Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Just a second!

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?

You aren't being very consistent your proton which you are happy to say exists can only be defined by a wave. I assume you aren't going to try and cling to the classical rubbish. So if your proton can only be described by a wave then time must exist for the wave to exist (wave = movement in time BY DEFINITION).

Same logic as you applied to the proton it doesn't matter whether you measured it or not, it has to exist to the same level the proton does.

So either both exist or neither exist and that is reality .... QED.

Given release of direct detection of gravity waves today we can even say that anywhere gravity exists then time must exist ... GR demands it !!

So this idea is now up against GR and QM which both say no

For science time exists from the moment of the big bang, it isn't up for conjecture to laymen. Personally I find the whole idea of playing with the concept naive and foolish. A related question would be does the universe exist if Bill S wasn't born, how would he know.

would a kilogram exist as anything in its own right if it had never been defined?

would a meter exist as anything in its own right if it had never been defined?

would speed exist as anything in its own right if it had never been defined?

would temperature exist as anything in its own right if it had never been defined?

measurements are simply measurements and that is all that
they are , you cannot manipulate a measurement because it has no physical properties.

so my logical layman answer is NO.

that's pure uncredible BS orac.

photons will continue to exist even after all men have
gone and taken their measurements with them.

your stupid brand of science is becoming more than
just plain stupid its bordering on idiocy.

time does not exist anywhere , theres simply no such THING
as time , time is only a measurement.

GR is most likely and most uncredibly demanding more illusions to support some previous illusions , so I and we can now and always have said that GR itself is an illusion.

I am never happy to say that anything exists. If I make such a statement you can generally assume that it is “shorthand” for something like “We detect what we interpret as its physical existence”.



As you say: it can only be described by a wave. This does not guarantee that it is a wave. My understanding is that quantum objects are neither particles nor waves.



Even disregarding any doubt that the proton might actually be a wave; all this establishes is that change takes place; time might only be the tool we use to make sense of what we call change.

Think very very very very very very very carefully about what you just said.

Hint: try to define time

Is it possible for anything to change without time?

Response: We have a state (A) of an item, and it evolves to a new state (B). For science the evolution of A=>B is called time. If no time exists you will never observe the evolution. Does that help with your statement above?

A state can be captured easily in an image, a time evolution takes a minimum of two images (AKA measurements) ... lets show you

State A:


State B:

I will as soon as you define.

temperature
speed
distance

does temperature exist as anything other than a measurement ?
does speed exist as anything other than a measurement ?
does distance exist as anything other than a measurement?

now define time as anything other than a measurement.



time does not exist.

you should have said

Is it possible for anything to change without the passage
of a measurement of time?

you and your version of science wants time to exist as
more than just a measurement in order to pacify some
previous or future illusion , that cant happen except inside of an illusion.

So time is the same as temperature, speed and distance just a measurement?
Do that and you will score an own goal, again Paul


Well if time doesn't exist then nor does temperature, speed and distance if they are just measurements ... see your comment above.

You found the hole, I was trying to make Bill S see


No I am really happy to have time just as a measurement. See you need concentrate on the argument not just disagree with me.

However I think you better go back and make temperature, speed and distance something more than just a measurement to save your classical world

Lets show why you need to save it:
Paul, can I ask does the Moon exist if you aren't measuring it?

I'm maintaining my position on the fence, here, so I can take a shot at either side, for the purpose of learning, of course.:)

"... a measurement of time" implies that time is something that can be measured. Is that what you meant to say?

Surely the evolution A -> B is called change; time is what we use to make sense of our observation of change.

In our 3+1D Universe change is essential, therefore we have to have time in order to give it meaning. Does that mean that time exists outside the realm of change? Thought is a "real" thing, but would it exist without a thinker?

BTW, Orac, that's not you in the top pic, is it?

time , temperature , speed and distance do not exist.

they never have existed , they never will exist.

they are only measurements.

suppose you wanted to measure the thickness of a wooden
board with a measuring stick , you could not even reach
out to pick up the measuring stick unless a measurement
of time passes.

the wooden board exist , the measurement stick exist
you exist , but if you could measure the thickness of
the wooden board the measurement would not exist.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement



for instance a 1 ounce gold bar has a measurement of
1 ounce troy weight.

the gold exist , the 1 oz is simply a measurement of the
amount of gold in the gold bar , the measurement does not exist.



what Im saying is that nothing can move without
the passage of time and time cannot be manipulated
it does not exist it has no physical properties that
can be adjusted.

it just passes.
it never slows down.
it never speeds up.
it never stops.

it cant because it does not exist.

Bingo and Paul took that stance by calling it a measurement.

The problem for him is you have to give other properties to his other quantities so they persist when you aren't measuring .. so they become more than just a measurement. I see he has responded but I haven't read if he has worked that out yet.

Agree


Woot and there we have it ... your universe is defined by change


Now you got the next part of the extension, there is no way to tackle that is there because of the way we defined time.


Now you have indeed worked the connection, so the question you are really asking is does time exist without our universe which is defined by change.

To take time outside the universe I need to redefine it in a non our universe way. So it is like trying to define thinking without relating it to a thinker. Want to have a crack at doing it?


LOL so mean.

Paul you said you don't believe in QM

So the moon doesn't exist except when you look at it !!

Welcome to the darkside my new little QM convert. I can't believe you walked into that head first and yes I am the devil. However to be fair to me, you joined the conversation and walked yourself into a hole I didn't do anything.

I bet you want to revise some of your answers now my little QM believer

I really am not a mean person so lets give you a hint, the usual way out in classical physics is to add some sort of persistence to measurement so it exists as some "property". So your quantities velocity, temp etc need to exist as more than just a measurement. So classical physics does that to all the properties except time. Why not time, well I will leave you to think about that.

How can something that doesn't exist do any passing, or anything else?

That I have never denied.

Bad boy I wanted Paul to work that out ... I knew you would get it.

The downside of framing two answers in one post

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


A second is a measurement of time, a unit defined by us.

Time (perhaps a tool we use to make sense of what we term change) exists. Unless you’re a
photon moving at c, as I understand they experience no passing of time.

Since we exist in space-time, the faster we move in space the slower we move in time (time dilation).

Time is measured in its own frame of reference, so if you have two observers in different FOR they
will not measure a time interval the same.

Photons travel at c in all FOR no matter how fast we are moving.

You are sort of correct pokey and caught up with the problem we have everyone trying to answer

The one most people will struggle with and may argue with you is this one

Paul went down the path of making time not existing. He found the easy solution to change everything else into measurements and not existing, which he promptly did. In QM that idea is a form of holographic principle, that things only exist based on measurement and hence my little joke with Paul who is now a convert. There is a very famous exchange with Einstein over the existence of the moon.

So you are going down the time exists path. So your question I would like you to front is a little different. If time exists how can it be stopped for the photon (that is appear not to exist) and then the extension of that is can it go backwards? If it can't go backwards what stops it?

Extension thinking excercise:
The interesting part to ponder is time existing or not existing the only two choices. This one usually catches most people out who will swear that it is that black and white. So lets give you a couple of examples in shadows and rainbows. These things generally fall under a category of things called illusions of physical effects. As humans all our senses have illusions that can fool them and we often marvel at them. Can we definitively exclude time from being an illusion of a physical effect?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/07/q-does-light-experience-time/#comments

Pokey, I've posted this link before, but in case you missed it, it is worth a look. One interesting aspect is the "Physicist's" reaction, or lack of it.

If light exists, then shadows and rainbows exist.

The existence, or otherwise, of time is a question that leads to speculation and, possibly, metaphysics. It may not even be a question for science. Science needs time in order to make calculations, so “shut up and calculate” is undoubtedly the most practical approach.

I raised this question because I overheard someone mention a watch that was “accurate to 1 second in 1,000 years”, and I thought: what does that actually mean?

I think there is a possible third option in the existence/non-existence of time debate, but I’m trying to keep off infinity/eternity. We have enough repetitive crackpottery already.

That statement you have made is actually very profound but missed the correctness by a tiny whisker. The shadows and rainbow only may exist they would depend on other things as well.


That is called trinary logic and the form you have given goes like this

C = true, A or B may equal { true or false}
C = false A or B only equal false

your example
light = true, shadow or rainbow may equal { true, false }
light = false shadow or rainbow only ever false

What you will find is you can't change A & B into position C as they have a dependency on C.

Would you like a prompt to think about?

space = true, energy and time may equal {true, false}
space = false, energy and time only ever false.

What trinary logic is really good at is dealing with dependent conditions and help you recognize them. You might want to play around with more quantities in physics.

Yes I also gave you the WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM you all left out in your discussion of time which was Energy.

I laughed when you said shutup and calculate because you didn't have anything to calculate with in your discussion so far. Not one of you remotely talked about it and for Paul and Pokey it is probably vital because it brings in the persistence.

The motion energy version goes along the lines a body in motion will tend to stay in motion and whatever else Mr Newton said. You have Energy and time connected together with persistence.

1) I don't believe in QM , Qm is BS like yourself.

2) the moon exist even if no one were looking at it.

3) I'm waaayyy to realistic to be converted into some
BS illogical realm of fantasy populated by idiots.



I never said you were mean , stupid yes , dumber that dirt yes , idiotic (not sure but most likely) yes.

Settle my little padwan

We believe in the same things apparently

You probably need to rethink your answers or are you happy and we call each other bro and hangout together now.

(time) used in the context I used is simply four letters
joined together to form a word that is used in communication.

its like (smart) , if (time) exist then (smart) exist.

likewise all other words used to communicate would exist.

(ouch) is also a four letter word used to communicate a feeling of pain or discomfort , if (time) exist then
(ouch) also exist.

every word in every language used for communication
purposes would have to exist if (time) exist.

does (orac) exist independently from the person that
is named (orac) for communication purposes on this forum?

can you think of any other four letter words that do not
have any physical properties that can be said are
attached to them?

what about one letter words such as (a)?

what is a (a)?

(a) is a letter , but it does not exist as anything except
a letter of the alphabet and is used for communication purposes.

(t) is a letter but it does not exist.
(i) is a letter but it does not exist.
(m) is a letter but it does not exist.
(e) is a letter but it does not exist.

time is a word but it has no physical properties and
is only used for communication purposes.

the word (passes) is used for communication purposes also
exactly like the word (time) is used , when using the
two words (time) and (passes) together
as in (time passes) the word (passes) is used as
descriptive text of the word (time).

as in the time seems to be passing so slow when Im at
work these days.

none of the words in the above sentence exist and are
only used for communication purposes.

can you claim that any of the words in the above sentence
have any physical properties attached to them?

Thanks for the link Bill S. Will need to spend some time to sort through the opinions given.

Can we definitively exclude time from being an illusion of a physical effect? [/quote]

Thanks for the reply, I had to take some sleep time.

I can't definitely exclude anything.

Good grief, Time is going to lead into "double slit" and "delayed choice" isn't it?

absolutely not ... no way.
you believe that time can dialate , I dont.
you believe that time exist , I don't.
you believe that light has a speed limit, I don't.
you believe that mass has a speed limit, I don't.
you believe so many illogical things that I don't.
you also believe you are intelligent , I don't.




I'll keep my answers , and I'll have to pass on the
hanging out part as well.

so you can stop patting yourself on your own back
as if you had somehow won over a new recruit into your
fantasy realm of illogical nonsense.

Nope I am happy to have it not exist, so we can get down and hang out like Soul brothers.

Lay some skin on me bro, you are my homeboy now.

Group hug time ... too soon?

Nope we are playing the game of Einstein and GR distilled down to a very layman level.

He connects the trinary logic between space, time and energy and imagines a space where at every point along it time and energy are an illussion of space itself.

For his time every point in his space can be imagined to have a different clock running at a different time dependant only on the properties of space at that point.

For energy it disappears locally at any point in space, you can't measure it at a single point, well it measures zero. You have to pick two points separated in spacetime (a metric) to measure energy between them.

So in Einsteins framework a photon may experience time stopped but that is a local value of zero you are not entitled to project it to any other point in space. That is why time stopping for a photon is not an issue and it doesn't mean time doesn't exist under GR.

Don't get me started on the person falling into a black hole and time stopping that layman always can't get straight in there head

What all of you instantly did was take Time as a universe wide global thing (you excluded it being local as in relativity) and none of you connected it to energy.

As you had all gone global and then broken it to exit/non exist, I was trying to work out how the hell I give you all the hint they aren't the only options. Time exist or not is a non issue if it is a local illusion you can take either. Would you argue over a rainbow existing or not because its sort of a nonsense argument.

So I guess we have a way to go in our science education.

Paul, you should make a good physicist. Most of what you say in #55502 is absolutely right but (in this context) completely useless. It does a few things, but does not address the question of how something that does not exist can be said to “pass”, or do anything else.

What your logic does say is quite interesting.



Letters do not exist



Words do not exist, presumably because they are composed of letters that do not exist.



Therefore it doesn’t exist.

If things designated by words do not exist, what does exist?

Let’s think about that.

That’s it!!! I’m thinking, therefore I exist, but my existence must be wordless.

Everything else is described/defined by words, therefore it does not exist.

Have you hit on the best argument yet for solipsism?

"He connects the trinary logic between space, time and energy and imagines a space where at every point along it time and energy are an illussion of space itself."

So you’re saying that Albert E said:
If Space = true, Energy and Time = false.

things that have physical properties exist...



so you wouldnt exist if you did not think?
you could certainly exist if you could not think as long as
your bodies life support systems were functioning.

If you think that there is a giant purple hippo jumping up
and down on top of your head would that create the hippo?
try it ... now look up and see if the hippo exist.

basically what you have said is that all words would have never
existed if man did not invent them as a form of communication.

so since the words time , temperature , speed , or any words
that are used only for communication purposes did
not exist until man first existed and invented tools to measure
them with and used them for communication purposes
then time , temperature , speed or any measurement
did not exist before man existed.

drawing the letter A in the sand with a stick does not equate
to the letter A existing , the only thing that would now exist
due to your actions would be the shape of the lines drawn in the sand.

the sand was already there.

Now; there’s something I certainly did not say.



I very much doubt it; but having had, while driving, had a “Stone Tape” experience of such startling clarity that it caused me to brake very sharply, I tend to have an open mind about reality.



That seems reasonable, but not provable.



All that says is that the words for these things did not exist before our ancestors invented them. It makes no case for claiming that the things described did not exist before there were words for them.



Remind me; have we defined “existence”?

I defined existence when I wrote





are you saying that the many languages used by humans on
the earth were not invented by the humans on earth?



certainly it does , the things I described do not exist
time, temperature, speed, etc... they have no physical
properties therefore they cannot exist other than in our
own minds (like your stone tape halucination) you certainly
do not believe that the halucination that your mind generated
actually existed anywhere except in your own mind do you?


perhaps we should define the word define before we
define other meanings of other words in order to have
a strong foundation to build upon.

SAGG could use a running open dictionary that we can use
to reference our definitions of words.

we can carry this into physics if you like.

motion does not exist
force does not exist
acceleration does not exist
direction does not exist
distance does not exist
length does not exist
depth does not exist
width does not exist
height does not exist
area does not exist
diameter does not exist
radius does not exist
circumference does not exist
spin does not exist
angle does not exist
degree does not exist
radian does not exist
etc ... etc ... etc ...

the words above are words that humans invented to
use to describe objects that do exist and
do have physical properties.

That might be part of the definition of “things that have physical properties”, but it is not a definition of existence.



From what obscure corner of your imagination did that arise?

I was suggesting that we have no way of knowing if there are other beings that invented language before we did. Even discounting “little green men”; you impress as a person of religious conviction; do you not think God and other spiritual beings might have been ahead of us?



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?



The experience was totally in my mind, of course. However, I had no way of knowing that some 25 years earlier two, slightly inebriated, young women were walking along that pavement (sidewalk) and that one turned her ankle on the kerb and lurched into the road in front of an oncoming vehicle and was killed. The hallucination was in my mind, but where did the information come from?

Let’s take the first example from your list.



Let’s accept that, and move on.



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

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.

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.



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.



yes , motion is not a physical property.



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.





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



fluctuate...Dilate...

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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

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

Bill Gill

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

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

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

"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, can you define which reference frames you are talking about? From your statements I am not sure what reference frames you mean.

Bill Gill

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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



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.



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

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.


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.


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.

["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."]


So this “spin” refers to an object acting like it has angular momentum, but without the object actually rotating like it would in classical physics?

Yes pokey correct the energy is rotating but not in our 3D world. It is somehow spinning hidden behind, under or inside our universe. This is common to all electromagnetic signals of which light belongs to that you require 4 dimensions.

You can only write them as equation of either the electric field E[x,y,z,t] or magnetic field B[x,y,z,t]. The time component is because the EB fields are disappearing in and out of our 3D world. That oscillation occurs regardless of the fact that the signal is travelling at the speed of light and according to us time has stopped.

When we draw the usual 4D representation of the EM wave most layman either haven't run across the concept that time is stopped at c so how does the EB wave know when time to oscillate at as it moves thru space.

Here is the usual image


Do you see the hand wave we do the EB fields are changing in time but time is stopped at c so how are they changing.

The real problem with the drawing is the vertical lines we draw are a lie there they dont exist like that it's just a single line with the EB intensity varying on that single line. If you drew a line varying from black to white in a set length and back again that is what it really looks like. Those arrow represent the intensity and we have taken them into a 3D space which is a lie.

Lets see if I can do ascii art on a single text line

----****@@@@****----****@@@@****-----

The heavier fatter characters represent an increase in either the E or B field whichever we are looking at but its a single line

I find the 3D image above very misleading to people because they think the waveform really is taking up 3D space. The truth is the black line the arrow base is on is the only real thing the vertical arrows just represent intensity to some arbritrary scale of that black line.

No problem with that, except that you are also saying that the photon is not actually spinning in the sense that we would understand it in 3D space. Doesn’t that imply that the RF is outside our dimensions?

Doesn’t that take us back to “square one”. There’s a RF there somewhere, but we can’t relate it to our 3+1 D.

This sounds as though it would be difficult to test.

Almost it is valid to exactly one point in our 3D space being the centre of the spin and it is thru that one point the energy enters and leaves. It is exactly the same for the centrifugal case.


No as per above it is related thru exactly one point and thru the energy exchange. What you are really saying is you can't relate it to other points in space and that is true. However that situation isn't unique corner a car hard and that energy and force has no meaning to anyone not in the car. The cornering car energy has meaning to you if you crash into it and that is the same for your photon.

I still get the feeling you think reference frames should be good and usable universally and it is not at all unusual for that not to be the case even in your classical world.It's funny if I asked you how a bird can sit on a high voltage power line you would probably recite an answer but you struggle with the same situation involving motion. It's almost as if you feel they should be more connected.

So was the Higgs field

If you hadn't realised the detection of GW150914 creates the same problem you need a dimension for space to contract in and out of for the gravitational wave. That was the problem Paul was struggling with into what is space stretching and contracting.

Its funny we say it proved Einstein right but he actually went backward and forward on the gravitational wave thing over his life because it implied the extra dimension in his GR was real, something he struggled with. He wavered throughout his life on whether the extra dimension in his formulation was just part of the mathematics or real. In the end he sort of adopted the shut up and calculate approach.

I'm going to suggest this as a training aid for you.

perhaps instead of writing this



try something like this


you know its funny because we say it proved Einstein was right
but ...

before you post it , read it , and think about how we talk to others.

this would greatly help us to understand the things you are
telling us.

sometimes the way you write is a little cloudy.

Thanks for that.

I will try but English is still not the most natural thing for me, even with speach.

I’m trying to get my head round this, so I’m going to break it down.

1. A photon has spin.
2. This is not the same as classical spin.
3. Particle spin causes a quon to behave as though it had angular momentum, but without actually rotating.
4. Although not rotating, a photon has an axis of spin.
5. This axis provides the only point at which contact is made with our 3+1D, such that a RF can be established for the photon.

yes


We need to put limits on this. It is doing something that when the particle interacts with our classical world it appears to have angular momentum.

You really struggle with the reality thing

Lets do this with throwing a ball off a merry go round which is something far more down to earth you deal with.

See the problem you can't identify what is actually spinning the mathematics works equally. If you measure the forces it does not arise from any physical interaction between the objects but based on the past history of it's movements.

Spin even in your classical world makes no real sense and so in your classical physics you have to introduce it's forces in a totally fictional way. When you corner your car hard you experience forces and motions that make no sense to an observer unless they observe your motions before hand.

So lets take your car cornering hard and I wasn't observing you but suddenly decided to measure. I am advanced race and suddenly teleported into the car to measure and I would go woah where did these forces come from. At the moment I decided to measure the forces make absolutely no sense to me because I am not GOD I can't see what your past motions were. If we had teleportation that would be one of the dangers teleporting into a spinning situation and getting slammed sideways into things.

What you get comfortable with in our classical world is being able to see the past history of things before we interact with them. Generally we only get caught out jumping on or off moving things. Always fun watching people fall over getting on and off escalators, the young ones call it escalator fail.


It is rotating just not in your classical way that you can view the path of the past motions. Besides being able to see the motion it makes every bit as much sense or as little sense, as your classical spin the forces and energy play out the same way.

So Quantum spin is every bit as real or as imaginary as your classical spin


Which is exactly the same for the centripetal case and that frame has no relevance to a stationary observer it relates only thru calculations on energy.

So I guess I should ask is classical spin real or imaginary?
If I can't see the previous motion how do I know if an object is classically spinning?

both the ball and the merry go round are spinning.

your gif image shows this.



spin makes perfect sense to my classical world because its
obvious that everything in the cosmos is spinning.

everything!

duhhh.

at the moment that a photon is emitted it inherits its spin
from the spin of its emitted source.

that spin is certainly not claimable by non classic physics
nor is it only calculable by non classic physics.

the ball is rotating 1 revolution for each 1 revolution
of the merry go round.

the side of the ball facing away from the center of the
merry go round is traveling faster than the side of the ball
facing towards the center of the merry go round.

the ball when released is like an unbalanced wheel.

so when the ball is released the ball will continue to spin at the same rpm rate as the merry go round.

what could possibly be so hard to figure out about that?

Analogies often break down because, at best, they can be only partially analogous to the real thing.

The throwing a ball from a roundabout analogy works only if the spinning frame is a 3D entity. If we were considering a real roundabout, constructed in such a way that we could either spin the roundabout relative to its base, and the wider environment; or keep the roundabout stationary relative to the environment and spin the base, relative to roundabout and environment; there would be no difference in the angular direction, relative to the base, in which the ball would go.

Jus' sayin'

I am not sure why you think it is an analogy?

Explain why you don't think it is real

Paul your science understanding is so bad at times it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I never know whether to look away or try and help.

Most of your statements are bad but this one is a train wreck.

I take it you are saying photons have classical spin?

So I have a torch, globe or led makes no difference. So explain to me when the photons spin in the beam that shines out the front relates to the torch.

To extend the problem I have a laser pointer emitting a laser beam describe the photons in the beam spin for me please.

Throwing a ball from a roundabout is equivalent in every detail to a spinning photon. Somehow I have grave doubts about that.

of course they do.



when the photon leaves the light source.



the photons in the beam have inherited the motion of the
light source ( the laser ) as they were emitted.

and they will continue to have that inherited spin until
some outside influence acts against the spin like the
influence from a magnetic field or a gravity field
that causes its spin to change.

if you don't believe that a photon inherits the spin of
the light source then perhaps you should explain why it
would not.

lets put a laser pointer in a drill press and turn the
laser pointer on , then turn the drill press on at its highest
speed... for example lets say the drill press is rotating
the laser pointer at 10,000 rpm.

do you seriously believe that the light being emitted
from the laser pointer will not inherit the spin of the
laser.

if so please tell me why the emitted photons would not be spinning at the same rpm as the laser pointer.

But what in the light source the atoms orientation and spin, the actual macro spin of the torch. As I said I can't really understand what you think your spin relates too.


Say what ... can you give me an example of an electric or magnetic field deflecting light?


Ummm because photon spins aren't classical at all


Spinning the source does nothing and it's easy to test and directly conflicts with your idea.


Not only do I believe it you can show it by countless experiments. Light from quasars and pulsars from space which are spinning unbelievably fast have no special super fast Paul spin on them.


No point me explaining it you always make your own physics up and you already know you won't accept it.

Lets just give you two words and a fact you may decide to search. The words are helicity and chirality. The fact is for massless particles the helicity always equals the chirality which it does not for particles with mass. I can't help beyond that because I am not sure how helicity and chirality works in your physics.

Well they both involve spin and I can't give you an analogue of spin. Something either spins or it doesn't.

The roundabout example shows the relationship of mass movement with spin. So if I have something I can't or haven't seen the motion of I can identify spin if we can understand the motions.

Lots of sports people like pool or billiards player, some soccer players (Bend it like Beckham), most tennis players, some baseball pitchers and many layman know how to use spin because it behaves the same in all physical situations.

You can even write the equations of the sport
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/straj.html => Bending a soccer ball.

Spinning has no analogs and it simply has equations of what happens whatever the situation. So if I have something I say is spinning it might be important to check it behaves the same.

I’m trying to get my head round this.

1. The laser pointer is rotating at 10,000rpm.
2. Does the emerging beam rotate at 10,000rpm?
3. Is this rotation imparted by the rotation of the emitting “element”?
4. Is this rotation imparted by “friction” between the laser lens and the light?
5. Wouldn’t rotation of the beam impart helical movement to the photons, rather than causing each photon to spin, but maintain a straight course?
6. If 5 is correct, would you see this as an example of photons travelling faster than “c”?