Photon in an acceleration field

[brucep]

If you think you found a mistake, that's fine. But you don't have to be verbally abusive about it. Look here, $$gh/c^2=\frac{(L/T^2)(L)}{(L^2/T^2)}$$ The units cancel out. If you want to take issue with the kind of units, you can do so without creating a hostile forum environment.

You're so ignorant and a liar. A lying pariah. You're the one who thinks c^2 is a speed. That's why I explained it to you again. You're to stupid to learn anything even when you're given the chance to converse with a PHD in physics. Delusional Idiot Wind.

This is what you said to AN.
"Sure. The time dilation of an accelerating box is given by . Notice the square of the speed of light? That tells you that the speed of light is important for some reason."

You're are beyond stupid.

 

[RealityCheck]

You're so ignorant and a liar. A lying pariah. You're the one who thinks c^2 is a speed. That's why I explained it to you again. You're to stupid to learn anything even when you're given the chance to converse with a PHD in physics. Delusional Idiot Wind.

This is what you said to AN.
"Sure. The time dilation of an accelerating box is given by . Notice the square of the speed of light? That tells you that the speed of light is important for some reason."

You're are beyond stupid.

Pardon me, brucep/Mazulu.

I initially read Mazulu as saying merely that he considers the speed of light 'c' (only 'c') is important because that 'c' value is then squared. That's it.

Did he say the SQUARED 'c' value (ie, 'c'^2) was ALSO speed per se?......or just a value from squaring the initial 'c' value?

I am not clear on what the point of disagreement is between you two on that. Can either/both of you clarify it?

Thanks.

.

 

[OnlyMe]

You obviously overlooked the disclaimers in both of my previous posts.

Without comment on the thread generally..,

I would like to further qualify my comment, as not being an attempt to present or support an ether theory or model.

That's fine, but he postulated that the aether was composed waves- ...

I should have been more specific and said that I was not attempting to address Mazulu's "aether made of waves" and FTL drive. I cannot myself see any way that, that discussion is in even peripherally in agreement with what we observe...

It was perhaps a mistake to use the word ether earlier, as it carries a great deal of baggage...

This is not useful or logical.

You are correct, you can take any comment out of context and claim and lacks any logic.

It has no place in science- which deals with the quantifiable and comprehensible.

Atoms, bacteria, viruses and even subatomic particles, together with their associated fields were all imagined or theorized long before they were observed.

Most of modern theoretical physics began with thought experiments, and/or questions that began with, "What if...".

There are more papers published in journals that do not wind up accurately describing the subject they address than there are which are flawless. Still even those which are incomplete or on the wrong track are often cited in further research, that does lead to some progress in understanding.

Much of science and almost all of theoretical physics depends on re-examining old questions and asking, "What if?" or exploring a hypothetical a thought experiment. All of which must then later be explored and either supported or refuted by experiment and observation. Still even when a hypothetical is disproven, that does not mean it was illogical.

Really, either it's in or out. Can't have your aether and eat it too.

It seems to be you who are hung up emotionally or "spiritually" on the aether train.

The only philosophically valid deductions are those which are deduced logically- not assumed through gnosis without evidence or line of reasoning.

If this were literally true, when applied outside of the obviously bias reference to religion and faith that followed, there would have been no what if's or thought experiments, which lead to most of today's understanding of either GR or QM.

The main point in my first post began,

If one were to assume ..,

I was presenting a hypothetical and given the initial assumption, though the conclusions may not represent reality, they were not illogical.

I realize that I do tend to run on at times and even get off track. That said the intent was that the issue, whether what we can observe as a function of inherent limitations, or ability to observe, defines fundamental reality, is very much like the issue of whether the earth is the center of the universe and/or the universe itself is defined by the limits of our ability to observe it.

The theoretical aspects of science have almost always progressed as a function of imagination. And our imaginations have almost always led practical application and experimentation sometimes by generations.

 

[Cheezle]

Pardon me, brucep/Mazulu.

I initially read Mazulu as saying merely that he considers the speed of light 'c' (only 'c') is important because that 'c' value is then squared. That's it.

Did he say the SQUARED 'c' value (ie, 'c'^2) was ALSO speed per se?......or just a value from squaring the initial 'c' value?

I am not clear on what the point of disagreement is between you two on that. Can either/both of you clarify it?

Thanks.

.

I think I can answer this question. Mazulu is referring to a formula that contains c^2 but the formula is not about light. The same thing with E=Mc^2. When he sees c he thinks light. So to Mazulu, this c^2 is mysterious. He interprets this to mean that how fast a photon travels is the key to all mysteries. And why would a photon's speed need to be squared? And why is the speed of light in those formulae? Mazulu sees mystical interpretations (and aliens) in everything.

But c is really just a relationship in spacetime. Photons are just obeying this relationship. The invariance of the speed of light is not a cause of everything, it is an effect of the underlying structure of spacetime. The formulas are not talking about light, they are talking about spacetime. While there are some mysteries here, they are not the ones Mazulu sees. He does not understand the formulas he gets from wikipedia.

Disclaimer, I am not a scientist but this is how it was explained to me.

 

[RealityCheck]

...
...

The theoretical aspects of science have almost always progressed as a function of imagination. And our imaginations have almost always led practical application and experimentation sometimes by generations.

How true, OnlyMe!

You made me recall where John Mitchell even 'imagined' massive "Dark Stars" because he 'imagined' that light was also affected by gravity (something which at the time was assumed massless and hence unaffected by gravity)....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(Newtonian_mechanics)

Dark star history

John Michell and dark stars

During 1783 geologist John Michell wrote a long letter to Henry Cavendish outlining the expected properties of dark stars, published by The Royal Society in their 1784 volume. Michell calculated that when the escape velocity at the surface of a star was equal to or greater than lightspeed, the generated light would be gravitationally trapped, so that the star would not be visible to a distant astronomer.

"If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. This assumes that light is influenced by gravity in the same way as massive objects."

Michell’s idea for calculating the number of such "invisible" stars anticipated 20th century astronomers' work: he suggested that since a certain proportion of double-star systems might be expected to contain at least one "dark" star, we could search for and catalogue as many double-star systems as possible, and identify cases where only a single circling star was visible. This would then provide some sort of statistical baseline for calculating the amount of other unseen stellar matter that might exist in addition to the visible stars.

Thought you might like that example of where the imagination/exploration is well in advance of the theory/discovery of photons being affected/trapped by extreme 'Black Hole' gravity.

Cheers!

.

 

[FTLinmedium]

OnlyMe,

You obviously overlooked the disclaimers in both of my previous posts.

I did not. Please do not say so.

I disagreed with your wording- which, if you would look over it, you may see why.

Like I said, I don't want to argue that point. I disagree with what you said, and I tried to explain why. Your attempts to drag me into a debate about something I do not wish to discuss (after I made that clear) are not appreciated.

I agree with your recent post about the importance of imagination and thought experiments- I think you entirely misunderstood what I said.

Atoms, bacteria, viruses and even subatomic particles, together with their associated fields were all imagined or theorized long before they were observed.

They were not imagined to be inherently unobservable- they were imagined as real, quantifiable things with real consequences that we simply did not yet have the ability to observe. They were *falsifiable*. That is my point of contention with your last post.

I made the distinction between what we can currently observe and what might be possible to observe in the future very clear in my post.

The inherently unknowable/unobservable is a matter of faith, not science. I'm asking that you not confuse the two.
Each person may have his or her own faith, one unable to supersede another- it is a personal matter, and not the topic on this forum- we only share the same science.

Please re-read my post in that light.

If this were literally true, when applied outside of the obviously bias reference to religion and faith that followed, there would have been no what if's or thought experiments, which lead to most of today's understanding of either GR or QM.

First, your assertion is entirely untrue. See my comments above. I will not discuss this further.

Second, as to your remarks, I take offense to that. I am not interested in discussing my personal faith with you. It is not the topic of this forum, and certainly not something I want to discuss at all since it is a private matter.

Faith is not science, and it shouldn't pretend to be- it can't be experimented on. Faith is not philosophy, which is based on logic and can be argued with- faith can not be- it either is or isn't. Faith is just... faith. It is a personal matter, and my faith is none of your business and I will not discuss it further.

If you wish to continue the discussion about your comment and why I disagreed with it *politely*, you may PM me.

 

[OnlyMe]

FTLinmedium, it is not worth pursuing and I have no interest in a debate over PM.

I had not intended to insult you on the faith and religion issue, I only referenced what you had already interjected into the discussion.

I did read back over my posts and yours, and it does appear to me that though in my first post I clearly stated I was not following the general conversation of the thread, your response does read to me as if you read my post in that context.

We obviously have a difference of opinion on what is acceptable as a basis for a hypothetical and what conclusions drawn from any hypothetical may be considered logical.

Like I said, it is not worth pursuing further.

Addendum, when the atom was first conceived in the early 17th century, it then was an object which was inherently unobservable. It would be the early 20th century before technology would catch up with the idea.

 

[Mazulu]

I think I can answer this question. Mazulu is referring to a formula that contains c^2 but the formula is not about light. The same thing with E=Mc^2. When he sees c he thinks light. So to Mazulu, this c^2 is mysterious. He interprets this to mean that how fast a photon travels is the key to all mysteries. And why would a photon's speed need to be squared? And why is the speed of light in those formulae? Mazulu sees mystical interpretations (and aliens) in everything.

But c is really just a relationship in spacetime. Photons are just obeying this relationship. The invariance of the speed of light is not a cause of everything, it is an effect of the underlying structure of spacetime. The formulas are not talking about light, they are talking about spacetime. While there are some mysteries here, they are not the ones Mazulu sees. He does not understand the formulas he gets from wikipedia.

Disclaimer, I am not a scientist but this is how it was explained to me.

The speed of light really is a special constant. It's special because it forces very weird behavior to occur; e.g., time dilation, length contraction, curvature of space-time. The speed of light is invariant for all inertial reference frames. I agree with your comment that the speed of light, c, is mysterious. The speed of light shows up in both QM and GR; compared to h which is only QM, and G which is only gravity/GR. If someone wanted to unify QM with GR, why not start with a constant that shows up in both?

I am surprised that nobody else finds it strange that properties of light pop up all over physics. Even E=mc^2 tells us that energy and mass are related via the speed of light, c. The speed of light, c, and other properties of light, are a dominant theme in physics. So it made sense to follow the theme. I defined the aether medium as the set of waves that satisfy $$c=\lambda f$$. Everything in physics is, in one way or another, related to this medium of waves; including gravity, the vacuum, bosons, fermions, etc...

 

[Cheezle]

The speed of light really is a special constant. It's special because it forces very weird behavior to occur; e.g., time dilation, length contraction, curvature of space-time. The speed of light is invariant for all inertial reference frames. I agree with your comment that the speed of light, c, is mysterious. The speed of light shows up in both QM and GR; compared to h which is only QM, and G which is only gravity/GR. If someone wanted to unify QM with GR, why not start with a constant that shows up in both?

I am surprised that nobody else finds it strange that properties of light pop up all over physics. Even E=mc^2 tells us that energy and mass are related via the speed of light, c. The speed of light, c, and other properties of light, are a dominant theme in physics. So it made sense to follow the theme. I defined the aether medium as the set of waves that satisfy $$c=\lambda f$$. Everything in physics is, in one way or another, related to this medium of waves; including gravity, the vacuum, bosons, fermions, etc...

See what I mean? Mazulu has photons on the brain. He even quoted my entire post but evidently could not parse it. Perhaps my writing is poorly structured. I tried to write it as clear as possible. But Mazulu misreads other peoples posts too so maybe it is not me.

Or maybe I am wrong and Mazulu is right. No I went back and read brucep's post. What I wrote was correct.

 

[Mazulu]

Cheezle,
I would be happy to parse your statesments.

I think I can answer this question. Mazulu is referring to a formula that contains c^2 but the formula is not about light. The same thing with E=Mc^2. When he sees c he thinks light. So to Mazulu, this c^2 is mysterious.

I'm not calling attention to the square of a constant, I am calling attention to the constant as a "property of light"; c, c^2, c^3.2, it's a property of light, a reoccuring theme in physics. Having said that, it is important that the units work out. Units are the first and easiest way to check for mistakes.

He interprets this to mean that how fast a photon travels is the key to all mysteries. And why would a photon's speed need to be squared? And why is the speed of light in those formulae? Mazulu sees mystical interpretations (and aliens) in everything. But c is really just a relationship in spacetime. Photons are just obeying this relationship.

Of course photons obey this relationship. Photons are excitations of aether waves.

The invariance of the speed of light is not a cause of everything, it is an effect of the underlying structure of spacetime.

The underlying structure of space-time is the set of (aether) waves that obey $$c=\lambda f$$. Nothing could be simpler.

The formulas are not talking about light, they are talking about spacetime. While there are some mysteries here, they are not the ones Mazulu sees. He does not understand the formulas he gets from wikipedia.Disclaimer, I am not a scientist but this is how it was explained to me.

See what I mean? Mazulu has photons on the brain. He even quoted my entire post but evidently could not parse it. Perhaps my writing is poorly structured. I tried to write it as clear as possible. But Mazulu misreads other peoples posts too so maybe it is not me. Or maybe I am wrong and Mazulu is right. No I went back and read brucep's post. What I wrote was correct.

Yeah, I went back and reread brucep's posts too. 99% of the content was verbal abuse. 1% was brucep complaining that I was using metric units instead of geometric units. If you thought that brucep's post was enlightening, can you please explain why?

 

[Cheezle]

Yeah, I went back and reread brucep's posts too. 99% of the content was verbal abuse. 1% was brucep complaining that I was using metric units instead of geometric units. If you thought that brucep's post was enlightening, can you please explain why?

What brucep said:

c has dimensions L/T. c^2 has dimensions LL/TT. The G and c^2 are included because you're using conventional units. c^2 isn't speed. Divide G by c^2 and you convert the expression to geometric units.

I would add that c here is not the speed of a photon. I could probably explain it formally if I worked at it, but since you could not read and understand it, why bother. Your problem is that we tend to think in words, and words are weakly defined and unsuitable for these kinds of discussions. You are particularly guilty of loose, non-rigorous language, both language you read and write. Your explanations of your ideas are too vague to understand. This is why real scientists use maths. You hate maths (and though you will deny that, I could cite quotes) because your ideas fall apart when described that way. c is an attribute of photons, but also it is an attribute of neutrinos. It is actually an attribute of everything because it is built into spacetime. (and no, I did not just claim that everything travels at c). You conflate c with photons and therefore you see photons as the most basic object in physics (after luminiferous aether which is pure speculation). Your ideas do not stand up to rigorous examination. And you are oblivious to all of this. Everything I just wrote could not find a place to stick in that odd brain of yours. You have already for gotten it.

 

[Mazulu]

What brucep said:
I would add that c here is not the speed of a photon. I could probably explain it formally if I worked at it, but since you could not read and understand it, why bother. Your problem is that we tend to think in words, and words are weakly defined and unsuitable for these kinds of discussions. You are particularly guilty of loose, non-rigorous language, both language you read and write. Your explanations of your ideas are too vague to understand. This is why real scientists use maths. You hate maths (and though you will deny that, I could cite quotes) because your ideas fall apart when described that way. c is an attribute of photons, but also it is an attribute of neutrinos.

de Broglie waves are particles with mass that have a wavelength $$\lambda = \frac{h}{mv}$$. If you had truly and sincerely considered my idea of aether waves, you would have realized that waves are a reoccurring theme in physics. I'm sure you've heard of particle-wave duality. I understand that you are not trained in physics and won't necessarily recognize some of what I'm talking about.

It is actually an attribute of everything because it is built into spacetime.

Built into space-time? What does that mean? Without my description of space-time as an aether, "built into space-time" is a meaningless thing to say. Physicists don't deal with ontology, they only deal with mathematical models.

(and no, I did not just claim that everything travels at c). You conflate c with photons and therefore you see photons as the most basic object in physics (after luminiferous aether which is pure speculation).

There are lots of physics enthusiasts/professionals who are happy to entertain speculations about physics. They won't scream obscenities at you for a grammar or wording mistake like they do around here.

Your ideas do not stand up to rigorous examination.

My ideas were not scrutinized. 99% of what you call scrutiny was either obscenities being screamed at me, repeated ad hominem attacks on my character/intelligence/psychology or most of what I said was ignored completely. My ideas were not scrutinized.

Anyway, there are actually nice people out there on the web who know more physics then anyone here. They have a math editor too. So I'll see you around Cheezle.

 

[Cheezle]

de Broglie waves are particles with mass that have a wavelength $$\lambda = \frac{h}{mv}$$. If you had truly and sincerely considered my idea of aether waves, you would have realized that waves are a reoccurring theme in physics. I'm sure you've heard of particle-wave duality. I understand that you are not trained in physics and won't necessarily recognize some of what I'm talking about.

Built into space-time? What does that mean? Without my description of space-time as an aether, "built into space-time" is a meaningless thing to say. Physicists don't deal with ontology, they only deal with mathematical models.

There are lots of physics enthusiasts/professionals who are happy to entertain speculations about physics. They won't scream obscenities at you for a grammar or wording mistake like they do around here.

My ideas were not scrutinized. 99% of what you call scrutiny was either obscenities being screamed at me, repeated ad hominem attacks on my character/intelligence/psychology or most of what I said was ignored completely. My ideas were not scrutinized.

Anyway, there are actually nice people out there on the web who know more physics then anyone here. They have a math editor too. So I'll see you around Cheezle.

As usual, by the time you got to the end of my post you had forgotten what it was about. It was about brucep's statement and my statement that c is not referring to the speed of light in those formulae.

Let's look at E=mc^2. Dimensionally both sides are mass*length*length/time*time. And of course the question is: can we group the lengths and times into velocity squared?

You know what other formula has the same form? Energy expressed in joules. J = Newton meters = (mass*length/time^2)*length. Do you see how the grouping of dimensions is important? Energy is not about mass * velocity squared. Energy is equivalent to accelerating a mass over a distance. Applying a force over a distance. And not about a mass and a photon's velocity squared. And it is not about the speed of light squared, though you can use the speed of light and square it in the calculation because it is easier. A shorthand if you will.

Einstein wrote c^2 because the people he was addressing would understand what energy is dimensionally, and that he was adding an additional constraint to say that mass is converted to energy has a scaling factor. It is a constant that tells you how much energy you get from a certain mass.

Could you comment on this idea that the formula is not about photons or their speed.

 

[Mazulu]

As usual, by the time you got to the end of my post you had forgotten what it was about. It was about brucep's statement and my statement that c is not referring to the speed of light in those formulae.

I wouldn't rely too much on what brucep says; his communication was hysterical and irrational; but do what you want. Do you realize that geometric units are obtained by dividing by the speed of light, c^2 (in this case)? c is a property of the universe. Why? The simplest explanation is that the universe, specifically space-time itself, is made of waves that obey $$c = \lambda f$$. But you don't believe me - whatever.

Let's look at E=mc^2. Dimensionally both sides are mass*length*length/time*time. And of course the question is: can we group the lengths and times into velocity squared? You know what other formula has the same form? Energy expressed in joules. J = Newton meters = (mass*length/time^2)*length. Do you see how the grouping of dimensions is important? Energy is not about mass * velocity squared.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass)*(velocity)^2.

Energy is equivalent to accelerating a mass over a distance. Applying a force over a distance.

That's called work which is $$W=\int F_x dx$$.

And not about a mass and a photon's velocity squared. And it is not about the speed of light squared, though you can use the speed of light and square it in the calculation because it is easier. A shorthand if you will. Einstein wrote c^2 because the people he was addressing would understand what energy is dimensionally, and that he was adding an additional constraint to say that mass is converted to energy has a scaling factor. It is a constant that tells you how much energy you get from a certain mass.

There is a derivation for the relationship E=mc^2. Units have nothing to do with any of this; you can use whatever units you prefer.

Could you comment on this idea that the formula is not about photons or their speed.

Yes, photons are excitations of one aether wave; a photon has energy, an aether wave by itself exists as just a probability wave. But the aether wave has c built into it as a characteristic of its ontological existence, along with permittivity/permeability (of free space), Planck constant, etc. The idea is that photons are the simplest objects that will obey relativity and quantum mechanics. So why not weave the fabric of space-time out of photon-like objects, but with the special consideration that these photon-like objects are not energized? What do you call the absence of a photon? Just empty space. Or an aether wave.


As for the other things you said about dimensions, dimensions are good to check your work, but you should really learn SR. Here is an online class.

 

[Cheezle]

I wouldn't rely too much on what brucep says; his communication was hysterical and irrational; but do what you want. Do you realize that geometric units are obtained by dividing by the c^2 (in this case)? c is a property of the universe. Why? The simplest explanation is that the universe, specifically space-time itself, is made of waves of the form $$c = \lambda f$$. But you don't believe me - that's fine.

Yes, photons are excitations of one aether wave; a photon has energy, an aether wave by itself exists as just a probability wave. But the aether wave has c built into it, along with permittivity/permeability (of free space), Planck constant, etc. The idea is that photons are the simplest objects that will obey relativity and quantum mechanics. So why not weave the fabric of space-time out of photon-like objects, but with the special consideration that these photon-like objects are not energized? That was the idea.


As for the other things you said about dimensions, dimensions are good to check your work, but you should really learn SR (if you haven't already). Here is an online class.

In my previous post I asked a question. Could you address it? Please focus.

 

[Mazulu]

In my previous post I asked a question. Could you address it? Please focus.

You asked,

Could you comment on this idea that the formula is not about photons or their speed.

My answer was

Yes, photons are excitations of one aether wave; a photon has energy, an aether wave by itself exists as just a probability wave. But the aether wave has c built into it as a characteristic of its ontological existence, along with permittivity/permeability (of free space), Planck constant, etc. The idea is that photons are the simplest objects that will obey relativity and quantum mechanics. So why not weave the fabric of space-time out of photon-like objects, but with the special consideration that these photon-like objects are not energized? What do you call the absence of a photon? Just empty space. Or an aether wave.

In other words, c is used in converting to geometric units. c is a property of space-time. Specifically, c is a property of aether waves.

 

[Cheezle]

I did not ask anything about an aether wave. Every sentence in your answer was about your aether wave idea. What I asked was (and I will try and make it as simple as possible)

Energy is defined as an equivalence to:
1) a mass accelerated through a distance, or (hint: mass, acceleration and distance, no velocity)
2) a force applied through a distance (hint: force and distance, no velocity)
Question #1: Is there any quantifiable velocity in this idea of energy?

(this is a yes/no question, but you can comment further if you don't ramble on about aether waves. hint the correct answer is no)

 

[Mazulu]

I did not ask anything about an aether wave. Every sentence in your answer was about your aether wave idea. What I asked was (and I will try and make it as simple as possible)

Energy is defined as an equivalence to:
1) a mass accelerated through a distance, or (hint: mass, acceleration and distance, no velocity)
2) a force applied through a distance (hint: force and distance, no velocity)
Question #1: Is there any quantifiable velocity in this idea of energy?

(this is a yes/no question, but you can comment further if you don't ramble on about aether waves. hint the correct answer is no)

Your talking about potential energy/work. Potential energy, no. Kinetic energy, yes. Energy of a photon, no. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/ It depends what kind of energy you're talking about.

 

[Cheezle]

Your talking about potential energy/work. Potential energy, no. Kinetic energy, yes. Energy of a photon, no. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/ It depends what kind of energy you're talking about.

So how is potential energy quantified? What units are used? (hint: the joule).

 

[Mazulu]

So how is potential energy quantified? What units are used? (hint: the joule).

Joules, ergs, foot-pounds, electron volts, take you're pick.

It looks like you're trying to make a point, just make it.