Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Relative/absolute motion

I often say that talking of something approaching infinity is meaningless; but doesn’t the same apply to the speed of light?

Something that travels at c has an absolute speed. It remains the same irrespective of the speed of anything around it.

Something that travels at subluminal speed has no absolute speed, it's all relative.

Is the complication of changing from relative motion to absolute motion another reason why it is not possible to accelerate from one to the other?

Are you asking if 'the speed of light' is meaningless, or are you referring to something 'approaching the speed of light'?


Particles have mass due to interaction with the Higgs field, without which all particles would be massless and traveling at c
Special relativity explains why a massive particle is confined to subluminal velocity.
Correct me if I'm wrong at any point.

No, I was wondering if there was any meaning to talking as though there were some significance to a transition from relative motion to absolute motion.

I'm not sure I get the significance of the source of mass. So it would probably be off topic to comment on the oversimplification of attributing mass to interaction with the Higgs field.

I don't think it's off topic. I'd say it's central to the issue. What's more, I agree about the likelihood of oversimplification. It seems there may more to mass than the Higgs field interaction. However, I'm not about to make pronouncements on the strength of a few website articles. If you have anything authoritative, I'd be glad to hear of it.

Hi Bill S not back I see much what I thought would happen has

However I saw this

You have all the building blocks with QFT to solve this and it's all about energy .. so lets do it.

Lets take a zero mass item like a photon you know it has energy and you once worked out it must have
GR stress energy. What you did not specifically do is work out from an energy perspective they are exactly
the same and opposite and cancel out to zero.

What we need is the concept of negative energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy)

Lets write the generic formula for any body to spacetime

E total = E kinetic - E gravity + E rest mass

So a zero rest mass object has zero total energy from our spacetime frame and always will

When a photon is born it instantly goes to the speed of light,and exists as a positive and negative energy.
Then lets say you absorb it via your skin sure you feel the positive energy as heat, but you didn't feel that
you also gained it's negative gravitational energy you just got a little heavier. Your net gain of energy to
spacetime was zero.

Just for kicks try a stationary black hole and you should see it has an energy of zero, the rest mass and the
gravitational energy cancel

If an object has an E rest value no amount of kinetic energy can remove it because as you make the object
move faster it's gravity energy increases so the first two terms always cancel out due to conservation of energy.

Now whats special in QFT is only a zero total mass object can move at the speed of light. Why well because rest
mass (E rest) is a "structure" or "resonance" in the field. The field has to communicate that "structure" with
the movement. The field communication speed is why objects really do shorten up in the direction of motion.

The complicated part is the first classical tendency is to have the "structure" communicate it's movement
forward to the field but that is classical physics thinking again. You have a resonance in the field and that
resonance is everywhere in the field and there is a non zero probability that it will appear in any point in the
universe. Fortunately we most often see the most likely answer which agrees with our classical physics motion.
Entanglement and quantum tunneling are manifestations of the true nature of the movement when that classical
physics breaks down.

So in this simple layman scheme we have zero mass objects as waves in the field and things with rest mass
as more complicated resonances that have to be transmitted.

It's a bit of a simplification for clarity but if you really want to follow it Matt Strassler has the details on
"class 0" and "class 1" waves which is there technical names.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...tion-of-motion/

So the short answer is class 1 waves can't move at speed of light and only class 1 waves can describe rest mass.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...les-are-quanta/


See your gut feel that there had to be a solid difference was justified and it is wave type we don't discuss
this stuff on layman forums but you are well beyond that now.

Go any deeper Bill S and you get an honorary degree

Bill S if you are intending to go deeper you will need to follow the negative side of energy (you pretty much ignored or don't believe it so far). You need to start here and you may want to think about Matt's last comment

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...ermions-differ/

Thanks Orac. Quite a lot to think about there, and very little time to do it. I've not said much about negative energy because I don't know much about it. No basic objection to it, though.

Orac has had a lot to say about this subject, but I thought you might be interested in this article by Ethan Siegel. I don't think it really answers your question, but it is certainly related to it.

Ask Ethan #109: How Do Photons Experience Time?

Bill Gill

Nothing wrong with that science mag fluff story but it does leave a few things unclear aside from Bill'S original question.

(i) Why does length contract with motion?
(ii) Why does time contract with motion?

I am guessing Bill S is going to want those answers as well. From his current understanding there is a good chance he
might put it together depends how he goes with class 0 and class 1 waves.

As stated the correct answer is mass is a class 1 wave and class 1 waves can't travel at the speed of light.
That is just an answer a layman will never understand they don't see matter as waves thanks to classical physics.

I am guessing he is going to turn our class waves into spin shortly if Bill S is true to form.

Lets see where Bill G is at, do you accept the science that matter and mass are just waves or spins?
Ask a layman and they will say no, ratio is 90% or higher last I looked. They can feel the world is solid .. true story.

I am with the other scientists in the minority and yet we don't care

Hint for Bill S: 1982 Nobel prize winner Kenneth G. Wilson in case you need it.

Interesting link, Bill. I was a little surprised that Ethan came down firmly on the "photons don't experience time" side without mentioning the other side of the argument.

I’m struggling a bit with the class 0 and class 1 waves, probably because of the maths.

So far I think I have gathered that there are class 0 and class 1 fields, and class 0 and 1 waves are waves in those fields.

Class 0 waves can have any frequency, but always travel with equal speed, which is c.

Class 1 waves have a minimum frequency, and can travel at a range of speeds, < c.

Particles that are excitations of class 0 fields are massless bosons.

Particles that are excitations of class 1 fields are all fermions, and therefore are massive.

Tentative conclusion: All the matter and energy in the Universe amount, essentially, to excitations in a variety of fields.

Relevance to OP: Massive objects cannot be accelerated to c because they and massless objects are excitations in incompatible fields.

Well, keep in mind that some people used to think that neutrinos were massless. It wasn't for sure, there really wasn't any real evidence either way. Then they figured out that they were oscillating between types. In order for them to be able to oscillate they must be experiencing time. Therefore they must be traveling at less than C. Therefore they must have mass. So the idea that massless particles don't experience time is not at all new.

Bill Gill

Okay I am going to cheat an give you a real world example that might help you visualize the situation without the maths.

Wind could be seen as a class 0 wave in air, a tornado or hurricane could be viewed as a class 1 wave in air.

The later can not move as fast as the air itself because on the parallel sides you have + and - speed relative to its motion.
Here I once drew this for Marosz and it sort of works

Those side movements are problematic and that is symptomatic of class 1 waves.
Class 1 waves always contain internal motion which are relative to the actual motion that is what makes them class 1.

You can see if that was a class 1 wave moving at the speed of light the top side would have to move faster than light or it couldn't rotate.

There you go no maths but a simple visual example.

It should also be apparent most class 1 waves will rotate in some way because otherwise they may be viewed
as a unrelated wave front. So we are slowly introducing the concept of spin.


Correct and now you have a hypothesis to test

Try working out why matter contracts now !


I will correct they can't go at the speed of light because some part of the internal motion would be required to go faster than light.

You would have the same problem trying to make a tornado move at the same speed as it's spin ... NOT POSSIBLE.

The tornado analogy is great (no maths - woot), but tornadoes always spin in the plane of travel. Would this also apply to particles. If not, the particle spin speed would not add to the travel speed if the two were at right-angles.

If the waves didn't stay in the general vicinity of a single point would you call them particles

Going back to meteorology example there is no difference between a high or low pressure cell, a hurricane and a tornado.
What is different is the size and energy of the wave relative to the human perspective. Saying something isn't spinning
with the plane of travel can be very tricky look at space orbits as another example.

Particles will tend to go for volumes of spin not planes think about the uncertainty principle.

What becomes important in defining a particle or a tornado is the human perspective. That is why the mathematics of
class 1 is so hard it describes things on vastly different scales and there isn't a definitive cutoff that this is a particle
and this isn't, deciding when something is a tornado can be equally tricky. I imagine like physicists there is some sort
of rules a meteorologist uses.

What we end up doing is defining both relative to how we generally encounter them in our normal enviroment.

All that ends up with particles being quantum waves holding proximity to a point, which we then call Quantum spin.

You need to however have in the back of your mind the definition of a particle isn't a hard science definition

Finally we need to deal with the fact when we are at the speed of light spin itself takes on a weird form and look
because of relativity which Paul Dirac solved in 1928 when he converted the class 1 classical equations in relativistic
ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_wave_equations)

Here is the usual visualization


After a 360 degree rotation, the spiral flips between clockwise and counterclockwise orientations.
It returns to its original configuration after spinning a full 720 degrees. So one rotation is only half a spin of the fields.

Notice none of the fields cross themselves or any other field.

If you are really observant you will also notice there are two spins as drawn one of the classical orbital
angular momentum kind of the box itself in the middle and one of the fields which can only be described easily by
equations. The situation is correct in Quantum mechanics both spins can be present.

Sorry I should have put this if you map just the angular momentum wave in the field it looks like this



You should be able to reconcile the two image if you watch the field movements carefully in the upper image.

I've just had a quick look through your posts, and if they deal with the point:

"If not, the particle spin speed would not add to the travel speed if the two were at right-angles."

I may need some simplification.

What we have is the concept of quantum spin being the movement of energy in the field itself NOT the classical particle
mass rotating energy. That classical particle rotation can exist in some situations in addition to the quantum spin.

The key point is that the field can only move at the speed of light that is what sets the velocity for class 0 waves. The fact
we can measure the energy in the field as classical angular momentum tells us the energy is behaving like a classical field.

In some sense there is no more important detail in physics because here we have this quantum world suddenly exhibiting a
very classical behaviour in that once you start energy in the field rotating it exhibits classical momentum. There are very
few Quantum and Classical physics connections and yet here we have one.

The only requirement we made for that was that energy can not be transferred in the Quantum field faster than c.

A spin 1 particle has relative field motions at right angles to the direction of motion and will not be able to move at the
speed of light with the above restriction, same problem as a tornado moving at its spin speed.

There is actually a much more profound effect that will be obvious as a spin 1 moves faster given that restriction.

Think about it

Are we talking about a particle having classical spin and quantum spin? Would both impart angular momentum to the particle?



I’m never quite clear about field movement. Should it be seen as the field moving, or something (energy/information/ripples?) moving in the field. If a field already fills space, in what sense does it move?

If a particle can be considered as a particle or a wave, and the particle has angular momentum, can the angular momentum be measures when the observation “shows” a wave? If not, what happens to the angular momentum?



Is there a form of rotation that could be considered a quantum momentum, as distinct from classical momentum?



This is spin 1, rather than class 1 particles?



Clues?

Both can exist in a particle together and yes both impart angular momentum as the quantum wave is classical in that respect.
They can even counter rotate like Contra-rotating propellers. They share no points that there motions clash just like the propellers.

In a sense on a macro scale you do that when you spin a solid object the quantum spins are still doing there own thing.
Normally the quantum spins in a solid would be pretty much uniformly random so you would never notice.

When the question was asked in Scientific America only one of the three physicists they used actually got it right
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/


You wouldn't know there was a field unless you could see the energy exchange (think of Higss pre discovery).
So a field is moving in the sense you can measure an energy exchange remind you of something ... Relativity?

So if you prefer turn field movements to relative field movements because that is all we can say.


I am going to say no for a historical problematic reason and save myself a headache

If you treat it strictly in that manner you end up at De Broglie–Bohm theory and the waves are called pilot-waves.
That theory comes to a crashing end, although some still try to keep it alive, but it's like flat earth theory.


Now you even pick up my errors so you definitely have got it ... yes class 1 sorry.


Lets say things are going to get shorter in the direction of movement of class 1 waves

If the angular momentum in each direction is equal, does that mean zero total; or does one not influence the other?



I don’t have the depth of knowledge to look at these responses and say, this or that point is wrong. The best I can do is comment on what each contributor says to me.

Tavel: I have the impression that he was in a hurry to move on; or perhaps thought: “That’s good enough for the plebs”. If I could spot a sin, it would one of omission.

Bachmann: He address the subject of angular momentum and magnetic moment. He leaves the question of magnetic moment a bit vague, but one can’t expect too much in a brief response. He was obviously listening to the question, because he says: “It is analogous to the spin of a planet…”. His final comment is an interesting one; I wish he had said a bit more about “why”.

Stenger: My only objection to his opening paragraph is that he gives the impression that quons are little solid objects. On the plus side, he considers angular momentum.

His third paragraph has some good information, but he fails to clarify any connection between, for example, the Pauli exclusion principle and spin.

His final sentence has a degree of profundity, but leaves me wanting to ask him to explain why.

I guess that what I am saying is: “I don’t know which you have selected as being the right one. I think I would extract most from a combination of points from all three. If I have to select one, I think it must be Stenger, but it’s a shot in the dark. I’ll stick with bits of all three.

You need to define influence? If you mean do they sum on the containing body (like the propellers) then yes they do
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_angular_momentum)


I will give a warning however if you are going to mix them makes sure your classical angular
momentum is the relativistic one not the plain schoolyard version.


Stenger was the only one who got exactly right and his last statement is definitely worth thinking about

We cannot detect any absolute movement of a field; only relative movements within the field?

AT FIRST we MUST ASK ABOUT GALILEO
( FATHER for RELATIVE MOTION )

CAN WE SOLVE HIS PROBLEM ?

Galilean relativity - fundament for modern physics
source : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

******************************************************************
Imagine a person inside a ship which is sailing on a perfectly smooth lake at constant speed. This passeneger is in the ship's windowless hull and, despite it being a fine day, is engaged in doing mechanical experiments (such as studying the behavior of pendula and the trajectories of falling bodies). A simple question one can ask of this researcher is whether she can determine that the ship is moving (with respect to the lake shore) without going on deck or looking out a porthole.
Since the ship is moving at constant speed and direction she will not feel the motion of the ship. This is the same situation as when flying on a plane: one cannot tell, without looking out one of the windows, that the plane is moving once it reaches cruising altitutde (at which point the plane is flying at constant speed and direction). Still one might wonder whether the experiments being done in the ship's hull will give some indication of the its motion. Based on his experiments Galileo concluded that this is in fact impossible: all mechanical experiments done inside a ship moving at constant speed in a constant direction would give precisely the same results as similar experiments done on shore.
The conclusion is that one observer in a house by the shore and another in the ship will not be able to determine that the ship is moving by comparing the results of experiments done inside the house and ship. In order to determine motion these observers must look at each other. It is important important to note that this is true only if the ship is sailing at constant speed and direction, should it speed up, slow down or turn the researcher inside can tell that the ship is moving. For example, if the ship turns you can see all things hanging from the roof (such as a lamp) tilting with respect to the floor
Generalizing these observations Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis:

any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments
(it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the scientific method (Sec. 1.2.1): he derived consequences of this hypothesis and determined whether they agree with the predictions.
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (``are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity.
*******************************************************************

MAROSZ 2012
EXIST SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPERIMENT
PERSON INSIDE SHIP IS ABLE RECOGNIZE CONSTANT MOTION !!!


THEORY :
James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.


SI units system :
ENERGY/SPACE = [ Joul / cubic meters = Newton *meter / cubic meters = N/m^2 ]


How big force is registering left /right wall ( intensity ? )
1 NOT EXIST C+V !
2 where 3D signal started?
3 where are walls ?







THE WALLS ARE REGISTERING FORCES !!
IT IS TYPICAL PREASURE PROBLEM !!




STUDY BELOW !!!

GALILEO ASLO MADE MISTAKE
IF WE SPEAK ABOUT NATURAL FALL LAW


IN UNIVERSE EXIST MANY STARS ( moon = mirror )

HOW BIG PREASURE IS PUSHING EARTH ?

HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSCHING ELECTRON ?


WHY WE SEE WAVE IN YOUNG EXPERIMENT ??!!!











DUALISM ????? NO !!!!!!
( NEWTON's idea is possible !)