Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Bill S. #55533 02/20/16 04:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Where do I stand on the question of the existence, or non-existence, of time?

Intuitively, I think of time as something we conceived to enable us to make sense of the 3+1D Universe in which we perceive ourselves to exist, and to measure our perception of change in that Universe.

Can time dilate?

Intuitively, I would think not; though our measurement of time may be subject to predictable fluctuations depending on motion or gravity.

At this point, I stop because I have introduced a rational inconsistency. No prizes for spotting it.


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #55536 02/21/16 12:27 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I wont spend alot of time on this reply because it
is taking 5 minutes for any web page to load up.
I can use the tor web browser to view SAGG much quicker
but not to make a reply.

Quote:

If you were hit by a car travelling at 5mph, then by the same car travelling at 50mph; would you notice no physical difference; and if you did, would it really be physical or only in your mind?



there would certainly be a big difference in what I
would notice , but that certainly does not say that
the speed of the car exist.

the car exist but not the speed.
the impact would be greater but the car itself has
not changed.

Quote:

Would I be right in thinking that this somewhat ambiguous statement is not intended to say that motion is a physical property?


yes , motion is not a physical property.

Quote:

Intuitively, I think of time as something we conceived to enable us to make sense of the 3+1D Universe in which we perceive ourselves to exist, and to measure our perception of change in that Universe.



I was thinking that the measurement of time was initially
to have a sense of when the sun would be swallowed up
by the darkness.

Quote:

Intuitively, I would think not; though our measurement of time may be subject to predictable fluctuations depending on motion or gravity.


Quote:

I have introduced a rational inconsistency. No prizes for spotting it.


so you dont think that time can dilate but you do think
that time may fluctuate depending on motion or gravity.



fluctuate...Dilate...


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55537 02/21/16 01:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
so you dont think that time can dilate but you do think
that time may fluctuate depending on motion or gravity.


Not quite, Paul. Our measurement of time may be subject to fluctuations (or dilation, if you prefer) without time itself changing. That’s not the inconsistency I had in mind.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55538 02/21/16 04:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
this is getting ridiculous , Im using the TOR browser to
browse to the SAGG pages to read and to copy text from
and Im using another browser so that I can paste text into
the reply box and submit the reply.

it wont be long before I give up trying to communicate
on SAGG and will become strictly a reader of the forums.

Quote:
Our measurement of time may be subject to fluctuations (or dilation, if you prefer) without time itself changing.


in other words our measuring equipment that we use to
measure time with may be influenced by motion and gravity
causing the fluctuations of time or dilated time like the
time differences noticed on the mechanical wrist watches of our earlier astronauts.

Im curious though , if you don't believe that time can
fluctuate or dilate then why do you concern yourself with
questioning the existence of time as if time were a physical
object that has physical properties attached to it?

your OP shows that you do question the existence of time
as existing independently from the word time itself.


Quote:
What is a second? That’s an easy one; a second is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of a caesium 133 atom.

That’s all settled, then; or is it?

Does a second have any independent existence, or is it just something that has emerged from arbitrary divisions of years and days?

Compare, for example, a second and a proton. It seems quite reasonable to assume that a proton has an existence that is independent of our measurements. It is probably safe to assume that the diameter of a proton would be about 1.7536 femtometres, whether or not we ever measured, or even thought about it.

Can we say the same for a second? Would a second exist as anything in its own right if it had never been defined? If not, does that tell us anything about the “reality” of time? One thing we know about the second is that it is the SI base unit for the measurement of time. So, for example, if the base unit of time has no independent existence, can time be said to have independent existence?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55542 02/21/16 07:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Im curious though , if you don't believe that time can
fluctuate or dilate then why do you concern yourself with
questioning the existence of time as if time were a physical
object that has physical properties attached to it?


Belief in scientific matters is something I try not to hold. I will defend my interpretations as best I can, but if other thinking people hold different views, I always want to know why they think as they do.


There never was nothing.
pokey #55547 02/23/16 04:23 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pokey
So you’re saying that Albert E said:
If Space = true, Energy and Time = false.

NO you left out a slash option, he joins space and time together into one word "spacetime" and energy is the curvature of that spacetime

If Space = true then Energy & Time can be True/False

Lets give you examples

Photon of light : Space = true, Energy = True, Time = False
Here energy is moving thru space with time stopped in its reference.

Spontaneous decay: Space = true, Energy = False, Time = True
Here a particle breaks into pieces with no interaction, time was running and it decayed for no reason other than time.

The last one became a prediction of his theory
Energy=False and Time=False which is black holes. Energy can't get out of them nor time. Truely weird sitution given to us from the outside they seem to contain enormous energy.

So time and energy are an illusion of space depending where you are positioned. Thats why if you get time or energy zero you just take a different point in spacetime as it means you are looking from a bad reference frame. That is all we do with the photon we look at it from our reference. Similarly when looking from here at an event horizon of a black hole time appears to be stopping so take a position closer to the horizon to fix it.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55549 02/23/16 12:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Photon of light : Space = true, Energy = True, Time = False
Here energy is moving thru space with time stopped in its reference.


How do you justify ascribing a RF to a massless particle travelling at c?


There never was nothing.
Orac #55550 02/23/16 02:15 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Photon of light : Space = true, Energy = True, Time = False
Here energy is moving thru space with time stopped in its reference.

Are you sure that you mean "in its reference"? I thought that the photon's time was stopped in our reference.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #55551 02/23/16 11:07 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
I thought that the photon's time was stopped in our reference.


Wouldn't that mean that we would never see light move?

It would have to be the photon's RF; if it has one.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55552 02/23/16 11:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
That's where it gets very confusing. I'm not sure, but I really think that the photon's time is stopped in our reference frame. If something is moving with respect to us its clock runs slower in our reference frame and its length gets shorter, again in our reference frame. Since the photon has no mass the mass is not affected. For a photon this may just be one of those problems that appears to a quick view because it is traveling at the speed limit. I guess we will have to wait for Orac to explain it.

Bill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #55553 02/24/16 12:42 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
"Are you sure that you mean "in its reference"? I thought that the photon's time was stopped in our reference."


Most of this gleaned from "physics.stackexchange.com".

Photon’s travel at c from everyone’s point of view. Doesn’t matter how fast the people are traveling. It’s a universal constant (as noted in your byline). So at the speed of light “c”, no time passing is observed. Which means photons don’t experience time at all.

There is no time dilation for a photon at c.

Some hold there is a reference frame at c, called the "null reference frame".

pokey #55554 02/24/16 02:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Pokey, can you define which reference frames you are talking about? From your statements I am not sure what reference frames you mean.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #55555 02/24/16 03:00 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Bill G has already worked out your problem Pokey its just reference frame.

If I take a rest frame the use and min/max of the word dilation inverts if I use the speed of light as a reference. You have used the speed of light and thats fine but the dilation will be backward to me describing it from the rest frame.

Lets just use an example without the word dilation.

Right now a photon is leaving the sun.
In YOUR REFERENCE FRAME it will arrive in 8 minutes to earth,
In THE PHOTONS REFERENCE FRAME it will arrive in 0 Seconds.

So time is moving for you, but not the photon that I think we all agree on.

Now to use the word dilation and talk about it we need to know which frame you want to choose the photons or ours.

It might be safer to ue the word Lorentz Factor which uses the rest frame.

Last edited by Orac; 02/24/16 03:05 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #55556 02/24/16 03:10 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

How do you justify ascribing a RF to a massless particle travelling at c?

It's a valid as any other reference frame according to Einstein.

What you want special reference frames now or did you think this was a zero frame restriction I was violating?

It isn't a zero frame because I am not measuring out. Lookup plancks constant it will connect the energy of the photon to its angular momentum and linear momentum. Angular momentum can only work from the frame of the photon itself as its a spin. Yes if I try to measure out to the universe from this frame I will agree its invalid and we place that restriction.

So my reference frame is the point about which the photon spin is defined and I will restrict myself to local reference to that point and the energy described from that point.

Generally in specific situations in problems we can have "bad reference frames" just because they make calculation problematic. There is nothing wrong with the reference frame really it's just not a good choice for particular calculations.

Last edited by Orac; 02/24/16 03:55 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55558 02/24/16 10:48 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Some years ago, when I was trying to come to terms with SR, I reached the conclusion that a photon would not experience time. However, when I tried running this idea past working scientists I found it was not as straightforward as as that. The following is an extract from my notes at the time.

"I talk about the photon being everywhere at once. Quite obviously, in the frame of reference of an observer, the photon travels through time. It takes one second to travel a little less than 300,000 Km. but I am suggesting that in its own frame of reference it does not experience time. This raises a serious point. Special relativity provides for an inertial frame for everything that has mass, but it does not cover massless particles such as the photon. Talking of the photon having a frame of reference is, strictly speaking, not scientific. The photon must always be observed as travelling at “c”. It cannot be at rest relative to anything. Of course, one could argue that it must be at rest relative to itself, but that is not a very productive line of reasoning. Science has not actually produced definite proof that the photon cannot be assigned an inertial frame, but to maintain that it does have one is pure speculation, and maintaining that it does not have one seems to be the generally accepted position. Taking the time dilation equation to its ultimate conclusion may seem a logical thing to do, but it is not supported by special relativity because of the lack of mass of the photon which puts it outside the remit of special relativity. It seems that the best we can say is that we have no way of knowing if photons experience time, or not. Nor do we have any scientifically accredited theory that covers this, nor any way to test the idea experimentally, as no massive object can reach the speed of light. To some extent this all seems to be a shame, because if it could be established that photons did not experience time, then it could be reasoned that the speed of light equated to infinite speed and several mysteries could be solved. Obviously it would still leave a major problem with the tachyon, because we saw the tachyon accelerating away from the speed of light towards infinite speed. However, we might console ourselves with the knowledge that the tachyon is only a theoretical particle".

I assume you have an argument from QM that negates that line of reasoning.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55559 02/25/16 01:06 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You have already deduced the problem the photon is spinning it clearly has an inertial frame relative to the spin point and yet in your world the spin has two problems time is effectively stopped and the aprticle is massless.

The only conclussion a sane person can reach is we made an error our experiments or the thing is spinning in another dimension not in our world that time is still running in.

I don't see how you think there are any other choices there is an error (which noone has been able to find) or you have another dimension. Please suggest any other solution you feel we can have.

This leads to how we can overlap things in the atomic structure we have an extra dimension.

So specifically in terms of GR I am restricting myself to taking the center point of the spin. We all agree that spin has energy so relative to the spin point it is inertial (the 1st requirement of GR), I have a inertial frame. Next I am only measuring into the extra dimesion(s) that GR does not cover so in no way will anything I calculate violate GR. So in some ways I am doing exactly what you suggested making a self reference frame to the photon.

I would also point out that this treatment of energy and force arising at a single point in your 3D classical world is entirely consistent with how your treat fictional forces like centripetal acceleration which do exactly the same.

So there is a specific solution, I leave GR completely intact and I have extra dimensions. The reality is it doesn't actually even matter if that is the "TRUE ANSWER" it gives you a usable solution which is useful.

Do I really care if the extra dimensions exist or our religious crackpots and layman believe it ... well no not in the slightest. At the very least what I get is a mathematical way to treat physics which doesn't blow up in your face like you have already deduced correctly.

Again I repeat physics job is to be useful not worry about what "feels right" to layman or anybody else and you don't get a vote.

The only consistent way out of your dilema is to introduce an extra dimension and we already know GR does the same trick. So at this point your are at 5 dimensions (3D + time + our extra) and its going to get worse later on. However for now my 5 dimensions will allow me to calculate and predict the correct behaviour of the atom while you are still stuck trying to even remotely work out what to do about things and your physics is in tatters. So which do you think is more useful?

Last edited by Orac; 02/25/16 01:41 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #55561 02/26/16 02:57 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
How does having spin enable an inertial frame to be ascribed to a photon?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55570 02/28/16 04:05 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
How does having spin enable an inertial frame to be ascribed to a photon?

You really should be able to do that one yourself ... what is spinning?

Remember you told me the photon was massless yet when it slams into something it imparts energy and we can measure the spin.

If you are still stuck here is the connection
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
Please look carefully at the angular momentum and linear momentum derivation for your photon.

What is the more general term for inertia .. you have to see the connection by now.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55572 02/28/16 05:48 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
You really should be able to do that one yourself ... what is spinning?


Spinning is rotating about an axis. Doesn’t this just shift the problem to defining a RF for the axis?

Quote:
Remember you told me the photon was massless


My understanding is that the photon has no rest mass. However, when in motion it has kinetic energy, which equates to mass and therefore to inertia.

Quote:
when it slams into something it imparts energy and we can measure the spin.


When it slams into something it ceases to exist as a photon.

BTW, I found this, on which you may wish to comment.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16018/does-a-photon-in-vacuum-have-a-rest-frame

Quote:
In the modern view each particle has one and only one mass defined by the square of it's energy--momentum four vector (which being a Lorentz invariant you can calculate in any inertial frame):
m2≡p2=(E,p⃗ )2=E2−p⃗ 2
For a photon this value is zero. In any frame, and that allows people to reasonably say that the photon has zero mass without needing to define a rest frame for it.
--------------
I agree completely with @dmckee and would only add that for any particle the elapsed time experienced by that particle in it's rest frame is called the proper time and can be calculated (in units where c=1) by any observer as
dτ2=dt2−dx⃗ 2
and for a photon in a vacuum the proper time is always identically 0. So photons do not experience any passage of time so in that sense also, they do not have a rest frame.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55574 02/29/16 12:11 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Spinning is rotating about an axis. Doesn’t this just shift the problem to defining a RF for the axis?

You really aren't getting it are you.

To define something as "spinning" you have to have a reference frame that is the point about which it is spinning. It's a self evident reference frame the same as for the centrifugal case.

What you can't do is use that reference frame outside the thing that is spinning. The thing that is spinning and you avoided answering is energy. It is identical to the centrifugal case or are you saying there is no reference frame for a spinning mass.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
My understanding is that the photon has no rest mass. However, when in motion it has kinetic energy, which equates to mass and therefore to inertia.

Now go and look up the formula for kinetic energy in your classical world it requires a mass.

Also if you applied E=MC2 you would get a mass so we hand wave our way to saying you can't do that either.

Yeah they did some hand waving again and you accepted it, what we really did is said we have this massless thing but it has inertia and energy and you just have to accept it.

What we do via planck's formulation is hand wave our way to having an inertia where there can't be one under classical physics.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
When it slams into something it ceases to exist as a photon.

Come on do you relly expect me to answer that rubbish. So the spin we measured just jumped out of thin air. Simple cause and effect and conservation of energy says things were not there prior to the photon colliding with our detector and they were there after the photon collides WAS ON THE PHOTON BEFORE THE COLLISSION. I only do science and that is the way it breaks I don't discuss philosophy.


Yeah they just said exactly what I told you that the photon energy has a momentum relative to itself and its a valid ereference frame. That can be a reference frame for discussing the energy locally within the spin but you can't use it as a reference frame to the outside world. As they said when you talk of time be careful what excatly you are asking.

This isn't a hard concept to understand and we already told you that depending on what you want to measure you sometimes get bad reference frames because of RELATIVITY.

The energy in a photon most definitely has a relationship to itself as it is SPINNING and it has no relationship to you (as the spin is in a hidden dimension). The layman usually miss that when we talk of spinning it's not there 3D classical version and that is part of the con we can then pull. I always know when they get close to understanding when they start asking I don't understand how the photon can be spinning.

What we do to you layman is hand wave the answer that when the photon slams into something that energy spinning in the hidden dimension becomes measurable in your classical world. So what you thought was a massless particle suddenly has inertial energy which to you literally came out of nowhere and we have to try and fix your classical physics back up.

Now we have laid bare our lie we told you at school surely you see what we did and why.

If you don't want to discuss the hidden dimension I myself don't know any better way than to use this hand wave technic and I use the same trick. I thought you actually wanted to know the real answer now, so we have to look at the lies we had to play.

Your start point is when we say the photon is spinning what do we really mean because it isn't your naive 3D classical thing.

Last edited by Orac; 02/29/16 03:56 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5