blue-shifted, what remains is the single blue-shift observed in the mirror's reference frame above.
This is why I don't see the mirrors receiving differently shifted light if they don't move relative to each other, no matter what reference frame you assume.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:This will also serve as an answer to Kijo Rikki's questions. I think that in a rush I miss-spoke or oversimplified the part about the photon's mass. Allow me to correct this... More Accurate VersionIt is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. There is a really big problem here, because zero multiplied by infinity is still zero. Where as light definitely has momentum at the speed of light. In the case of light we are asked by "those who know more than us" to simply ignore this paradox. We are told that it does not matter. I call BS on that... it does matter. It matters very very much. But that is another discussion all together. With regards to the Mirror experiment, the standard model tells us that all leptons and quarks get their inertia from an imaginary higgs field. So if light falling onto a mirror exhibits a force equal to that of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms it suffices to say that a higgs field interaction of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms would be required. Right? Is that not where mass is supposed to come from in the first place? And if that force is not coming from the higgs field then how is it there? Yet... photons said to have no mass and no interaction with this so called higgs field some how exhibit the same equivalent inertia. Hmmmmmm...... Super SimplifiedWe are being told that... An invisible field that we cannot see or detect Is giving all particles in the universe mass Through an interaction that we do not understand But does not interact with photons... which is why they have (or are supposed to have) zero rest mass And yet... Photons seem to have inertia at the speed of light, which is universally associated with mass despite the fact that they do not interact with said Higgs field? On top of that...the Higgs field is not considered a force. It cannot accelerate particles, it doesn't transfer energy. However, it supposedly interacts universally with all particles (except the massless ones), providing their masses. Does that not sound like pony magic to you? I am not the only person in the world seeing a huge gaping contradiction in logic here. It is just that the Higgs detractors do not get on the news very much. As it turns out... there is allot of money and ego in particle physics. People do not like to be wrong.
Here you are still assuming that you need mass to have momentum. You refuse the idea of energy being enough to cause momentum. Why is that? Because it's not explained by school physics? Neither is Mercury's orbit.
If no mass is needed, no higgs interaction is needed.
Btw, according to this, the energy needed to accellerate an object from rest to a given speed v is:
E = mc-¦ / sqrt(1 - v-¦/c-¦) - mc-¦
For all masses m greater than zero this means that the energy needed to accellerate an object approaches infinity when the speed v approaches the speed of light. So if photons have a resting mass, how can they be accellerated to move at the speed of light?
And while we were not able to experimentally show that photons don't have a resting mass, these relativistic energy equations seem to work well enough with everything we have experimental data for. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 12:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: This is why I don't see the mirrors receiving differently shifted light if they don't move relative to each other, no matter what reference frame you assume..
I used the example of a laser falling on two mirrors as a simplified example. Yes, light coming from the laser will shift like anything else and things will tend to cancel each other out. But that is not really what the example is mean to convey, so you are taking it a bit to literal.
Take the laser out of the equation and now envision light bouncing back and forth between two 100% reflective mirrors. Now you can better understand how a single photon can pass back and forth being blue shifted and red shifted as it does so. Make more sense now?
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: Here you are still assuming that you need mass to have momentum. You refuse the idea of energy being enough to cause momentum. 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. But putting that aside for a moment, yes... absolutely yes I have a problem with with a zero mass point having inertia.
Now, i am not calling you stupid here or questioning your merit. You seem to have a grasp of things that is better than many others I have encountered. But the only reason why you think that such a thing is acceptable is because you read it in a book somewhere or on the internet. In that source, written in black and white, that text told you that it is ok for a photon with 0 mass to have inertia. It attributes this to effects that occur at the speed of light and gives it a name like "special" or "relativistic" in an attempt to justify an effect that defies normal Newtonian laws and the most basic mathematical principles.
The equations you site are descriptions of a phenomena not an explanation as to how it can occur. It is important to understand the difference. A photon with a mass of absolute 0 cannot have inertia at any speed. Mass is the single most requirement of inertia.
Without inertia there can be no momentum and light would be absorbed and reflected without a radiation pressure. It is not ok to make an equation (that is in fact a description and not a definition) and conveniently remove all concepts of known physics in the process. It is better to say "we don't know how yet".
Now you may read time and time again "photons have no mass" but that is not the only thing to read on the internet. You may also encounter stuff like this...
Quote:Experiments don't determine exact quantities because of small errors inherent in making measurements. We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results.
This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner.
Now such experiments are subject to debate and how accurate this measurement is in question. But it suffices to say that not 100% of all people on earth think that a photon can have 0 mass but also have inertia. There are other explanations that do not defy basic mathematics and basic Newtonian physical laws. They are just not at the forefront so when you google "does a photon have mass" you always get 13,000,000 results saying no.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 12:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:It seems the discussion moved to the topic of "current particle physics is over-hyped and the standard model too full of arbitrary inventions" or something like that, which I find a little sad, but oh well.
Read the definition of the Higgs field.
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.
How do you define over-hyped and arbitrary? A noble prize awarded before an interaction was observed I call over-hyped. Needing a field that disobeys every known physical law in the universe in order to explain all known physical laws... I'd say is pretty arbitrary.
A field that is not a force? That cannot accelerate particles but can slow them down? That does not transfer energy?
But.... universally interacts with all particles in the universe?
I mean... come on... Look at what you are reading!
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 13:15:00 -
[25] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: I used the example of a laser falling on two mirrors as a simplified example. Yes, light coming from the laser will shift like anything else and things will tend to cancel each other out. But that is not really what the example is mean to convey, so you are taking it a bit to literal.
Take the laser out of the equation and now envision light bouncing back and forth between two 100% reflective mirrors. Now you can better understand how a single photon can pass back and forth being blue shifted and red shifted as it does so. Make more sense now?
If light bounces back and forth between two mirrors stationary relative to each other, then both mirrors "see" the same light incoming, no difference in frequency-shifting. The light hitting the mirror is always moving toward the mirror and was reflected by another mirror not moving relative to the receiver. How can there be any frequency shifting at all?
Eternum Praetorian wrote: I seem to recall mercury's orbit being of interest in the fifth grade, so I am not sure what you are referring to. But putting that aside for a moment, yes... absolutely yes I have a problem with with an actual 100% zero mass point having inertia at any velocity.
Now, i am not calling you stupid here or questioning your merit. You seem to have a grasp of things that is better than many others I have encountered. But the only reason why you think that such a thing is acceptable is because you read it in a book somewhere or on the internet. In that source, written in black and white, that text told you that it is ok for a photon with 0 mass to have inertia. It attributes this to effects that occur at the speed of light and gives it a name like "special" or "relativistic" in an attempt to justify an effect that defies normal Newtonian laws and the most basic mathematical principles.
The equations you site are descriptions of a phenomena not an explanation as to how it can occur. It is important to understand the difference. A photon with a mass of absolute 0 cannot have inertia at any speed. This is mathematically true and any school kid can do the equation. Mass is the single most requirement of inertia, every school kid knows this too.
Without inertia there can be no momentum and light would be absorbed and reflected without a radiation pressure. It is not ok to make an equation (that is in fact a description and not a definition) and conveniently remove all concepts of known physics in the process. It is better to say "we don't know how yet".
When a description (the equation) fits everything relevant to it we can observe for now, it's the best working model we have. Until we find experimental data which contradicts the model, and/or a better model, it makes sense to try to explain things based on the model. If we see contradictions we have to adjust our model or come up with a new one. Isn't that the scientific way?
Also, you're talking about resting mass, but for momentum, the "inertial mass" is important. So next you're probably going to tell me, that it's counter-intuitive that something which doesn't have a resting mass, has mass when moving at the speed of light, and that the whole mass-energy equivalency thing is nonsense, too.
Maybe the universe is just that complex and not so simple when you look closer? We're talking about areas we don't have any experience with from our daily lives. I don't find it surprising that things become unintuitive on scales we can't even properly imagine, like the speed of light, sizes smaller than atoms and so on.
If you go by what's intuitive, and needing resting mass to have momentum is an intuitive assumption, then we would also disregard special relativity. The equations and the model works with our experimental data, but I personally think it's far from intuitive. Shouldn't you argue that it's nonsense to try to explain things like that and better say "we don't know"?
Or general relativity. Isn't it a crazy idea for mass to warp space rather than just attracting other masses?
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Now you may read time and time again "photons have no mass" but that is not the only thing to read on the internet. You may also encounter stuff like this... Quote:Experiments don't determine exact quantities because of small errors inherent in making measurements. We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results.
This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner. Now such experiments are subject to debate and how accurate this measurement is in question. But it suffices to say that not 100% of all people on earth think that a photon can have 0 mass but also have inertia. There are other explanations that do not defy basic mathematics and basic Newtonian physical laws. They are just not at the forefront so when you google "does a photon have mass" you always get 13,000,000 results saying no.
That's why I mentioned my example of mercury's orbit around the sun (and I didn't have that topic at school. My mistake to assume that was normal). It defies Newtonian's equations, too.
I've found that quote about the experimental upper limit on a photon's mass, too, btw. I didn't find anyone putting a lower limit on a photon's resting mass, though, so it being massless is still very much possible, I guess. And please lead me to those other explanations (or shouldn't you say descriptions?), because I am interested in taking a look at them. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2000
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 13:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:It seems the discussion moved to the topic of "current particle physics is over-hyped and the standard model too full of arbitrary inventions" or something like that, which I find a little sad, but oh well. Read the definition of the Higgs field. 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. How do you define over-hyped and arbitrary? A noble prize awarded before an interaction was observed I call over-hyped. Needing a field that disobeys every known physical law in the universe in order to explain all known physical laws... I'd say is pretty arbitrary. A field that is not a force? That cannot accelerate particles but can slow them down? That does not transfer energy? But.... universally interacts with all particles in the universe? I mean... come on... Look at what you are reading!
It's a clumsy and hard to believe and outrageously unimaginable concept. I wonder what people said about general relativity back then.
I also don't think any serious scientist will say his theory is "the truth" .. theories are just descriptions, as you mentioned, and as long as they explain things we observe, they seem to be on the right track.
I'm not familiar with the details of the higgs field, and why there was a need to find an explanation for the origin of mass. But if the math works out and it manages to correctly predict experimental results, it's a good start, I think.
Btw.. please explain the "can't accelerate, but slow down particles" part, since slowing down and accellerating are the same thing to me, and this is the first time I've read anything like that about the higgs field. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:If light bounces back and forth between two mirrors stationary relative to each other, then both mirrors "see" the same light incoming, no difference in frequency-shifting. The light hitting the mirror is always moving toward the mirror and was reflected by another mirror not moving relative to the receiver. How can there be any frequency shifting at all?.
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.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Also, you're talking about resting mass, but for momentum, the "inertial mass" is important. So next you're probably going to tell me, that it's counter-intuitive that something which doesn't have a resting mass, has mass when moving at the speed of light, and that the whole mass-energy equivalency thing is nonsense, too
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 Bit
So 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.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Maybe the universe is just that complex and not so simple when you look closer? We're talking about areas we don't have any experience with from our daily lives. I don't find it surprising that things become unintuitive on scales we can't even properly imagine, like the speed of light, sizes smaller than atoms and so on
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 our 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 another possible explanation?
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.
|
De'Veldrin
Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables
2398
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 19:50:00 -
[28] - Quote
A photon can have inertial mass - in fact they do have inertial mass, which is the mass based on the energy of the particle. If this were not true, they would not be affected by things like black holes and gravitational lensing. This is the mass that causes photons to have momentum.
What photons lack is rest mass, aka invariant mass. If they did not lack this, they would be unable to attain c, because as you approach c, your rest mass approaches infinity.
GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. Schr+¦dinger's Hotdropper |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1210
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 20:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:A photon can have inertial mass - in fact they do have inertial mass, which is the mass based on the energy of the particle. If this were not true, they would not be affected by things like black holes and gravitational lensing. This is the mass that causes photons to have momentum.
What photons lack is rest mass, aka invariant mass. If they did not lack this, they would be unable to attain c, because as you approach c, your rest mass approaches infinity.
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?
|
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 20:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:A photon can have inertial mass - in fact they do have inertial mass, which is the mass based on the energy of the particle. If this were not true, they would not be affected by things like black holes and gravitational lensing. This is the mass that causes photons to have momentum.
What photons lack is rest mass, aka invariant mass. If they did not lack this, they would be unable to attain c, because as you approach c, your rest mass approaches infinity.
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? Edit: I should point out that I do not actually agree with you. I am just following your own train of thought to see what your explanation is.
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). Profit favors the prepared |
|
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. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote: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.
That's some pretty cool stuff there.
However it is not clear that they are slowing down the speed of light. They could just as easily be slowing down the rate of emission and re-emission at matter's quantum level. The effect they are demonstrating is actually no different than the effect that causes glass to create a prism. Only greatly exaggerated.
In other words they are not slowing down the speed of light in a vacuum and this happens all the time when light passes through glass.
|
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter? Profit favors the prepared |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 16:55:00 -
[63] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
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.
Riyria Twinpeaks, I don't think you understand what a Doppler shift really is. It does not require an observer, light thus red shifter or blue shifted is detectably so no matter what frame of reference you are looking at it from. Anything falling towards or away from a photon will red shift or blue shift said photon.
The frequency of light is what it was prior to it being reflected and the Doppler shift is what the frequency is after it is reflected. All motion is relative to the speed of light and that is all that matters.
Changing This Analogy To Cars
If 2 cars that 100% reflective to one another are traveling down a highway they may have a radar beam bouncing back and forth between them. You seem to think that there will be no Doppler shift between the two cars because they are traveling at the same speed. This is however incorrect.
Both car's speed are not being factored vs each other they are being factor against the fixed speed of light. So when the radar beam impacts the rear car when it is reflected back it picks up some blue shift because the car is falling towards the path of the light beam. When that same beam hits the forward most car in picks up some redshift because the car is falling away from the path of the light beam.
This is simply how it works.
It is not about the cars relative to each other it is about the cars relative to the velocity of the photon (and it's direction) upon impact.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?
I'm gonna say no.
When you hear most "smart people" talking about photon and particle mass, relative or otherwise, they do not use the term "relative mass" much. The reason why they don't is because they find the term a bit cumbersome. Since the mass of particles changes at different velocities it is allot harder to say "Particle A. having a vector vs this frame of reference" than just "Proton has said resting mass"
Most people that you talk to will site Einstein and relativity and tell you strait to your face that the universe has no existing frame of reference. This is similar to the philosophical debate "there is no truth" which I always find amusing to participate in
The Implications Are Huge
In theory, if you disregard all time distortions caused by gravity then in theory the CMB Rest Frame could give us a common frame of reference for all velocities, vectors and the passage of time. We could for the first time determine the actual " time" of the universe and thus compare all effects of time dilation do to velocity and gravity. We would know what was being dilated and how much and thus we would for the first time be able to determine how temporal effects act upon everyday phenomena everywhere.
But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.
|
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:28:00 -
[65] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.
That sounds almost as if they don't *want* there to be a frame of reference. Weird. Profit favors the prepared |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:40:00 -
[66] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote: But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.
That sounds almost as if they don't *want* there to be a frame of reference. Weird.
There are quite a few things they don't want, because there implications tugs at the strings of their theory of everything.
Another HUGE one is how randomness can yield all possible combinations. A mathematician says that if you flip a coin infinite times eventually you will turn up heads 10,000,000,000,000 times in a row without a single tales popping up. The math is sound and since there is no existing law that says "a moment/energy/process in oscillation tends to stay in oscillation" there is no way to validate human intuition when it says... no it won't.
Ask these same people if infinite monkeys can accidentally write Shakespeare if given infinity time... they say yes. Ask them if you can set off infinite bombs in the middle of infinite scrabble pieces an infinite amount of times and eventually recreate the text in the bible... they will say yes.
It's stupid...
But the reason why they HAVE to hold onto it so strongly has nothing to do with monkeys, Shakespeare or flipping coins. The truth is that everything based upon the existence of life occurring in the universe and evolution through randomness is rooted in the fundamental idea that "given enough time all possible outcomes are almost certain to happen".
Note: Even though according to that very same math you would have to flip a coin every second for more than twice as long as the universe has existed (according to current cosmological models) in order to be reasonably certain to flip even 100 heads in a row. I don't remember what the number was exactly and I do not feel like doing the math right now, but it was like 24 to 30 billion years or so.
Now... how many unique combinations (and time) is needed to be reasonably certain that randomness will accidentally create your DNA? It's a hell of allot more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 and a hell of allot more than the time it would take to "oops look I flipped a 100 heads in a row"
Just some food for thought!
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:54:00 -
[67] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Changing This Analogy To CarsIf 2 cars that are 100% reflective to one another are traveling down a highway they may have a radar beam bouncing back and forth between them continuously. You seem to think that there will be no Doppler shift between the two cars because they are traveling at the same speed. This is however incorrect. The speed of both cars are not being factored vs each other... they are being factor against the fixed speed of light and it's vector (it's direction). So when the radar beam impacts the rear car and is reflected back it picks up some blue shift because the car is falling towards the path of the light beam. When that same beam hits the forward most car in picks up some redshift because the car is falling away from the path of the light beam. This is simply how it works. It is not about the cars relative to each other it is about the cars relative to the velocity of the photon (and it's direction) upon impact.
I think I'm finally starting to get you. Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.
But if you have an observer between both cars, which moves relative to the cars (for example stands still on the street) and who would intercept the radar waves, he'd indeed see a blue-shifted wave coming from the rear car and a red-shifted wave coming from the front one. Because then the observer moves relative to the reflector/emitter.
If you'd do the same with a perfectly bouncy tennis ball (or something like that xD) bouncing back and forth between both cars, each driver would see the ball incoming and outgoing with the same momentum, when both are driving at the same speed. But someone standing on the street between the cars will see the ball fly faster after bouncing off the rear car, than the other way round.
There's actually a momentum transfer between ball and cars or light and cars. If we tie both cars together then the light would alternately accellerate the two-car-construct this and that way. The radiation pressure as you said.
I suppose this is what you meant with your ability to change the momentum of a photon without changing it's speed (assuming massless photons) and mass.
There was no need to make such a set-up, though. You just need a laser beam pointed at your chest. The laser only emits photons with the same frequency, but once you start moving toward the laser, the light appears blue-shifted to you and you experience higher radiation pressure.
That means the momentum of something depends on the reference frame. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
\0/
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 17:59:00 -
[69] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?
But it doesn't make a difference. Why would it? All it does is tell us how we move relative to how the matter moved which emitted the electromagnetic waves we now see as cosmic microwave background radiation.
Edit: don't get me wrong, that is interesting. But it doesn't mean that the CMB reference frame is fundamentally different than other reference frames. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:00:00 -
[70] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
I think I'm finally starting to get you. Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.
Oh wait....
Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer.
|
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:02:00 -
[71] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Evei Shard wrote:If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter? But it doesn't make a difference. Why would it? All it does is tell us how we move relative to how the matter moved which emitted the electromagnetic waves we now see as cosmic microwave background radiation. Edit: don't get me wrong, that is interesting. But it doesn't mean that the CMB reference frame is fundamentally different than other reference frames.
Because it is the only fixed frame of reference.
One frame of reference means one mass at one speed traveling in one direction at one interval of time that everything else could be measured against. It is like discovering the meter stick after having to guesstimate with your shoes how long something is.
The true mass of something at a true velocity The true speed of time How much something is actually being time dilated do to velocity or gravity
In other words the holy grail.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:04:00 -
[72] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:\0/
I still don't see the issue. If light has no mass and always moves at c, the only way for light to change its momentum is to change frequency. That's what we observe.
So in the end it's just the same argument we had in this thread all the time: "Momentum without mass makes no sense" vs. "Our equations for massless momentum at the speed of light work perfectly fine with our observations" |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:07:00 -
[73] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:\0/ I still don't see the issue. If light has no mass and always moves at c, the only way for light to change its momentum is to change frequency. That's what we observe. So in the end it's just the same argument we had in this thread all the time: "Momentum without mass makes no sense" vs. "Our equations for massless momentum at the speed of light work perfectly fine with our observations"
Yep that's pretty much it.
Your math is "good enough for you" despite the fact that it violates known physics. It's good enough to predict outcomes that are observable but it does nothing as to explain how or why. It's all virtual relative something or another and your cool with that.
But I'm not cool with it...
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:07:00 -
[74] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
I think I'm finally starting to get you. Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.
Oh wait.... Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer.
Nope.. that's actually where you are wrong.
You also won't see a difference between the momentum of the ball bouncing off the rear car and the ball bouncing off the front car, when you are sitting in one of the cars. It's the same. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:09:00 -
[75] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
I think I'm finally starting to get you. Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.
Oh wait.... Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer. Nope.. that's actually where you are wrong. You also won't see a difference between the momentum of the ball bouncing off the rear car and the ball bouncing off the front car, when you are sitting in one of the cars. It's the same.
Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light.
That is just how it works.
Look a Gif!
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:19:00 -
[76] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light. That is just how it works. Look a Gif!
In that gif, the observer obviously is stationary relative to the "white rectangle", meaning the ground, thus, as the car starts to move relative to the ground, and the observer, the observer sees an increase in frequency when on the left side, a decrease of frequency when on the right side.
But if the observer would start moving with the car, he wouldn't see any difference in frequency. I'm astonished you can't see that.
Unless we're talking at cross-purposes here. (I had to look up how to express this phrase in english xD) |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
870
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:29:00 -
[77] - Quote
Fun stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:34:00 -
[78] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light. That is just how it works. Look a Gif! In that gif, the observer obviously is stationary relative to the "white rectangle", meaning the ground, thus, as the car starts to move relative to the ground, and the observer, the observer sees an increase in frequency when on the left side, a decrease of frequency when on the right side. But if the observer would start moving with the car, he wouldn't see any difference in frequency. I'm astonished you can't see that. Unless we're talking at cross-purposes here. (I had to look up how to express this phrase in english xD)
Ok I think you are talking about how two objects moving at the same rate will have proportional red/blue shifts that would appear to cancel each other out if you are moving with them.
I am in fact talking about an independent stationary observer who is capable of detecting the Doppler shift coming off of both cars.
My bad... I was miss reading what you were saying. Now onward with the thread!
|
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Note: Even though according to that very same math you would have to flip a coin every second for more than twice as long as the universe has existed (according to current cosmological models) in order to be reasonably certain to flip even 100 heads in a row. I don't remember what the number was exactly and I do not feel like doing the math right now, but it was like 24 to 30 billion years or so. Now... how many unique combinations (and time) is needed to be reasonably certain that randomness will accidentally create your DNA? It's a hell of allot more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 and a hell of allot more than the time it would take to "oops look I flipped a 100 heads in a row" Just some food for thought!
Off topic here, but this coin flipping brought to mind something interesting (to me, anyway).
The set of flip combinations containing the same side is both infinite and finite at the same time.
The instant you make that first flip, you eliminate one item in that set of results. If you land heads, you've eliminated the potential for infinite tails. If you keep flipping, the moment you land tails, you also eliminate infinite heads as a member of that set.
Yet within the realm of the infinite, it's still possible, much as .9999999... is seen as being equal to 1.
/off topic Profit favors the prepared |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:46:00 -
[80] - Quote
Neat stuff.
It's amazing how much of that would have to be reinterpreted if a universal coordinate system was discovered. Here is a little tidbit of information... Einstein was wrong about at least one thing. Hubble did not come up with the Hubble constant first, a guy names Georges Lema+«tre did. He first came up with the idea that the universe was expanding Hubble just got credit. (BTW HIggs did not come up with the Higgs field first either, wtf right? )
When he brought his findings to Einstein, Einstein reportedly said "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious".
Quote:At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lema+«tre's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lema+«tre recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[12] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.")
Einstein " Refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe" (oops!)
Since the background radiation was discovered by accident in 1965 and Einstien died in 1955... is it so far fetch to think that his theory of relativity would have been modified if he had known of the CMB rest frame?
|
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
871
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 18:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
I thought Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest blunder. I was under the impression he introduced it to fit with the accepted observation at the time that the universe was constant and eternal. His theory would have failed to meet observations and be discarded had he not. Kinda neat that his term can be introduced on the opposite side of the equation to equal the energy-momentum that is driving the universe apart as we observe it today.
Quote: It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are expanding away from each other, implying an overall expanding Universe.
Quote: He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.
Even when he's wrong he was right, and many years before either Hubble or Lemaitre. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2003
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:04:00 -
[82] - Quote
If the discovery of the CMB would have caused contraditions with the theory of relativity, I'm sure some of the many brilliant physicists who lived after Einstein would have worked on correcting this.
But our observations still tell us that it doesn't matter in which inertial reference frame we are. The speed of light is the same, all observable forces act the same, whether our reference frame moves relative to the CMB frame or not.
Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:06:00 -
[83] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:I thought Einstein called his cosmological constant his greatest blunder. I was under the impression he introduced it to fit with the accepted observation at the time that the universe was constant and eternal. His theory would have failed to meet observations and be discarded had he not. Kinda neat that his term can be introduced on the opposite side of the equation to equal the energy-momentum that is driving the universe apart as we observe it today. Quote: It was originally introduced by Albert Einstein in 1917 as an addition to his theory of general relativity to "hold back gravity" and achieve a static universe, which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept as his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our own Local Group are expanding away from each other, implying an overall expanding Universe.
Quote: He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.
Even when he's wrong he was right, and many years before either Hubble or Lemaitre.
I actually had no idea he had a hand in the concepts of expansion.
But... apparently he had to change his theory do to another's observations. How could he not at that point? He may have still been right even when he was wrong, but he still made a boob boo.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:08:00 -
[84] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:If the discovery of the CMB would have caused contraditions with the theory of relativity, I'm sure some of the many brilliant physicists who lived after Einstein would have worked on correcting this. But our observations still tell us that it doesn't matter in which inertial reference frame we are. The speed of light is the same, all observable forces act the same, whether our reference frame moves relative to the CMB frame or not. Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from
It may not "matter" but that does not mean that it is not true. The possible implications of which I have been trying to debate here btw
Quote:The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!
However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2004
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:10:00 -
[85] - Quote
Then I've misunderstood you. Nevermind then. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2004
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:13:00 -
[86] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...]
Ok I think you are talking about how two objects moving at the same rate will have proportional red/blue shifts that would appear to cancel each other out if you are moving with them.
I am in fact talking about an independent stationary observer who is capable of detecting the Doppler shift coming off of both cars.
My bad... I was miss reading what you were saying. Now onward with the thread!
I was always stating the reference frame of the observers as being stationary to the mirrors or cars, when talking about that. An independent "stationary" observer would move relative to the cars, thus detect a Doppler shift, I agree.
Btw, I've edited my "sources" into the post you responded to in my quote. You might have missed it, as I was slow in editing. |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
871
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:23:00 -
[87] - Quote
He had to add a term to the curvature of space time to match a static universe but would not affect Newtonian physics on a solar system level, but would build up on the scalecof the galaxy to hold everything in place against gravity.
It is strange that it now equals a term that contributes to the energy and momentum of the universe because until the 90's, it was assumed the universe was slowing down. Now that term is exactly the expansion as we currently observe it. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
871
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:43:00 -
[88] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
And where the hell is poor Lema+«tre in all of this lol
I linked him in the second quote just to show when he came out with the hubble constant. You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10548
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 19:54:00 -
[89] - Quote
"I don't understand physics, but I'm going to wax philosophical about how all the physicists are wrong."
Idiot. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:13:00 -
[90] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:"I don't understand physics, but I'm going to wax philosophical about how all the physicists are wrong."
Idiot.
I'd like to see you communicate on the level of the other people in this thread... troll
You have no idea what my credentials are and you have no idea that what I am talking about are fundamentals of a pretty comprehensive alternative model for the universe.
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10549
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:15:00 -
[91] - Quote
Well you've chosen to post them here, so it's pretty safe to say you have neither credentials nor comprehensiveness. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1218
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:He had to add a term to the curvature of space time to match a static universe but would not affect Newtonian physics on a solar system level, but would build up on the scalecof the galaxy to hold everything in place against gravity.
It is strange that it now equals a term that contributes to the energy and momentum of the universe because until the 90's, it was assumed the universe was slowing down. Now that term is exactly the expansion as we currently observe it.
There are legitimate alternatives to the idea of universal expansion. But the physics gets very deep and it only works if you factor in the existence of spacetime, light as a wave and a universal coordinate system which most people are unwilling to do.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:17:00 -
[93] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Well you've chosen to post them here, so it's pretty safe to say you have neither credentials nor comprehensiveness.
The edited bridged version for the sake of debate yes.
But by all means... let me have it
Join in the debate, tell me where my presumption fail and why what you think is correct. Give me links and correlations. Dazzle me! TBH I am surprised one of you took so long to show up.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10549
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:33:00 -
[94] - Quote
What I think is probably correct because it's backed by mountains of experimental and observational evidence. Your conjectures are not. I say probably because science is done by inductive reasoning which can only demonstrate probable truths, not absolute ones which requires deductive reasoning.
Your failure to understand something extremely basic such as how relativistic Doppler shift occurs is a pretty clear indication that you don't have any kind of background in physics to even begin tackling the standard model, quantum mechanics, or general relativity.
I see other comments here saying things like "my understanding of quantum mechanics is that we don't know anything". Well, no... quantum mechanics has been able to predict and explain a great deal many phenomena observed in the natural world and in our experiments, and without our understanding of it we wouldn't, for example, be able to build the computers that we have today. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:41:00 -
[95] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Your failure to understand something extremely basic such as how relativistic Doppler shift occurs is a pretty clear indication that you don't have any kind of background in physics to even begin tackling the standard model, quantum mechanics, or general relativity..
I was trying to explain something to someone who did not appear to understand. What ended up happening was I was saying tomato and he was saying tomaato. I am not in the habit of refactoring in the observer after I remove the need for the observer, so i am just not used to it. The point of debate is to see what people come back at you with in order to dot all your eyes and cross your T's. Or at least it is for me.
If that is the best you can do than I guess I'll be seeing you in GD for some troll the trolls practice later
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10550
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
"I've refuted all of physics with my armchair thought experiments, but you're the troll for calling me out on it." No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:43:00 -
[97] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:"I've refuted all of physics with my armchair thought experiments, but you're the troll for calling me out on it."
You missed my edit bro... sorry for the slow timer. I will be awaiting your illuminating views on our universe... or... a splash!
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10550
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:58:00 -
[98] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: You seem to think physics is some wonderful collaborative democracy where even your neighborhood plumber has a say. It isn't. Someone who isn't a physicist coming up with some counterexample they think topples all of scientific consensus isn't indicative of a flaw in the theory so much as their own lack of understanding.
If hundreds of established experts on a field they've studied and worked in for decades agree on something, chances are they're right, at least to a degree that you're not going to refute with anything but hard experimental evidence of a counterexample that contradicts the established theory (and not the theory as you might understand it). No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote: You seem to think physics is some wonderful collaborative democracy where even your neighborhood plumber has a say. It isn't. Someone who isn't a physicist coming up with some counterexample they think topples all of scientific consensus isn't indicative of a flaw in the theory so much as their own lack of understanding. If hundreds of established experts on a field they've studied and worked in for decades agree on something, chances are they're right, at least to a degree that you're not going to refute with anything but hard experimental evidence of a counterexample that contradicts the established theory (and not the theory as you might understand it).
Not hundreds... thousands. I am contradicting thousands of emotionally invested "experts" working at CERN when i say the Higgs field is a fallacy.
But what you have heard here is not coming from only myself. You are just ignorant of the many physicists that exist outside of the mainstream who believe as I do and not as you do. Men and women who are not willing to just look past the discrepancies of an aging standard model. We want to look further and are not content with the omissions and mistakes of the past.
I invite you to stop under educating yourself. When you only seek out and read things that reinforce your preconceived notions you end up doing the opposite of what you are intending on doing. Read the contradictions. Observe the unexplainable. Maybe then your mind will open a little... well who am I kidding... there is not a snow balls chance in hell of that happening is there?
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1607
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:26:00 -
[100] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:33:00 -
[101] - Quote
Daymn... ISD's were watching this thread closely.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:47:00 -
[102] - Quote
Anyway now that we have established the whole two mirrors and Doppler thing...
I think we have just gotten to the point in the debate where it is clear that most of you are ok with an explanation that contradicts all other physical laws in order to describe light's properties. If that is so there then is no way that you could be made to understand the implications of changing inertia with frequency without change in velocity.
Therefore: the point of this thread is now moot. How can it be used to describe a flaw in the Higgs field if everyone is cool with "Virtual" photon mass.
Maybe one day i'll try and approach this from another angle.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2004
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:07:00 -
[103] - Quote
I'd still like you to point me to those alternative theories. Maybe you've overlooked me asking for that all this time. |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2004
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:08:00 -
[104] - Quote
Christina Project wrote:I can't believe I'm reading this on the front page of GD ...
I literally BURST out in laughter! :D
We're not in GD? :o |
Christina Project
Deeper Feelings Inc.
44
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:17:00 -
[105] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Christina Project wrote:I can't believe I'm reading this on the front page of GD ...
I literally BURST out in laughter! :D We're not in GD? :o What?
Why not? O:
Wow, you're right! :O
How the **** did I get here ??? D: - If you feel like you're putting much more into something than others, - - it's probably because it's true and you do... and they don't care. - |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10550
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:26:00 -
[106] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Therefore: the point of this thread is now moot. How can it be used to describe a flaw in the Higgs field if everyone is cool with "Virtual" photon mass. It's not virtual mass. It's relativistic mass. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 23:03:00 -
[107] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:I'd still like you to point me to those alternative theories. Maybe you've overlooked me asking for that all this time.
All you have to do is google alternative theories to the standard model. I am not dodging it is just there there is so much of it. You have to do a hell of allot of reading for it to make sense. But here is a quick reference to get you started on some basic ideas. Note I do not support all of them.
Alternative To The Standard Model Wiki A Random Blog Physics Beyond The Standard Model Wiki Alternative theory of gravity explains large structure formation -- without dark matter Spectral time lag in gamma ray bursts (may not be relevant but is very interesting)
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 23:06:00 -
[108] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Therefore: the point of this thread is now moot. How can it be used to describe a flaw in the Higgs field if everyone is cool with "Virtual" photon mass. It's not virtual mass. It's relativistic mass. Photons simply don't have any rest mass. The equation for relativistic energy of a particle is E^2 = (m_0 * c^2)^2 + p^2 * c^2 where m_0 is the rest energy, c is the speed of light, and p is momentum. Since photons have 0 rest mass the first term cancels out and taking the square root of both sides we get E = pc for photons. Since E = mc^2 for relativistic mass m, this becomes mc^2 = pc, or m = p / c. So the relativistic mass of a photon is the momentum divided by the speed of light, which is of course the speed of photons. This is the same result as you'd obtain from the classical momentum equation p = mv. De Broglie's relation states that ++ = h / p (++ being wavelength, h being Planck's constant, and p again being momentum). Or, p = h / ++. Substituting h / ++ into p for the equation m = p / c, we get m = h / ++c. So the relativistic mass of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength.
Ah ha... we have been through that already. It is not the only explanation and your explanation defies all known laws of physics not pertaining to photons. I am simply not satisfied. Especially since photons can instead be explained within the guidelines of existing physical laws using something as simple as acoustics as a frame of reference.
Relative mass is mass as it increases when a velocity approaches the speed of light. Mass that comes from nothing is "virtual" because 0 x infinity is still 0. Bro...
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 23:17:00 -
[109] - Quote
Christina Project wrote:Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Christina Project wrote:I can't believe I'm reading this on the front page of GD ...
I literally BURST out in laughter! :D We're not in GD? :o What? Why not? O: Wow, you're right! :O How the **** did I get here ??? D:
You are in an Eternum Thread....
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 23:51:00 -
[110] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:It is not the only explanation and your explanation defies all known laws of physics not pertaining to photons. No, it's absolutely consistent with our observations of all matter, not just photons. Electrons behave this way. Protons behave this way. Atoms behave this way.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I am simply not satisfied. Especially since photons can instead be explained within the guidelines of existing physical laws using something as simple as acoustics as a frame of reference. These are existing physical laws and every experiment done on photons is consistent with this behavior.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Relative mass is mass as it increases when a velocity approaches the speed of light. Mass that comes from nothing is "virtual" because 0 x infinity is still 0 Bro... It doesn't "come from nothing". It's a manifestation of the mass-energy equivalence central to relativity. Relativity, which has been very rigorously experimentally verified for the past century. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:00:00 -
[111] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:It is not the only explanation and your explanation defies all known laws of physics not pertaining to photons. No, it's absolutely consistent with our observations of all matter, not just photons. Electrons behave this way. Protons behave this way. Atoms behave this way..
Elaborate... since you now seem to be saying that photons and protons have similar observable properties. This should be interesting.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: It doesn't "come from nothing". It's a manifestation of the mass-energy equivalence central to relativity. Relativity, which has been very rigorously experimentally verified for the past century.
What you are referring to requires a starting rest mass when not talking about photons. Why do you think that it does not? That starting mass is central to objects with mass not being able to reach light speed.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:06:00 -
[112] - Quote
Have fun! Just remember that this next generation of physics is being built by people who didn't set out to disprove everything just because they didn't like what they thought it meant. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:19:00 -
[113] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Have fun! Just remember that this next generation of physics is being built by people who didn't set out to disprove everything just because they didn't like what they thought it meant.
You should try reading more, kid
You can start with the links I posted they explain some of the more obvious problems with the standard model and why physicists are working very hard to update old theories. If CERN does not find evidence of super-symmetry soon... you will see a major shift in how people talk about physics in the next 5 to 10 years.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:32:00 -
[114] - Quote
Supersymmetry is not part of the standard model. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:48:00 -
[115] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Supersymmetry is not part of the standard model.
I know... and you really need to read more... Failure to find super symmetry would... oh hell just google it it's everywhere.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 02:01:00 -
[116] - Quote
Google doesn't tell me what you think it means. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 02:36:00 -
[117] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Google doesn't tell me what you think it means.
Which part is unclear to you precisely? This will be my last response to you. If you cannot figure it out then go read a book.
Quote:....But if the LHC doesn't find any compelling proof for supersymmetry in the next few years, physicists will be left with some uncomfortable possibilities...
....In that case, what fills the theory gap? "If nothing else shows up GÇô we've got a Higgs and nothing else GÇô then it's not at all obvious what the next experiment ought to be," says Butterworth. In other words, if supersymmetry doesn't work out, theorists do not have a ready alternative to take its place.....
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12158
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 05:06:00 -
[118] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Anyway now that we have established the whole two mirrors and Doppler thing...
I think we have just gotten to the point in the debate where it is clear that most of you are ok with an explanation that contradicts all other physical laws in order to describe light's properties. If that is so there then is no way that you could be made to understand the implications of changing inertia with frequency without change in velocity.
Therefore: the point of this thread is now moot. How can it be used to describe a flaw in the Higgs field if everyone is cool with "Virtual" photon mass.
Maybe one day i'll try and approach this from another angle.
When you get your doctorate in particle physics you can start to question a century of scientific research by the greatest minds in the history of humanity using the most advanced scientific equipment ever made. This is a tiny example of a seemingly huge problem of science itself being attacked across a huge spectrum from climate change, to genetics to vaccines. It is becoming a massive problem.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 09:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: When you get your doctorate in particle physics you can start to question a century of scientific research by the greatest minds in the history of humanity using the most advanced scientific equipment ever made. This is a tiny example of a seemingly huge problem of science itself being attacked across a huge spectrum from climate change, to genetics to vaccines. It is becoming a massive problem.
I think you should actually click on the links in post 105 and educate yourself on what the greatest minds in the history of humanity using the most advanced scientific equipment ever made are currently working on, what they have found out and why new models of everything are being explored. The higgs field is not the only game in town and if the holes in the standard model cannot be filled... then guess what... science need to take another giant leap.
Science being attacked is not the only massive problem. The closed doors of the minds of people like you whom feel content in mankind's overdeveloped sense of importance and universal knowledge is equally as damning.
As long as people like you, with doctorates or not, mindlessly hold true to theories that can only partially describe everything by looking passed glaring omissions than scientific progression will always be turning it's wheels in the mud. Read a book, read a link and read a scientific paper on a PDF file. All the information is there free to all... and yet, people like yourself proclaim knowledge while maintaining ignorance. And instead of engaging in debate like others have done here you sling accusations and trumpet self importance.
I say again, you have no idea what my credentials are do you? But in this debate it does not matter, because doctorate or no doctorate, I most certainly know more than you because I have read the material. I continue to read all of the material that I can get my hands on. I do so from cover to cover. Yourself and James Amril-Kesh are no better than bible thumpers who highlight small paragraphs in the bible and believe they have it all figured out.
So where as you say I am part of the bigger problem where people attack science, I say you are part of a much larger problem where ignorance masquerades as comfortable understanding. More food for thought
I guess this will degrade into a trolled thread after all... Oh well it was fun while it lasted! Stay tuned for the next Eternum thread!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12161
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 17:14:00 -
[120] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:baltec1 wrote: When you get your doctorate in particle physics you can start to question a century of scientific research by the greatest minds in the history of humanity using the most advanced scientific equipment ever made. This is a tiny example of a seemingly huge problem of science itself being attacked across a huge spectrum from climate change, to genetics to vaccines. It is becoming a massive problem.
I think you should actually click on the links in post 105 and educate yourself on what the greatest minds in the history of humanity using the most advanced scientific equipment ever made are currently working on, what they have found out and why new models of everything are being explored. The higgs field is not the only game in town and if the holes in the standard model cannot be filled... then guess what... science will need to take another giant leap. Science being attacked is not the only massive problem. The closed doors of the minds of people like you whom feel content in mankind's overdeveloped sense of importance and universal knowledge is equally as damning. As long as people like you, with doctorates or not, mindlessly hold true to theories that can only partially describe everything by looking passed glaring omissions than scientific progression will always be turning it's wheels in the mud. Read a book, read a link and read a scientific paper on a PDF file. All the information is there free to all... and yet, people like yourself proclaim knowledge while maintaining ignorance. And instead of engaging in debate like others have done here you sling accusations and trumpet self importance. I say again, you have no idea what my credentials are do you? But in this debate it does not matter what they are, because doctorate or no doctorate, I most certainly know more than you because I have read the material. I continue to read all of the material that I can get my hands on. I do so from cover to cover. Yourself and James Amril-Kesh are no better than bible thumpers who highlight small paragraphs in the bible and believe they have it all figured out. So where as you say I am part of the bigger problem where people attack science, I say you are part of a much larger problem where ignorance masquerades as comfortable understanding. More food for thought I guess this will degrade into a trolled thread after all... Oh well it was fun while it lasted! Stay tuned for the next Eternum thread!
I recall you saying you have a high school science level education. You have near no idea about this subject, nobody in this thread does.
As for the subject at hand, of course its wrong, we still have a long way to go to understand everything. It is simply the best we can manage at this point in time. The higgs boson is real, whether you like it or not, it is now an observable fact. Science just did take a big leap, just not in the direction you like. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 17:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I recall you saying you have a high school science level education. You have near no idea about this subject, nobody in this thread does.
That's funny because I do not recall stating my education level on these forums. But I must do pretty good with my high school only education considering I am currently practicing as a physical therapist between two doctors offices.
Eternum's Bio
I was featured 3 times in the Who's Who Among American High School Students and I also applied for a patent at the age of 13 involving matter to energy conversion. I always had a vested interest in this kind of stuff. My parents could not float the expenses of following through with said patent so I did not get it, and all the better since the principles were not very mature at the time.
My senior exit project was on Gyroscopic precession and why Eric Laithwaite was under the impression that a gyroscope spinning at a high rate of speed defined newton's law of gravity. It didn't, but he had some very interesting thoughts on the subject.
I spent most of my young years marveling at my grandfather who was an electrical engineer working for Lockheed martin. He basically helped design the guidance systems that the space shuttle used and worked on other lesser known projects prior to the shuttle such as the dinosaur project. Stuff that is hard to find even in a google search it is so obscure. You'd have to watch a documentary on how the shuttle came into being to find it.
At Present My current interest involves working with physicists who are willing to indulge a layman like myself, in a processes of intuitive reasoning leading to a space-time and + / - force only theory of the universe. I hope to write a book on it that will also feature other scientific fallacies like the incorrect timeline of human evolution. In my spare time I study graphic arts.
So I may not have a doctorate no... But i do have more than a high school education and I do have a pretty firm grasp of the concepts I am covering.
So that's my biography. Now do you!
baltec1 wrote:As for the subject at hand, of course its wrong, we still have a long way to go to understand everything. It is simply the best we can manage at this point in time. The higgs boson is real, whether you like it or not, it is now an observable fact. Science just did take a big leap, just not in the direction you like.
Wait... you are actually saying of course it's wrong? You really do think the standard model is wrong but you are here bashing concepts that attempt to fix some of the holes in the model without debate or discussion? I could never understand people who did that. Nor can I grasp the motivation behind it...
As for the higgs particle... NO it is not defiantly related to a higgs field. What you see is the logical and predictable conclusion of that kind of mass being smashed together at that kind of velocity. It is fundamental to electrodynamics. If you understood the material you would understand that a higgs-like particle HAS to be there. But that particle does not have to be a part of a universal spanning field nor does it have to be a part of a field that gives all matter it's mass.
The two things are not directly connected... you are just being told that they are and believe everything that you hear/read so long as it is coming from a perceived authority figure.
Oh And...
-1 troll for the "your argument sucks so I will attack your credentials without delivering a valid counter argument of my own". If and when you choose to actually read up on this stuff, you will find that much of what I am covering can be found in alternative theories found in the Wikipedia. You just have to do some searching to find it. You know... academic stuff
Man... i just can't help myself. I have to troll the trolls... maybe I need an intervention?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12163
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 18:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Wait... you are actually saying of course it's wrong? You really do think the standard model is wrong but you are here bashing concepts that attempt to fix some of the holes in the model without debate or discussion? I could never understand people who did that. Nor can I grasp the motivation behind it...
Of course the standard model is wrong, its incomplete and breaks in parts. However, at the same time it is the best answer we have and at the moment there isn't anything else to replace it.
Also, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 18:59:00 -
[123] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Also, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching.
Good enough for the laymen my friend. It is a fair enough place to start if you have no real experience with the material. It gives you a good list of things you may wish to find. Through which you can do further research and find your way to actual science papers that are publicly available.
baltec1 wrote:Of course the standard model is wrong, its incomplete and breaks in parts. However, at the same time it is the best answer we have and at the moment there isn't anything else to replace it.
Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it?
Far too many doctorates, egos and research grants are on the line. More or less, these men and women have to either retire or die out leaving room for a new generation of fame seeking physicists to reintroduce already existing models that hold more promise then what we are force fed today.
I remind you that t he presumption that the ~125 GeV Boson is a part of this flawed standard model. No such interaction has ever been observed to suggest that it has any unique properties whatsoever. It has not been observed to interact with matter, alter matter or do anything special beyond float and decay. So the presumption that it is a sign of an all pervading field that gives all matter it's mass (except for things like photons) is likely to be just as flawed as the theory that sprang forth the idea in the first place.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12163
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:25:00 -
[124] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it?
Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically. There are loads of great theories out there in all kinds of areas that claim to be the answer to some problem but if there is no evidence to back them up they aren't worth anything. The reason why everyone signs up the standard model is because it is the best answer we have that fits the observable data as a whole. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:29:00 -
[125] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically..
Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter?
No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all.
Edit: Btw... where is your bio?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:40:00 -
[126] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically.. Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter? No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all. Edit: Btw... where is your bio?
Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:55:00 -
[127] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers.
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
Do you know what the math of the standard model is? Then how can you make such a statement?
Do I know all of the math of the standard model? No, obviously i don't either. But i do know something that you don't seem to know about the math involved in quantum electrodynamics. It deals with mass, velocity and spin. When you get a certain mass going at a certain velocity that has a certain spin... you can reasonably predict what will come out of that reaction. It is all statistical but you can.
Therefore at 125 GeV we are almost certain to see something baring the properties of the ~125 GeV Boson because that is how it works! It has to be there based upon what we know about inertia, spin and energy interactions.
But when you assign a ludicrous effect to a particle that is in all other respects ordinary and benign you are no longer "following the math". You are using your imagination. Math does not tell us that something exists. It does not predict the existence of gravity it only explains how it works. There is no math that says "look here is the higgs field".
That is as simple as any human being can explain it to you. If you don't believe it then I suggest you do some reading. If you do not want to do some reading... well... then you're just some Joe somewhere cherry picking information because you saw it on the fox news.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10551
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 19:58:00 -
[128] - Quote
There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:10:00 -
[129] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:16:00 -
[130] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.
We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use.
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
@ James Amril-Kesh As for the "higgs proof" link i'm giving it a read. But I doubt a random blog from over a year ago will have new information in it.
And why is goonswarm suddenly fail sabotaging my thread?
|
|
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:30:00 -
[131] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model.
Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13
Now since it is pretty obvious that you just googled your way to something that looked like "strong evidence" and didn't bother to read through the whole thing before posting it... I will recall one of my favorite sci-fi quotes of all time compliments of James T Kirk.
"James Amril-Kesh, I am laughing at the inferior intellect"
On A Side Note:
This is actually very interesting because we may have discovers a new fundamental law of nature here. Or perhaps not nature but the nature of eve and these forums. People like you pollute GD with mountains of thread derailing garbage all of the time and since there is no way to really prove or disprove what you are saying you get away with it.
But add into that dynamic something from the real world... and we get to see just how little you actually know don't we?
I might call this "Eternum's first law of forum interactions"
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:31:00 -
[132] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:34:00 -
[133] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?
Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?
Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.
In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject.
Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:50:00 -
[134] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now?
You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:56:00 -
[135] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now? You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up.
No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then....
I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point.
Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12164
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then.... I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point. Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/
You want me to point you to a good source of scientific papers?
Go to the Royal Society. Their archive holds every scientific peer reviewed paper from 1660. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2006
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13[...]
Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know".
Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor". |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:48:00 -
[138] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13[...] Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know". Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor".
Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.
|
Riyria Twinpeaks
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
2006
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:57:00 -
[139] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:[...] Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.
I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory. Then, no matter whether you see it doing anything or not, the existence of the particle itself, if it can be confirmed to be the right one, is a strong indicator that there is merit to that theory, right?
Anyway, I'm tired now. xD |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1222
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 22:28:00 -
[140] - Quote
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote: I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory.
Where as I have been postulating that quantum electrodynamics (aka raw particle chemistry) practically guarantees that a ~125 GeV type Boson must exist. There could be any number of them, none of which have anything to do with a field.
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:Anyway, I'm tired now. xD
Goodnight! God knows how many pages of crap will be burring this post when you return!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |