Do photons travel in straight lines?
Bruce Erlichman
Do photons travel in straight lines?
It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or electromagnetic
radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation is
pictured as waves.
But picturing it as photons is more dif-
ficult.
Bruce Erlichman
least it is to me.
Bilge
>
> Do photons travel in straight lines?
>
> It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or electromagnetic
>radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation is
>pictured as waves.
>
Either picture works classically, but waves are probably easier.
Neither picture works quantum mechanically, without extending your
idea of a particle.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Hi folks:
>
> Do photons travel in straight lines?
They travel in the straightest possible line. Gravity messes
with "straight", especially strong gravity. But nothing can
travel through any given stretch of space with less deflection
than light.
> It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or
electromagnetic
> radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the
radiation is
> pictured as waves.
>
> But picturing it as photons is more dif-
> ficult.
Think of it as rain, falling out from the bulb. The speed at
which the rain falls is c (just like terminal velocity in air),
the size of the raindrop could represent the energy of each
photon, and the number of raindrops per square inch of "farmland"
could be intensity.
The only wierd stuff that the wave model is required for is
diffraction, and even electrons and neutrons do that. And it is
hard for me to picture those as waves...
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> Do photons travel in straight lines?
Contrary to claims made in other responses, your question DOES NOT MAKE
SENSE. Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because
they are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
extrapolation of our everyday experience.
Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
and each other". But even that is overly simplistic.
But if instead one takes the usual approach of GR and uses the
geometrical optics approximation to E&M waves, then one can say that
light rays travel along null geodesics; in a flat spacetime those
geodesics are straight lines (this assumes the energy in the light is
small). Similar remarks apply to the wave optics approximation.
> But picturing it as photons is more difficult.
The inherent complexity and non-familiar properties of quantum
particles make them MUCH more difficult to describe and understand than
waves and macroscopic particles (both of which are familiar from our
everyday experience).
For instance, virtual photons can carry an ATTRACTIVE force,
and visualizing how particles can do that requires a deeper
understanding than the "small bullets" extrapolation....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
TomGee
they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c. They
cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2, no
matter what your math says. Light waves are a force that expands in a
spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
particles come from?
TomGee
> Hi folks:
> radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation is
> pictured as waves.
>
> But picturing it as photons is more dif-
> ficult.
>
You also can envision emr as you say, but only because you don't have
enough information to question the process. You can envision light
from a bulb only because it lights our way, and not because you know
how light works.
Light is a natural process of creation where light appears as a
paradox, apparently composed of both waves and particles. We say that
light moves at c, but according to E=mc^2, particles of matter cannot
move at c. Our newly combined law of mass and energy provides for an
interdependent relationship between mass and energy, which means that
we cannot have energy without having some mass and vice-versa.
Lightwaves move through space in a spherical fashion, as I said in my
previous post. Waves have wavelengths, which means they have
"wavecrests" and "troughs", which we can look at as being "on" and
"off", in a sense. Particles ordinarily cannot be "on and off" as
matter doesn't behave that way ordinarily. But if they travel along
with the wave, shouldn't they have to turn on and off along with the
wave? Obviously, but how can they do that? They can't, so add that
to our current list of unexplained phenomena regarding our current
explanations for light.
For me, lightwaves move through an ether sea of virtual photon
particles and at each collision with such particles, the particle is
"turned on" momentarily by the lightwave force, and as the wave moves
on, the particle is "turned off".
That resolves that problem, and if the particles are stationary in
space (which I contend they are as virtual particles), that resolves
the problem of matter particles having to travel at c.
Emr, then, only seems to be a slew of particles jumping into space,
but it is actually thermal energy (lightwaves) moving from virtual
particle to virtual particle and lighting them up momentarily as it
goes along. Much like rolling thunder, we may say, or, as I have
explained before in these ngs, like an electronic sign appears to us
to be scrolling words and pictures across its face while not actually
doing that.
saskatoon
> violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
> at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
> and each other". But even that is overly simplistic.
>
> But if instead one takes the usual approach of GR and uses the
> geometrical optics approximation to E&M waves, then one can say that
> light rays travel along null geodesics; in a flat spacetime those
> geodesics are straight lines (this assumes the energy in the light is
> small). Similar remarks apply to the wave optics approximation.
>
> particles make them MUCH more difficult to describe and understand than
> waves and macroscopic particles (both of which are familiar from our
> everyday experience).
>
> For instance, virtual photons can carry an ATTRACTIVE force,
> and visualizing how particles can do that requires a deeper
> understanding than the "small bullets" extrapolation....
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
I'm sure this was of absolutely no help to the man Tom..
Simple questions need simple replys.
Once a person has a true grasp of the subject their questions will be more
complicated and so as well can be your reply.
saskatoon
> > radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation
is
> > pictured as waves.
> >
> >
> And well it should be more difficult, since it is a false picture.
> You also can envision emr as you say, but only because you don't have
> enough information to question the process. You can envision light
> from a bulb only because it lights our way, and not because you know
> how light works.
He knows that or else he wouldn't be asking the question.
> Light is a natural process of creation where light appears as a
> paradox, apparently composed of both waves and particles. We say that
> light moves at c, but according to E=mc^2, particles of matter cannot
> move at c. Our newly combined law of mass and energy provides for an
> interdependent relationship between mass and energy, which means that
> we cannot have energy without having some mass and vice-versa.
A photon has no mass unless it is stopped.
It has rest mass but this mass is converted to a packet of kinetic energy
when in motion.
All energy is matter I believe. All energy is not mass, they are only
interchangeable..
> Lightwaves move through space in a spherical fashion, as I said in my
> previous post.
> For me, lightwaves move through an ether sea of virtual photon
> particles and at each collision with such particles, the particle is
> "turned on" momentarily by the lightwave force, and as the wave moves
> on, the particle is "turned off".
This man is new to the subject. He needs facts.
This however makes no sense - or makes no sense without further reasoning.
You basically described a laser Tom.
This seems to me to describe a photo-nuclear reaction that would blow up our
universe.
saskatoon
Generally they do but gravity can affect them.
Some will say that they always move straight and that the "Straight" is bent
by gravity.
> It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or electromagnetic
> radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation
is
> pictured as waves.
Remember that even waves of water are made of many many H20 particles.
> But picturing it as photons is more difficult.
Think of a laser pointer.
and...@attglobal.net
If someone asks a question based on a misconception, answering
it ignoring the misconception is not going to help them.
John Anderson
Bill Rowe
lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
> "Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
> they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c. They
> cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2,
This is silly. Light clearly propagates at c in vacuum by definition.
And this does not require throwing out E = mc^2.
E = mc^2 is derived from the more complete equation
E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (in units of c = 1)
For a particle at rest p = 0 and E = mc^2 follows immediately.
The other way to get E = mc^2 is to substitute mv for p.
With a little algebra the original equation can be re-written as E =
gmc^2 where I've used g in place of the usual Greek gamma. Since g is
dimensionless the product gm can be replaced with a new variable that
has units of mass resulting in E= mc^2. But do notice, the meaning of m
has changed in this case.
Bilge
>>
>Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
>they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c. They
>cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2, no
>matter what your math says.
That's just plain nutty.
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
If m = 0, then E = pc.
>Light waves are a force that expands in a
>spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
>will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
>maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
>particles come from?
From joe bob's photon factory.... sheeesh.
Paul Cardinale
> "Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > Hi folks:
> >
> > Do photons travel in straight lines?
> >
> > It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or electromagnetic
> > radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation is
> > pictured as waves.
> >
> > But picturing it as photons is more dif-
> > ficult.
> >
> > Bruce Erlichman
> > least it is to me.
> >
> Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
> they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c.
What a load of crap. Photons have an invariant mass of 0. All
particles with an invariant mass of 0 always travel at c. E^2 =
(p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2. For photons, E^2 = (p*c)^2. Solve for m.
Paul Cardinale
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
>>violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
>>at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
>>and each other". But even that is overly simplistic.
>>
>>But if instead one takes the usual approach of GR and uses the
>>geometrical optics approximation to E&M waves, then one can say that
>>light rays travel along null geodesics; in a flat spacetime those
>>geodesics are straight lines (this assumes the energy in the light is
>>small). Similar remarks apply to the wave optics approximation.
>
> I'm sure this was of absolutely no help to the man Tom..
Actually, the original poster sent me a private email thanking me for
this response.
> Simple questions need simple replys.
Which is why I included that second paragraph above, which essentially
rewords the question so a (relatively) simple answer can be given. As
Einstein said, "Things should be kept as simple as possible, but no
simpler." It does no good to "dumb down" responses.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
> cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2,
E=mc^2 applies only to timelike objects. Light rays are null objects
and are not subject to that equation. See my other response in this
thread about the difficulty of attempting to discuss photons like this.
> Light waves are a force that expands in a
> spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
> will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
> maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
> particles come from?
You need to learn what QED actually says, rather than some naive
interpretation that is so simplistic that it leads to conclusions like
this that are just plain wrong. What you say would apply to "tiny
bullets", but does NOT apply to photons. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Cardinale
> Bruce Erlichman wrote:
> > Do photons travel in straight lines?
>
> Contrary to claims made in other responses, your question DOES NOT MAKE
> SENSE. Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because
> they are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
> extrapolation of our everyday experience.
>
Don't massive particles fall into the same category?
Yet we speak of them travelling. Below what mass do we draw the line
and say that it makes no sense to talk about a particle travelling?
I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree with your semantics.
Must the word "travel" always refer to the macroscopic domain?
> Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
> violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
> at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
> and each other". But even that is overly simplistic.
>
> But if instead one takes the usual approach of GR and uses the
> geometrical optics approximation to E&M waves, then one can say that
> light rays travel along null geodesics; in a flat spacetime those
> geodesics are straight lines (this assumes the energy in the light is
> small). Similar remarks apply to the wave optics approximation.
>
Isn't it true that all of the possible paths that a photon "follows"
are null geodesics?
Paul Cardinale
TomGee
> In article <cc2dde17.0302...@posting.google.com>,
> lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> > Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
> > they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c. They
> > cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2,
>
> This is silly. Light clearly propagates at c in vacuum by definition.
>
>
> And this does not require throwing out E = mc^2.
>
travel at c in vacuum.
>
> E = mc^2 is derived from the more complete equation
>
E=mc^2+(energy of motion). Without the "energy of motion" factor, the
equation is an inductive "special case", applicable only to non-real
situations.
>
> E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (in units of c = 1)
>
math was used to prove our u. is static, so since math can prove
anything, it doesn't prove anything.
>
> For a particle at rest p = 0 and E = mc^2 follows immediately.
>
at rest, that condition can only exist in your mind and not in
reality. We can imagine a particle at rest, or we can assume objects
to be at constant velocity relatively to each other. In a condition
of constant velocity, two or more objects can be said to be at rest
relatively to each other. That so-called "inertial frame", however,
is still moving pellmell through space, since the u. is in a process
of expansion.
But, you may say, that condition still exists, i.e., one of constant
velocity, and it exists for real as far as that inertial frame of
reference is concerned. Quite true, as far as that FoR is concerned.
But that FoR is a "special case" of the general case where everything
in the u. is in motion, so that special case is a specific case, an
induction derived from the general case of reality. Inductions are
necessarily quite suspect as reports of reality, and deductions almost
always are used to support facts. To support an induction against a
deduction is poor thinking, to say the least about that.
>
> The other way to get E = mc^2 is to substitute mv for p.
>
> Where does v come in? E=mc^2 does not involve motion except as a multiplier for c. Yes, you do have to manipulate SR to be able to get around E=mc^2. But, as I am pointing out, that does not fly in reality.
>
> With a little algebra the original equation can be re-written as E =
> gmc^2 where I've used g in place of the usual Greek gamma. Since g is
> dimensionless the product gm can be replaced with a new variable that
> has units of mass resulting in E= mc^2. But do notice, the meaning of m
> has changed in this case.
>
For sure. Like I said, math can prove anything so math is useless as
proof of anything having to do with reality.
TomGee
> Dear Bruce Erlichman:
>
> "Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > ficult.
>
> Think of it as rain, falling out from the bulb. The speed at
> which the rain falls is c (just like terminal velocity in air),
> the size of the raindrop could represent the energy of each
> photon, and the number of raindrops per square inch of "farmland"
> could be intensity.
>
easily into traps set by others for you. If light propagates in a
spherical fashion, thinking that photons fall out like rain is
immediately the wrong picture.
>
> The only wierd stuff that the wave model is required for is
> diffraction, and even electrons and neutrons do that. And it is
> hard for me to picture those as waves...
>
TomGee
> they are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
> extrapolation of our everyday experience.
>
> Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
> violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
> at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
> and each other".
>
that contradicting yourself?
>
> But if instead one takes the usual approach of GR and uses the
> geometrical optics approximation to E&M waves, then one can say that
> light rays travel along null geodesics; in a flat spacetime
>
not real?
>
> those
> geodesics are straight lines (this assumes the energy in the light is
> small).
>
TomGee
> >
> I'm sure this was of absolutely no help to the man Tom..
> Simple questions need simple replys.
> Once a person has a true grasp of the subject their questions will be more
> complicated and so as well can be your reply.
>
TomGee
> saskatoon wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure this was of absolutely no help to the man Tom..
> > Simple questions need simple replys.
> > Once a person has a true grasp of the subject their questions will be more
> > complicated and so as well can be your reply.
>
> If someone asks a question based on a misconception, answering
> it ignoring the misconception is not going to help them.
>
> John Anderson
>
TomGee
>
> He knows that or else he wouldn't be asking the question.
>
answer before he asked.
>
> > Light is a natural process of creation where light appears as a
> > paradox, apparently composed of both waves and particles. We say that
> > light moves at c, but according to E=mc^2, particles of matter cannot
> > move at c. Our newly combined law of mass and energy provides for an
> > interdependent relationship between mass and energy, which means that
> > we cannot have energy without having some mass and vice-versa.
>
> A photon has no mass unless it is stopped.
>
>
> It has rest mass
>
No, that's false. There is no such thing as rest mass in our
universe, except that which is made up in our heads. If that's the
mass you refer to, then you should say so to differentiate it from
real mass.
>
> but this mass is converted to a packet of kinetic energy
> when in motion.
>
>
> All energy is matter I believe. All energy is not mass, they are only
> interchangeable..
>
word, that is patently untrue. We can not say that all energy is
matter (or mass, for that matter), because the law of mass/energy
combines mass and energy into an interdependent relationship where we
cannot have one without the other.
>
> > Lightwaves move through space in a spherical fashion, as I said in my
> > previous post.
> > For me, lightwaves move through an ether sea of virtual photon
> > particles and at each collision with such particles, the particle is
> > "turned on" momentarily by the lightwave force, and as the wave moves
> > on, the particle is "turned off".
>
> This man is new to the subject. He needs facts.
> This however makes no sense - or makes no sense without further reasoning.
>
just need to know what questions you may ask about my claims.
>
> You basically described a laser Tom.
> This seems to me to describe a photo-nuclear reaction that would blow up our
> universe.
>
"coherent light". I do not describe a photo-nuclear reaction, or at
least I don't think I do, but tell me what I said that makes you feel
that I am making such a description, and especially how that would
blow up the u.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<51i2a.44157$LW1.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear Bruce Erlichman:
> >
> > "Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > But picturing it as photons is more dif-
> > > ficult.
> >
> > Think of it as rain, falling out from the bulb. The speed at
> > which the rain falls is c (just like terminal velocity in
air),
> > the size of the raindrop could represent the energy of each
> > photon, and the number of raindrops per square inch of
"farmland"
> > could be intensity.
> >
> Once you think of it as other than precisely what it is, you
fall too
> easily into traps set by others for you. If light propagates
in a
> spherical fashion, thinking that photons fall out like rain is
> immediately the wrong picture.
The photon is a particle, with the attributes of a wave (just as
electrons or any other particle with momentum). Note I did not
say "falling". At no time do I feel a photon is spherical, but
that is just my opinion. I know that in a group, photons are
planar.
> > The only wierd stuff that the wave model is required for is
> > diffraction, and even electrons and neutrons do that. And it
is
> > hard for me to picture those as waves...
> >
> Can't tell what you mean by this, David. Please explain
further.
The photon is a particle that transmits momentum. Any particle
that transmits momentum can be made to diffract. Only
diffraction "requires" the wave model to explain it
*classically*.
David A. Smith
and...@attglobal.net
Tom Roberts explanation was not full of misconceptions. Your
question was.
John Anderson
Bill Rowe
lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
> Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bjrowe-C37AE1....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>...
> > E = mc^2 is derived from the more complete equation
> > E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (in units of c = 1)
> Yes, everyone knows this is the math used to overthrow E=mc^2,
At some point you may actually want to learn some physics if only to not
look foolish by making comments such as the one above.
<big snip>
TomGee
>
At so point you may actually want to learn some physics if only to not
TomGee
> TomGee wrote:
> > Sorry, but photons do not travel; at least, not at c. They can't, as
> > they have energy and thus, mass, so they cannot travel at c They
> > cannot be massless unless and until you can overthrow E=mc^2,
>
> E=mc^2 applies only to timelike objects.
>
arencha? Where does SR make that distinction?
>
> Light rays are null objects
>
in a spherical fashion - or have you changed that too to suit your
fantasies?
>
> and are not subject to that equation.
>
mass/energy conservation requires that all energy must have some mass
- however small the amount - and vice-versa. Your fantasy is that the
amount of energy in light is so small as to ignore and mebbe it will
go away. That's the way of thinking of naked emperors, no?
>
> See my other response in this
> thread about the difficulty of attempting to discuss photons like this.
>
simple nature, but that's only because you try to make it so complex
it cannot work.
>
> > Light waves are a force that expands in a
> > spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
> > will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
> > maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
> > particles come from?
>
> You need to learn what QED actually says, rather than some naive
> interpretation that is so simplistic that it leads to conclusions like
> this that are just plain wrong. What you say would apply to "tiny
> bullets", but does NOT apply to photons. <shrug>
>
or that particles would not move apart from each other, or that no
more particles would be needed to make up for the breakup of symmetry?
Which is it? Stop hiding behind snide remarks and defend your silly
arguments. Show me where QED does not say that, and furthermore, what
I say applies to tiny bullets as well as to photons.
TomGee
> question was.
>
> John Anderson
>
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<b2g94a$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
> Oh, really? Come on, you're just making this up as we go along,
> arencha? Where does SR make that distinction?
This restriction comes directly from the derivation of that equation.
The derivation simply is not valid for null or spacelike objects. <shrug>
>>Light rays are null objects
> Sorry, but there are no light rays except in lasers. Light propagates
> in a spherical fashion - or have you changed that too to suit your
> fantasies?
The usual approach in relativity is to consider the geometrical optics
approximation to E&M. Occasionally the wave optics approximation is
used. This is necessary to avoid quantum complexities.
A light ray is merely a small portion of the larger (typically
spherical) wavefront -- e.g. the portion of a star's light that
intersects my eyeball.
> Light would not be subject to that equation except for the fact that
> mass/energy conservation requires that all energy must have some mass
You must keep the theoretical context straight. In Newtonian mechanics
what you say is true. But not in relativity, and that is the context of
this discussion. In relativity there is no "conservation of mass", and
in order for energy conservation to hold, null objects MUST carry energy
(and momentum).
Actually that is true in NM also, but the mass of the light is
not an issue there.
> Your fantasy is that the
> amount of energy in light is so small as to ignore and mebbe it will
> go away.
I have no such "fantasy", and I KNOW that light can carry macroscopic
amounts of energy (I sunburn easily).
If instead of "energy" you had said "mass", you would have a small leg
to stand on, as there is no proof that photons are massless (there can
be no such proof in science); the current upper limit on the photon mass
is 2*10^-16 eV, which is VASTLY smaller than any similar measurable
quantity.
In practice, of course, the difference between truly 0 mass and that
upper bound is unmeasurable.
>>>Light waves are a force that expands in a
>>>spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
>>>will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
>>>maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
>>>particles come from?
>>
>>You need to learn what QED actually says, rather than some naive
>>interpretation that is so simplistic that it leads to conclusions like
>>this that are just plain wrong. What you say would apply to "tiny
>>bullets", but does NOT apply to photons. <shrug>
>>
> So you claim that light waves no longer expand in a spherical fashion,
> or that particles would not move apart from each other, or that no
> more particles would be needed to make up for the breakup of symmetry?
You need to read what I wrote. In QED, your phrases "light waves no
longer expand in a spherical fashion", "particles would not move apart
from each other", "no more particles would be needed" ALL do not make sense.
Rather than arguing from ignorance and merely claiming incredulity, why
don't you actually go and STUDY some physics? I recommend:
Feynman, _QED_. An excellent, nonmathematical introduction to
Quantum ElectroDynamics.
> Show me where QED does not say that,
Think about the impossibility of doing that (:-)). But still, none of
your phrases I quoted above have any sensible meaning in QED. <shrug>
> what I say applies to tiny bullets as well as to photons.
Clearly you do not understand what photons are, and think they are tiny
bullets. That's incredibly naive. Read Feynman, learn some physics
beyond comic book versions, and perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
TomGee
> TomGee wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<b2g94a$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
> > > E=mc^2 applies only to timelike objects.
> > Oh, really? Come on, you're just making this up as we go along,
> > arencha? Where does SR make that distinction?
>
> This restriction comes directly from the derivation of that equation.
> The derivation simply is not valid for null or spacelike objects. <shrug>
>
of time, right?, as some objects don't have such a property and so it
cannot apply to them. Light would be such an object, would it not,
due to the speed at which it propagates being one at which matter
cannot travel. Thus, we can say that light is not a timelike object,
as you put it. Yet, doesn't light have energy which in the equation
above is said to be, without reservation, necessarily inherent in
mass? That means that neither you nor the equation can possibly argue
that within its makeup it refers or implies application only to
timelike objects.
>
> > > Light rays are null objects
>
> > Sorry, but there are no light rays except in lasers. Light propagates
> > in a spherical fashion - or have you changed that too to suit your
> > fantasies?
>
> The usual approach in relativity is to consider the geometrical optics
> approximation to E&M. Occasionally the wave optics approximation is
> used. This is necessary to avoid quantum complexities.
>
think much about quantum complexities, to stop their heads hurting
from having to think so hard, and also from trying to find escapes
from the quagmires of fantasy in which some of current physics theory
has put them.
If, as you say, it is "usual" to consider the geometrical optics
approach, don't you see the mindset?, and don't you think such
mindsets are indeed obstacles to scientific progress?
>
> A light ray is merely a small portion of the larger (typically
> spherical) wavefront -- e.g. the portion of a star's light that
> intersects my eyeball.
>
But that is a misnomer, right?, since it is usually a portion of a
larger wavefront, as you say, and not an independent ray of light
separate from the many waves of light which intersect your eyeball.
So you are saying then that lightwaves are null objects having no
mass, and thus, no time, right? So how then do you explain your
contradiction of E=mc^2, which clearly and plainly makes mass and
energy interdependent, so much so that our mass and energy
conservation laws were combined into one law, thereby confirming their
interdependence?
>
> > Light would not be subject to that equation except for the fact that
> > mass/energy conservation requires that all energy must have some mass
>
> You must keep the theoretical context straight. In Newtonian mechanics
> what you say is true.
>
You must keep the theoretical context straight. Newton did not make
up E=mc^2.
>
> But not in relativity, and that is the context of
> this discussion.
>
Tsk! Tsk! Now you're saying E=mc^2 is not posited in relativity? My,
My, how far have we become entangled in the webs we weave so as to
deceive?
>
> In relativity there is no "conservation of mass",
>
Yes, I have argued in the past that is the point of one of the dead
end turns for physicists, when they conceived the idea that we can
ignore the conservation of mass laws in quantum physics as they
probably don't apply there and so they can be ignored. Never mind
that mass conservation was incorporated into the mass/energy laws,
never mind that E=mc^2 cannot be overthrown by such silly notions as
massless photons and energy momentum, physics will just ignore or
change the known facts so as to get around obstacles and no other
discipline will be any the wiser. That is not just parading your
nakedness through the streets - that is streaking!
>
> and
> in order for energy conservation to hold, null objects MUST carry energy
> (and momentum).
>
So you say there exists in the u. objects such that have no mass but
only energy and momentum, right? That cannot be light, however,
because E=mc^2 provides for there to be mass anywhere anytime there is
energy, and until you can overthrow that equation (and not just go
around it, as you have obviously done with your null objects theory),
none of your other little fairy tales can fly!
>
>
> > Your fantasy is that the
> > amount of energy in light is so small as to ignore and mebbe it will
> > go away.
>
Sorry, even in review I did not catch my error: I meant to say, the
amount of _mass_ in light is so small..."
>
>
> If instead of "energy" you had said "mass",
>
I said energy, but I meant to say mass.
>
> you would have a small leg
> to stand on,
>
Goody! Now maybe I will be able to stand straight. Are you saying
here that you don't believe in massless photons?
>
> as there is no proof that photons are massless (there can
> be no such proof in science);
>
Quite so, but many have come to believe it is a fact. I don't, but I
believe E=mc^2 is a fact, at least until someone can show me
otherwise.
>
> the current upper limit on the photon mass
> is 2*10^-16 eV, which is VASTLY smaller than any similar measurable
> quantity.
>
> In practice, of course, the difference between truly 0 mass and that
> upper bound is unmeasurable.
>
I knew it was too good to be true: You really do believe in massless
photons, donchu? The argument used by that camp is that the mass of a
photon is so small that we can ignore it and mebbe it will go away (as
I have said before).
My response to that is Einstein hisself said the mass ratio to energy
is so small simply because the energy factor is in the denominator of
the equation. He did not tell his followers to ignore it if it was
unmeasureable by current devices, as so many physicists are doing
today. What if later we make measurement possible? Will we trash
your fantasies then? I would like to do it now, since even Einstein
must be spinning with your nonsensical notions of massless particles.
You said "unmeasurable", above, but I have already seen where others
use the term, "negligible" so as to dispense with that little
"obstruction" entirely. Is this the new crop of so-called physicists?
Lord help us! Well, not me, exactly; I'm about done with this life.
But Lord help those survivors who put their faith in physicists, for
they will inherit a world such as has not been seen since one could
fall off the edge of it.
>
> >>>Light waves are a force that expands in a
> >>>spherical fashion, and as a wave grows, any particles moving with it
> >>>will move apart from each other, so more particles must be added to
> >>>maintain the particle/wave symmetry. Where would all those additional
> >>>particles come from?
> >>
> >>You need to learn what QED actually says, rather than some naive
> >>interpretation that is so simplistic that it leads to conclusions like
> >>this that are just plain wrong. What you say would apply to "tiny
> >>bullets", but does NOT apply to photons. <shrug>
> >>
> > So you claim that light waves no longer expand in a spherical fashion,
> > or that particles would not move apart from each other, or that no
> > more particles would be needed to make up for the breakup of symmetry?
>
> You need to read what I wrote. In QED, your phrases "light waves no
> longer expand in a spherical fashion", "particles would not move apart
> from each other", "no more particles would be needed" ALL do not make sense.
>
Mebbe not to you, but they are quite clear to anyone with a 3rd-grade
education. You have no answers (probably cause you have never thought
to ask those questions) so you make wild claims with no support for
your claim that they make no sense. They make sense in every sense of
the word! Your saying they do not only shows your incapacity to think
clearly and rationally. When confronted with my counterclaims to the
ideas you have been brainwashed with, you can only spout unsupported
arguments of "No Sense! No Sense!" but you fail to argue at any one
point your claim that they make no sense. Saying it don't make it so;
it's just not that kind of a world.
>
> Rather than arguing from ignorance and merely claiming incredulity, why
> don't you actually go and STUDY some physics? I recommend:
>
> Feynman, _QED_. An excellent, nonmathematical introduction to
> Quantum ElectroDynamics.
>
There, see? Your brain is hurting so much you're reacting like a
cornered rat. I don't enjoy doing this to you, believe me, but
somewhere, for the betterment of this science, some sense of this
physics world has to be made, and you're as good a start as any, I
suppose. I promise the hurt will stop just as soon as you calm down
and begin to think logically, if you can muster up the courage to do
that. You see, your reaction is typical of all humans. We all react
negatively to some extent and for some length to any and all types of
CHANGE. That is as normal as anyone can be.
Most of us, however, are able to deal with our reactions after we calm
down a little and begin to examine that change, whether it has to do
with our jobs, our life, or even our ideas. About changing our ideas,
there is less to cry about except for the fact that most of us take
our beliefs very seriously indeed. Try to think, though, that after
we're dead, our ideas will probably not matter one whit - for sure,
not to us, anyway. The only ones who care whether we are right or
wrong is ourselves. To be sure of the reality of our ideas helps us
attain and maintain peace in our heads, and we can more easily put up
with the nagging thought that nothing can keep us from dying. So the
best we can do is die with peace of mind. Work on that and try to
change your mind to where you won't feel so threatened whenever you
are confronted with newer ideas that don't necessarily conform with
yours.
>
> > Show me where QED does not say that,
>
> Think about the impossibility of doing that (:-)). But still, none of
> your phrases I quoted above have any sensible meaning in QED. <shrug>
>
They make more sense than your claim to not understand what I meant by
particles moving apart necessarily as a wave expands. You are the one
who stated that QED says something different than what I said, so you
made that wild claim and now you cannot show where your claim is true.
You cannot defend it because it is not true, that's why.
>
> > what I say applies to tiny bullets as well as to photons.
>
> Clearly you do not understand what photons are, and think they are tiny
> bullets. That's incredibly naive. Read Feynman, learn some physics
> beyond comic book versions, and perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.
>
Oh no you don't! You're the one who compared photons to tiny bullets,
not me.
Clearly you do not understand what photons are, and think that somehow
they are not like tiny bullets in this case. Thats incredibly naive.
Don't read Feynman, as your misinterpretations of his ideas show that
has no doubt warped your capacity for reasonable thought. Let me
refer you to your city's central library instead, where you can read
to your heart's content and imagine you are learning something.
shuba
[whew!]
> Tsk! Tsk! Now you're saying E=mc^2 is not posited in relativity? My,
> My, how far have we become entangled in the webs we weave so as to
> deceive?
You think that's bad? Some people even go so far as to say that
c=1, just to avoid some algebra. This is of course missing the
physics content entirely. It's widely known that c is somewhere
close to 134.4 billion furlongs per day, which is a *helluva* lot
more than one, isn't it? Plus, even if you could set c=1, this
would mean E=m, so what's the point of m if it's just another E?
Oh well, thanks for a beautiful rant and a perfect illustration
of why the concept of relative mass is frought with confusion and
should be avoided.
---Tim Shuba---
Bilge
>TomGee wrote:
>
>[whew!]
>
>> Tsk! Tsk! Now you're saying E=mc^2 is not posited in relativity? My,
>> My, how far have we become entangled in the webs we weave so as to
>> deceive?
>
>You think that's bad? Some people even go so far as to say that
>c=1, just to avoid some algebra. This is of course missing the
>physics content entirely. It's widely known that c is somewhere
>close to 134.4 billion furlongs per day, which is a *helluva* lot
>more than one, isn't it?
_STOP_
_HOLD EVERYTHING_ I just came up with c = 0.018926139 petachains/fortnight.
Since I'm a little short on surveying chain to check this, but, for no
particular reason, believe it to be downright worthy of a theory I expect
to be rejected by the hidebound defenders of the orthodoxy, who have
probably never seen a surveyors chain and aren't qualified to comment, I
demand proof that your furlongs/day theory is better than petachains/
fortnight theory.
Otherwise, I'll have to hold GeeTom's breath until he turns blue (or
if there really is a god and he has a sense of humor, maybe few shades
past into the ultraviolet . Since GeeTom at least gets to blue on his own
before giving up and whining elsewhere, maybe this won't faze him,but you
really don't want to chance his last struggling pieces of cranky grey
matter, and the negative effect his ventilator rental will have on health
insurance rates, by dismissing my discovery, do you?
And don't try to trick my by saying it might be an improvement.
That's not the point.
>Plus, even if you could set c=1, this
>would mean E=m, so what's the point of m if it's just another E?
>Oh well, thanks for a beautiful rant and a perfect illustration
>of why the concept of relative mass is frought with confusion and
>should be avoided.
Well, to be fair, GeeTom's the March of Trolls poster child this month
in recognition of his lack of cognition. One can hardley blame him for
doing what comes naturally.
--
B. "Al" ZeBubba
Chairman,
National March of Trolls Foundation
1601 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC
(next door to the idiot)
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<b2dnuf$t...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
>>Bruce Erlichman wrote:
>>> Do photons travel in straight lines?
>>Contrary to claims made in other responses, your question DOES NOT MAKE
>>SENSE. Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because
>>they are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
>>extrapolation of our everyday experience.
>
> Don't massive particles fall into the same category?
Yes, of course. BTW here the category of interest is that of quantum
particles, not massless particles.
> Yet we speak of them travelling.
Only in an approximation where one can ignore their quantum nature.
> Below what mass do we draw the line
> and say that it makes no sense to talk about a particle travelling?
It is not "below some mass", it is below some measurement threshold --
one that is large enough so one can ignore quantum complexities. BTW in
this same approximation one can also say that light rays travel.
The language introduces an ambiguity, as we use "particle" for
both quantum and macroscopic objects. For light we distinguish
between photons and light rays or pulses.
> I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree with your semantics.
> Must the word "travel" always refer to the macroscopic domain?
Yes. In the QFT domain, in the position representation, one integrates
both ends of a particle's propagator over all possible places and times
-- that has nothing whatsoever to do with the usual notions of
"traveling". This applies to both electrons and photons in QED, and in
general to all particles in any QFT.
That pair of integrals over all possible places and times is
why I said that loosely one can say "they travel in all
possible directions at all possible speeds [...]"....
Note also that normally one uses the momentum representation in
QFT computations....
> Isn't it true that all of the possible paths that a photon "follows"
> are null geodesics?
No. Not in QFT. But in the macroscopic approximation, yes. Basically in
those integrals, the integrand (the propagator) behaves in such a
manner that for macroscopic distances only paths along null geodesics
contribute significantly to the integrals. But in principle, one must
integrate over all spacetime to make that happen.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
TomGee
had any validity to it as far as reality goes, so I did not follow up
on the concept. It seemed to me that to set c=1 means everything else
would have to be like Hawking's even-more-imaginary negative math! I
am always wanting to learn, though, so if you know more about both
sides of that argument, I would be pleased to hear it from you (in
layman's terms, if you will, please).
TomGee
does not "fly up", does it?
>
> At no time do I feel a photon is spherical, but
> that is just my opinion. I know that in a group, photons are
> planar.
>
spherical fashion....
>
> The photon is a particle that transmits momentum.
>
momentum, but I suppose that if it has it, it can damn well transmit
it, eh?
>
> Any particle
> that transmits momentum can be made to diffract.
>
>
> Only
> diffraction "requires" the wave model to explain it
> *classically*.
>
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<RFW2a.5837$Rx3....@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear TomGee:
...
> > > > Think of it as rain, falling out from the bulb. The
speed at
...
> > The photon is a particle, with the attributes of a wave (just
as
> > electrons or any other particle with momentum). Note I did
not
> > say "falling".
> >
> True, you did not say that, but you did say "rain falls", and
rain
> does not "fly up", does it?
In fact I did say falling... the "flatlander" in me talking.
"Spraying" would be a better term, with the added context of "no
gravity", so the drops just keep on going.
> > At no time do I feel a photon is spherical, but
> > that is just my opinion. I know that in a group, photons are
> > planar.
> >
> I never said photons are spherical, I only said waves propagate
in a
> spherical fashion....
Depends on the source I guess... diffusion will take us all.
> > The photon is a particle that transmits momentum.
> >
> I have not thought of that, I have only thought that a photon
has
> momentum, but I suppose that if it has it, it can damn well
transmit
> it, eh?
There are some (who shall remain nameless, lest their essence be
visited also upon this thread) who believe that there is no
photon, but only a delayed transmission of momentum between two
charges. This hypothetical Universe is deterministic, in that
the two charges "agree in advance" before the exchange is
intiated.
> > Any particle
> > that transmits momentum can be made to diffract.
> >
> Please tell me how that is true.
Electron and neutron "wavelength" is a function of their
momentum. This will be the same for any particle, including
Porsches.
> > Only
> > diffraction "requires" the wave model to explain it
> > *classically*.
> >
> And why is that so, David?
Faulty memory comes to mind. ;>}
I can think of no other phenomenon that "something with wave
properties" is required to explain it.
David A. Smith
Ben Sharvy
>
> Do photons travel in straight lines?
Define "photon."
Ben Sharvy
> There is no such thing as rest mass in our
> universe, except that which is made up in our heads.
Certainly there's a lot of mass at rest in your head.
Bill Rowe
> I have seen c=1 before, but I did not think it
> had any validity to it as far as reality goes, so I did not follow up
> on the concept. It seemed to me that to set c=1 means everything
> else would have to be like Hawking's even-more-imaginary negative
> math!
Setting c = 1 has nothing to do with strange math of any kind. You are
always free to use whatever units you like. For example, measure time in
seconds and distance in light-seconds. In these units c has the value 1
light-second/second.
TomGee
have done is defend your position. I would have thought a lot better
of you if you had.
Paul Cardinale
[snip]
>
> The language introduces an ambiguity, as we use "particle" for
> both quantum and macroscopic objects. For light we distinguish
> between photons and light rays or pulses.
>
What other particle names refer exclusively to the quantum particle?
electron (refers to both quantum particle & macroscopic approximation)
muon ?
tau ?
neutrinos ?
quarks ?
photon (quantum only)
W- ?
W+ ?
Z0 ?
gluon ?
Paul Cardinale
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<b2qug6$2...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
>> both quantum and macroscopic objects. For light we distinguish
>> between photons and light rays or pulses.
> What other particle names refer exclusively to the quantum particle?
I meant the word "particle" itself, which we apply to bullets and
electrons equally well. This is, as I say so often around here, an
implicit pun on the word....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
HenriWilson
>"Bruce Erlichman" <berli...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<_Zg2a.12337$ma2.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>> Hi folks:
>> ....
>> It's easy for me to envision light from a bulb or electromagnetic
>> radiation from a antenna radiating in all directions when the radiation is
>> pictured as waves.
>>
>> But picturing it as photons is more dif-
>> ficult.
>>
>And well it should be more difficult, since it is a false picture.
>You also can envision emr as you say, but only because you don't have
>enough information to question the process. You can envision light
>from a bulb only because it lights our way, and not because you know
>how light works.
>
>Light is a natural process of creation where light appears as a
>paradox, apparently composed of both waves and particles. We say that
>light moves at c, but according to E=mc^2, particles of matter cannot
>move at c. Our newly combined law of mass and energy provides for an
>interdependent relationship between mass and energy, which means that
>we cannot have energy without having some mass and vice-versa.
>
>Lightwaves move through space in a spherical fashion, as I said in my
>previous post. Waves have wavelengths, which means they have
>"wavecrests" and "troughs", which we can look at as being "on" and
>"off", in a sense. Particles ordinarily cannot be "on and off" as
>matter doesn't behave that way ordinarily. But if they travel along
>with the wave, shouldn't they have to turn on and off along with the
>wave? Obviously, but how can they do that? They can't, so add that
>to our current list of unexplained phenomena regarding our current
>explanations for light.
As I have pointed out many times, photons, (if they exist) must possess some
kind of spatial periodicity.
A regular spatial pattern going past an observer at speed will give the
impression of frequency. The photons themselves don't vibrate. They have a
fixed physical 'shape' like the teeth of a saw blade.
Dx/dt=dx/dy.dy/dt
>
>For me, lightwaves move through an ether sea of virtual photon
>particles and at each collision with such particles, the particle is
>"turned on" momentarily by the lightwave force, and as the wave moves
>on, the particle is "turned off".
>
>That resolves that problem, and if the particles are stationary in
>space (which I contend they are as virtual particles), that resolves
>the problem of matter particles having to travel at c.
>
>Emr, then, only seems to be a slew of particles jumping into space,
>but it is actually thermal energy (lightwaves) moving from virtual
>particle to virtual particle and lighting them up momentarily as it
>goes along. Much like rolling thunder, we may say, or, as I have
>explained before in these ngs, like an electronic sign appears to us
>to be scrolling words and pictures across its face while not actually
>doing that.
Henri Wilson.
Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
Refuter of the Big B(ull)ang.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
Great post Tom.
I had a great laugh at the replies.
You really stirred Bilgey up!
TomGee
>
> Great post Tom.
> I had a great laugh at the replies.
> You really stirred Bilgey up!
>
> Henri Wilson.
> Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
> Refuter of the Big B(ull)ang.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
>
really impressed with the work you evidently put into it. You explain
things in layman's terms well and I will read all of it as soon as I
possibly can find the time. I did get to read the animation about
Lorentz contractions and after reading it over again, I have some
questions about it.
First, you assign different FoRs to A, B, and c, but I would say that
they are all three in a single FoR since the situation involves
relationships between the three.
Second, you state that when B & C are moving at v away from A, A sees
B & C moving away at v, which presumes A is at zero v. That cannot be
so because nothing visible can be at rest in our universe. Thus,
shouldn't A be at v=1 and B & C at v+1? Yes, we can assume A to be
"at rest", but that only encourages SRians to believe all the more in
massless but momentumfull photons, so why not be real and assume A is
not "at rest" since in reality it cannot ever be truly at rest. Your
scenario is that of A,B, & C moving in space and since you have made
no such limitations in defining the FoR, we cannot exclude the motion
of all three which is attributed to what seems to be a universal
expansion process. While your scenario includes only motion between
A, B, & C, that motion occurs in space, and space is in all of the
universe.
Third, you show that B & C are moving at constant velocity relative to
each other (thus, in a FoR which includes only B & C, their v=0) and
so B sees A moving away at v but sees C as stationary at v=0, and C
sees B at v=0 and A moving away at v. So far so good, but then you
say that B fires its retrorockets and slows to 1/2 its previous speed.
Now A sees B as moving away at only (v+1)/2 while for A, C is still
moving away at v+1. B now sees A moving away at (v+1)/2 but now for
B, C is no longer at constant velocity with B but is also moving away
at (v+1)/2. C still sees A as moving away at v while B is now moving
away from C at (v+1)/2. You may want to review your site to see if it
agrees with me or not.
Fourth, you state that the length of a rod cannot be shorter and
longer at the same time, and I agree with that. You say also that is
what appears to happen in the TP, except that the rods in your
scenario correspond to the time rates in the TP, and so SR's claim
about the time rate differences occurring in the TP can only be false.
SR calls it "time dilation" but fails to explain it, so at first we
may indeed have good reason to think the contradiction exists. But
when B retrofires, however, his speed is then slower than C by 1/2v
and also slower than A by 1/2v! That means B's rod is not longer and
shorter at the same time, but instead adjusts proportional to B's
changing speed relatively to A's & C's speeds.
Hayek
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Bruce Erlichman wrote:
>
>> Do photons travel in straight lines?
>
At least someone with a decent answer !
Good work Tom!
> Contrary to claims made in other responses, your question DOES NOT MAKE
> SENSE. Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because
> they are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a simplistic
> extrapolation of our everyday experience.
>
> Rather than saying they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less
> violence to the language to say "they travel in all possible directions
> at all possible speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves
> and each other". But even that is overly simplistic.
Do you have an example where they interfere with eachother?
[]
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
HenriWilson
OK. I have made a few modifications. It should be easier to follow now.
If one observer sees an object slow down and therefore lengthen and another
observer sees it speed up and therefore shrink, at the same time, it is pretty
obvious that there can be no real physical change taking place.
TomGee
If such a thing could happen, it would be obvious it was a mirage.
However, it is not possible for one observer to see into another
observer's frame of reference without becoming linked with that FoR,
thus it could never happen that two observers can see the same rod
lengthen and shorten simultaneously. We can only know a priori that
it happens; that it must happen, if it is so that time is property of
matter and passes inversely proportional to an object's state of
motion.
HenriWilson
A third observer can see it happen.
That is what we are doing when we look at my animation.
We can see that B's acceleration wrt C is a deceleration wrt A.
Therfore either the SR equations are wrong or no physical change actually takes
place.
Paul Anderson insists that SR also agrees with this - but many SRians don't
seem to share his views.
Incidentally, has Paul disappeared or maybe just changed his name?
Henri Wilson.
Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
TomGee
> On 24 Feb 2003 02:58:35 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >If such a thing could happen, it would be obvious it was a mirage.
> >However, it is not possible for one observer to see into another
> >observer's frame of reference without becoming linked with that FoR,
> >thus it could never happen that two observers can see the same rod
> >lengthen and shorten simultaneously. We can only know a priori that
> >it happens; that it must happen, if it is so that time is property of
> >matter and passes inversely proportional to an object's state of
> >motion.
>
> A third observer can see it happen.
>
>
see it from his own time rate. E.g., let's say that we are in 3
spaceships in deep space that left Earth in Y2k ten years ago. My
ship has maintained escape velocity speed since leaving Earth, but
your ship continued to accelerate until it reached twice the speed of
my ship, and it has maintained that speed ever since then. The third
ship continued to accelerate until it reached three times the speed of
my ship. Thus, my ship is moving through space the slowest of the
three, yours is the next slowest, and the fastest is the 3rd ship. We
are three discrete objects (or closed systems) moving at set speeds in
any direction, quite far from any intervening gravitational masses.
If my claim is true that time is a property of discrete matter and
passes inversely proportional to an object's state of motion, than the
above means that your time rate is slower than mine but yours is
slower than the 3rd ship's time rate. I.e., my time passes the
fastest, yours passes slower than my time, and the 3rd ship's time
passes the slowest of the three. I am aging faster than you and you
are aging faster than Astronaut 3.
Suppose that from our cockpits we can look into each other's cockpits
and into Houston Command Center and see ourselves and our clocks,
calendars, and 12" rulers, by using simple TV cameras and receivers.
When Astronaut 3 looks into your cockpit, your clock will appear to
him to have slowed down, and mine will appear to him to have slowed
even more than yours, and Houston's even more than mine (I argued long
ago til I was blue in the face that it should appear to him we have
all speeded up, but I was out-argued and so I have to go with that
flow now unless someone has come up with a better argument than mine).
To #3, all else appears normal, even though according to SR his ruler
is shorter than it was on Earth and and his clock is moving at 1/3 its
timing on Earth, and his calendar shows a date way before the date
shown on your calendar and even later than that on mine and Houston's
calendar. That same relationship is maintained in all the places
involved going from the fastest to the slowest speed of each object,
except, of course, it goes the other way round when going from the
slowest to the fastest.
Even if we involve gravitational masses, experiment shows that the
interference of gravitational forces is so slight as to require
massive objects the size of quasars, or even larger, to make
significant differences in the above speeds and their resulting time
rate differences.
We cannot experience another time rate than the one with which we are
consistent in speed because time rates depend on the speed of objects
and they vary inversely proportional to an object's state of motion.
>
>
> That is what we are doing when we look at my animation.
>
> We can see that B's acceleration wrt C is a deceleration wrt A.
>
>
Yes, but only while B is moving toward C is B moving away from A. As
B's rod gets shorter moving toward C, it gets longer moving away from
A. It is not longer and shorter at the same time (allowing for any
Uncertainty effects, of course, which could permit some overlap).
>
> Therfore either the SR equations are wrong or no physical change actually takes
> place.
>
>
In SR, physical change does take place, but SR does not claim that it
occurs simultaneously, as you say it does.
>
>
> Paul Anderson insists that SR also agrees with this - but many SRians don't
> seem to share his views.
>
> Incidentally, has Paul disappeared or maybe just changed his name?
>
>
He's around, still pushing his 1st year physics under his own name (if
that's not itself a pseudonym). I just sent him a missive in "Re:
Twin paradox solve?".
Paul B. Andersen
> > >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
news:<538i5vgsk6ilael8l...@4ax.com>...
> > >> If one observer sees an object slow down and therefore lengthen and
another
> > >> observer sees it speed up and therefore shrink, at the same time, it
is pretty
> > >> obvious that there can be no real physical change taking place.
Indeed.
> > Therfore either the SR equations are wrong or no physical change
actually takes
> > place.
Quite.
> In SR, physical change does take place, but SR does not claim that it
> occurs simultaneously, as you say it does.
According to SR, nothing happens to a rod by being observed.
Its intrinsic, proper, physical length isn't affected in any way.
But co-located observers in relative motion will simultaneously measure
different length of the same rod.
(They don't have to be co-located, but "simultaneously" is ambiguous
if they are not.)
> > Paul Anderson insists that SR also agrees with this - but many SRians
don't
> > seem to share his views.
I suppose that is a reference to me.
The last name is Andersen. Note the spelling.
I don't know what you, Henry, think qualifies a person to be an "SRian".
But there is no dispute about this:
According to SR, objects are not physically changed by being observed
by moving observers.
The observer's state of motion doesn't affect the observed object,
but it does affect his observations of the object.
> > Incidentally, has Paul disappeared or maybe just changed his name?
Good to see I am missed! :-)
I have not been very active in this NG for the last couple of weeks.
And no, I haven't changed my name.
I have never in my life posted under other names than my real name,
and I never will. I don't hide behind pseudonyms.
> He's around, still pushing his 1st year physics under his own name (if
> that's not itself a pseudonym). I just sent him a missive in "Re:
> Twin paradox solve?".
I think that must be John Anderson.
If he is pushing 1. year physics, it is for a reason
The cranks usually err at very basic issues.
Like the one at hand.
Paul
TomGee
> "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
> news:<663l5voadpd0b9tg1...@4ax.com>...
>
> > > >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
> news:<538i5vgsk6ilael8l...@4ax.com>...
>
> actually takes
> > > place.
>
> Quite.
>
> > In SR, physical change does take place, but SR does not claim that it
> > occurs simultaneously, as you say it does.
>
> According to SR, nothing happens to a rod by being observed.
> Its intrinsic, proper, physical length isn't affected in any way.
> But co-located observers in relative motion will simultaneously measure
> different length of the same rod.
> (They don't have to be co-located, but "simultaneously" is ambiguous
> if they are not.)
>
>
for the observers while the rod being observed remains normal within
its FoR. Nevertheless, if we can imagine that we can look into
another FoR without having to become intimately involved in its FoR,
we can certainly imagine that physical change does indeed take place,
as far as each of the observers are concerned. If it is so that SR
actually states, "nothing happens to a rod by being observed" as you
describe that statement's relevance to this discussion, it is just as
valid to claim that the physical changes are as real as our being able
to look into another FoR without our own For becoming an additional
factor of the other FoR.
>
>
> > > Paul Anderson insists that SR also agrees with this - but many SRians
> don't
> > > seem to share his views.
>
> I suppose that is a reference to me.
> The last name is Andersen. Note the spelling.
>
> I don't know what you, Henry, think qualifies a person to be an "SRian".
> But there is no dispute about this:
> According to SR, objects are not physically changed by being observed
> by moving observers.
>
>
velocities affect the length of a rod and varying speeds affect the
rate of the passage of time.
>
>
> The observer's state of motion doesn't affect the observed object,
> but it does affect his observations of the object.
>
> > > Incidentally, has Paul disappeared or maybe just changed his name?
>
> Good to see I am missed! :-)
> I have not been very active in this NG for the last couple of weeks.
> And no, I haven't changed my name.
> I have never in my life posted under other names than my real name,
> and I never will. I don't hide behind pseudonyms.
>
> > He's around, still pushing his 1st year physics under his own name (if
> > that's not itself a pseudonym). I just sent him a missive in "Re:
> > Twin paradox solve?".
>
> I think that must be John Anderson.
>
>
>
> If he is pushing 1. year physics, it is for a reason
> The cranks usually err at very basic issues.
>
>
well.
TomGee
> momentum. This will be the same for any particle, including
> Porsches.
>
>
passes everyone else going the speed limit on the superslabs?
>
> > > Only
> > > diffraction "requires" the wave model to explain it
> > > *classically*.
> > >
> > And why is that so, David?
>
> Faulty memory comes to mind. ;>}
>
> I can think of no other phenomenon that "something with wave
> properties" is required to explain it.
>
>
"diffraction"?
Stephen Speicher
This character is as clueless as they come.
Where is Dirk Van de moortel when you need him?
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bilge
Same thing. Look up how a diffraction grating works.
TomGee
you gave out before throwing in the towel. I had hoped to play you
much longer before reeling you in, but bring on your champion moortie
- I'm ready for him too. I hope he can last longer than you did. He
can if he knows how to use logical arguments to defend his position.
That was obviously your downfall, you don't know how. Either that, or
you had none to argue with. You can either address the issues, or
attack me personally, but at least with the former, you have a chance
to survive the scorn of all who read these posts in the coming
centuries. With the latter, you not only admit defeat, but you reveal
what a sore loser you are.
Paul B. Andersen
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote
news:cc2dde17.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<Sef4a.40755$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> >
> > momentum. This will be the same for any particle, including
> > Porsches.
> >
> >
> So what would you calculate is the wavelength of my '85 944 as it
> passes everyone else going the speed limit on the superslabs?
lambda = h/mv
In the order of 10^-38 m.
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.03022...@localhost.localdomain...
I had to read this paragraph *several* times before I found a
suitable title. I finally decided on "Intimate Fumbles of Reference":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#FoR
Thanks :-)
Dirk Vdm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<Sef4a.40755$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> >
> > "TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.03021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > Electron and neutron "wavelength" is a function of their
> > momentum. This will be the same for any particle, including
> > Porsches.
> >
> >
> So what would you calculate is the wavelength of my '85 944 as it
> passes everyone else going the speed limit on the superslabs?
Damned short. Much shorter than its stopping distance.
> >
> > > > Only
> > > > diffraction "requires" the wave model to explain it
> > > > *classically*.
> > > >
> > > And why is that so, David?
> >
> > Faulty memory comes to mind. ;>}
> >
> > I can think of no other phenomenon that "something with wave
> > properties" is required to explain it.
> >
> >
> Or maybe you meant to use the word "interference" instead of
> "diffraction"?
Interference is what a particle does to itself on encountering certain
geometries. So "interference" is correct when discussing a single particle
(as we were).
Diffraction is the result, and descriptive of the observed pattern for
statistical systems. Ie: a lot of 944's
Good catch.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb5u0r5....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> TomGee:
> >"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:<Sef4a.40755$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>...
...
> >> I can think of no other phenomenon that "something with wave
> >> properties" is required to explain it.
> >>
> >>
> >Or maybe you meant to use the word "interference" instead of
> >"diffraction"?
>
> Same thing. Look up how a diffraction grating works.
He actually has me by the short hairs. The discussion was of a particle,
and interference is correct. Diffraction implies a deflection of a path,
which can only mean a statistically large population. Game. Set. Match.
David A. Smith
TomGee
As I understand it, diffraction has more to do with the "focus" of the
quanta pattern, while interference has more to do with the quanta
mixing it up. It seems they do almost mean the same thing, but if
they did, why have both to explain one phenomena? Obviously they
don't have the exact same meaning, as Bilgey would have us believe.
Both, however, require "wave properties" to explain. So while
"interference" may be more specific to our point of discussion,
"diffraction" is not that far off, I think, to warrant any more
discussion time about the subject.
Stephen Speicher
An IFoR. Nice choice!
With nutcases like this TomGee, I can appreciate the difficulty
involved in isolating a single name to characterize so many
bizarre notions and mistakes.
> Thanks :-)
>
The thanks should go to TomGee, without whom none of this would
be possible. We are in his debt, and, in fact, some of us would
be willing to pay an entertainment charge for such a performance.
Bilge
Ever hear of electron diffraction or neutron difraction?
Bilge
>As I understand it, diffraction has more to do with the "focus" of the
>quanta pattern, while interference has more to do with the quanta
>mixing it up. It seems they do almost mean the same thing, but if
>they did, why have both to explain one phenomena? Obviously they
>don't have the exact same meaning, as Bilgey would have us believe.
hang around, although it's probably useful to have a term which
describes a particular application of interference.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb60v9p....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Can you describe the path of a single electron, neutron or porsche, based
solely on where it started and where it was detected? Wouldn't that
require an inordinate amount of information about both its momentum *and*
position (and at a great number of points)? I know the photon is
especially "squirmy", but *single* massive particles are nearly so.
The porsche will most likely leave a hole... that would help. ;>}
Doesn't "diffraction" by definition require a large number of particles...
to reinforce the characterisitc pattern. Otherwise, wouldn't it be merely
called deflection (aka self-interference)?
I'll drop this, as we are discussing semantics... not sure I could retain
the fine points.
David A. Smith
John Kennaugh
>TomGee wrote:
>
>[whew!]
>
>> Tsk! Tsk! Now you're saying E=mc^2 is not posited in relativity? My,
>> My, how far have we become entangled in the webs we weave so as to
>> deceive?
>
>c=1, just to avoid some algebra. This is of course missing the
>physics content entirely. It's widely known that c is somewhere
>close to 134.4 billion furlongs per day, which is a *helluva* lot
>more than one, isn't it? Plus, even if you could set c=1, this
>would mean E=m, so what's the point of m if it's just another E?
>
>Oh well, thanks for a beautiful rant and a perfect illustration
>of why the concept of relative mass is frought with confusion and
>should be avoided.
The speed of light is, to a very close approximation 1 metricated foot
per nanosecond. The metricated foot (30cm) is a unit widely used in the
timber industry and is why if you buy a 6 ft length of timber it is an
inch or so short "The lengths have been metricated sir". The nanosecond
is the time it takes for a 1GHz clock on an out-of-date computer to
complete one cycle and about the time it takes for an electrical signal
to get half way across the computer motherboard.
As to the original question, of course photons travel in straight lines
at speed c. That is why my nice new digital camera gives such nice
pictures. If current scientific thinking believes otherwise it should
screw itself up and put itself in the waste bin.
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor (Historian)