If a photon had perspective, it would see no time and no space. As a particle of zero mass, everything to a photon is instantaneously at the same point. It never experience time or travelling. The 'here' and 'there' are in the same place, and you depart and arrive at the same time without traveling. Cool... hmm, not really, more like boring...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 23, 2016, 04:55:40 AM
If a photon had perspective, it would see no time and no space. As a particle of zero mass, everything to a photon is instantaneously at the same point. It never experience time or travelling. The 'here' and 'there' are in the same place, and you depart and arrive at the same time without traveling. Cool... hmm, not really, more like boring...
See just how easy it was to describe the Sarah Palin speech to endorse Donny tRump? Uncanny!
I know a little about what photons do, but I have no idea what they actually are.
Quote from: SGOS on January 23, 2016, 07:31:28 AM
I know a little about what photons do, but I have no idea what they actually are.
Besides moving at the speed c, they have energy, spin and mediate the electromagnetic force. That's it. I don't think you can reduce a photon to anything simpler.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 23, 2016, 04:55:40 AM
If a photon had perspective, it would see no time and no space. As a particle of zero mass, everything to a photon is instantaneously at the same point. It never experience time or travelling. The 'here' and 'there' are in the same place, and you depart and arrive at the same time without traveling. Cool... hmm, not really, more like boring...
Remove the zero mass part and you just described 3 of my neighbors.
Photons have fascinating qualities when interacting with an electron around an atom. They excite electrons orbit around an atom when hitting and being "absorbed" increasing their energy and orbit around the atom (if they have the necessary energy to excite the electron, that is, otherwise they pass right through.) But how does this really happen, as in terms of the language used? No fucking idea.
Photons are fucking weird as motherfucking fuck. But, they're so useful... and dangerous.
Quote from: kilodelta on January 23, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
they're so useful... and dangerous.
That's probably why the Enterprise seemed to have an unlimited supply of photon torpedoes on board.
Quote from: kilodelta on January 23, 2016, 06:14:59 PM
Photons are fucking weird as motherfucking fuck. But, they're so useful... and dangerous.
Genesis 1:3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 24, 2016, 01:48:11 PM
Genesis 1:3 God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.
'Let there be gamma radiation,' and there was the Hulk.
Now it takes eight minutes and seventeen seconds for a photon to travel ninety three million
miles from the Sun to the Earth from our external frame of reference. But for the photon the
distance like any other is travelled instantly. So reality really is not what we perceive it to be
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 01, 2016, 05:58:16 AM
Now it takes eight minutes and seventeen seconds for a photon to travel ninety three million
miles from the Sun to the Earth from our external frame of reference. But for the photon the
distance like any other is travelled instantly. So reality really is not what we perceive it to be
The photon doesn't have a mind so it doesn't perceive anything. And we can't travel on a photon, we can only imagine it.
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 01, 2016, 05:58:16 AM
Now it takes eight minutes and seventeen seconds for a photon to travel ninety three million
miles from the Sun to the Earth from our external frame of reference. But for the photon the
distance like any other is travelled instantly. So reality really is not what we perceive it to be
Objectivity has proven to be less obvious since Relativity and QM. That so many of our grandparents objected to these, is understandable. Even Einstein objected to QM. And Relativity hasn't been fully incorporated into QM yet (missing the gravity part, in spite of the Higgs). Photons get worse ... in one interpretation (classical EM has problems, not just QM) ... a photon can't decide if it is going forward or backward in time ... it is doing both light cones (at the same time of course, in no time at all).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelerâ€"Feynman_absorber_theory
It gets down to a concept that reappears with the Higgs (broken symmetry). An equation can have particular symmetries, and these symmetries are crucial to explain the elementary particles (mostly). But the solutions may or may not have the same symmetries. That the EM/QM equations are time/time-reversal symmetric ... is a philosophical problem given the thermodynamic laws and human experience of time. But the question remains, are some or all solutions to the equations with the same symmetry? Not necessarily. If in this case, they are the same, then you have "absorber_theory".
In Standard Theory QM ... the idea that the solutions are not the same symmetry as the original equation ... is a broken symmetry, conceptually required for the current version of Higgs. If symmetry is preserved (maybe not just time, but all or part of CPT) then all the masses in Standard Theory are zero ... and it has no explanatory power for mass. If symmetry is broken, it isn't broken uniquely ... hence the need to measure the mass of the Higgs. If there are more than one Higgs, or its properties are different that expected (as hoped to be demonstrated soon in the 2x LHC) then mods to the theory are required, and physicists love to be forced to make new mods based on actual data ... mathematical beauty isn't enough.
And yes, even in science, reality isn't what it seems to be. Even Nature hides, not just G-d.
Joe - he was making an analogy. Physics uses all sorts of frames of reference that are not-humanly possible ... just imaginable. Einstein was good at that ... he really didn't ride the Bern cable-car at 0.9 C ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2016, 06:50:03 AM
... (sniping the crappy stuff)
Joe - he was making an analogy. Physics uses all sorts of frames of reference that are not-humanly possible ... just imaginable. Einstein was good at that ... he really didn't ride the Bern cable-car at 0.9 C ;-)
Einstein was able to imagine stuff that led to real solutions. OTOH, I can't say the same about your posts.
We cannot see radiation
We cannot see dark matter
We cannot see atoms or particles
We cannot see x rays or gamma rays
We cannot see ultra violet or infra red light
We cannot see through non transparent matter
We can only see a tiny section of the light spectrum
And so what we see and what is there are not the same
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 01, 2016, 08:21:12 AM
Einstein was able to imagine stuff that led to real solutions. OTOH, I can't say the same about your posts.
Only Einstein has a valid imagination? Are you sure you shouldn't be worshipping (snark) at the shrine of Niels Bohr? (Its a Danish brewery) And since when do I have to equal Einstein (other than I have more sensible religious positions than he had) ... do you?
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 01, 2016, 07:26:10 PM
We cannot see radiation
We cannot see dark matter
We cannot see atoms or particles
We cannot see x rays or gamma rays
We cannot see ultra violet or infra red light
We cannot see through non transparent matter
We can only see a tiny section of the light spectrum
And so what we see and what is there are not the same
If you can see the Cherenkov light from the radiation, you are way too close! Things not seen, aren't unreal ... otherwise the idea you have, before you are aware of it, couldn't have existed.
Einstein might have had a great imagination but he failed to imagine the possibility
of quantum mechanics actually being true. How ironic then that he was responsible
for one of the twin pillars of twentieth century physics yet virtually denied the other
Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 23, 2016, 04:55:40 AM
If a photon had perspective, it would see no time and no space. As a particle of zero mass, everything to a photon is instantaneously at the same point. It never experience time or travelling. The 'here' and 'there' are in the same place, and you depart and arrive at the same time without traveling. Cool... hmm, not really, more like boring...
Photons are just energy interactions. Do they really travel? you cannot detect a photon without destroying it so in what meaning is it really there when not interacting?
#photonlivesmatter
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 01, 2016, 09:53:58 PM
Einstein might have had a great imagination but he failed to imagine the possibility
of quantum mechanics actually being true. How ironic then that he was responsible
for one of the twin pillars of twentieth century physics yet virtually denied the other
I think you're being too harsh. Besides vastly contributing to QM, Einstein believed that it was incomplete. In a certain way he was right, the real theory is QFT.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 01, 2016, 11:45:47 PM
Photons are just energy interactions. Do they really travel? you cannot detect a photon without destroying it so in what meaning is it really there when not interacting?
Photons are a lot more complex than that. In interactions, they are off-shell, meaning they have non-zero mass. This is permitted by the Uncertainty principle. They are also virtual, meaning you can't see them, but can only infer the photon through the interactions. In non-interacting situations, they have zero mass and behave like waves at low energy, particles at high energy.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 01, 2016, 11:45:47 PM
Photons are just energy interactions. Do they really travel? you cannot detect a photon without destroying it so in what meaning is it really there when not interacting?
You should get a PhD in physics ... you have interesting ideas. The "interaction" idea has been tried, that was my point regarding the Wheeler-Feynman theory that Joe brushed off with "get off my grass".
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2016, 07:16:01 AM
. The "interaction" idea has been tried, that was my point regarding the Wheeler-Feynman theory that Joe brushed off with "get off my grass".
The interaction concept was proposed by Yukawa, which goes as far back as in the 1930's. It's part of standard QFT.
The problem with your posts is that you are misinformed and your knowledge of the subject is superficial at best, but most of the times wrongheaded. The Wheeler-Feynman theory never got on track. It might hold interest for history nostalgia buff, but like many theories that were proposed in the 1940's, 50's and 60's it's just a curiosity item.
QFM might be the best we have now ... but if you don't have perspective, one can't appreciate how things got to this point, or where we go from here. If the point was, a grad student who needs to really be very good at the current state of the art QFM, because he will we working at CERN ... then you have a good point. I watch recent grad school QFM lectures from time to time on Youtube. But I don't think there is anyone here in that category ... the interest is much more casual. And I am not sure that older ideas won't be re-used in the future. That is what happened with the original string theory, which was a failed nuclear forces theory. And a lot of the other work is Kaluza-Klein from the 1920s.
Of course Wheeler-Feynman were building on other people's work ... obviously Yukawa's rather brilliant idea. But you seem allergic to physics that is less than a year old, or physicists who are past their prime, or past completely (with the exception of Einstein).
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2016, 01:02:27 PM
Of course Wheeler-Feynman were building on other people's work ... obviously Yukawa's rather brilliant idea. But you seem allergic to physics that is less than a year old, or physicists who are past their prime, or past completely (with the exception of Einstein).
Less than a year old??? The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory was published in 1945. Get your facts straightened out. Not only it is
old but it NEVER got on track. Just because it was proposed by two famous names it doesn't make it a correct theory, even less because there is a wikipage on it. As I said before, you have a very superficial knowledge of physics, and so when you read from FAUX NEWS on the net about some topics in physics, you are easily taken in line, hook and sinker.
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 01, 2016, 05:58:16 AM
Now it takes eight minutes and seventeen seconds for a photon to travel ninety three million
miles from the Sun to the Earth from our external frame of reference. But for the photon the
distance like any other is travelled instantly. So reality really is not what we perceive it to be
It takes about a million years for a photon to make its way out from the center to the surface of the sun, then only about 8 minutes to get here. The photon gets absorbed and re-emitted, I think, many times in the process.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 02, 2016, 05:06:13 PM
It takes about a million years for a photon to make its way out from the center to the surface of the sun, then only about 8 minutes to get here. The photon gets absorbed and re-emitted, I think, many times in the process.
The greatest energy transfer mechanism in the Sun's mantle, isn't EM or heat, it is sonic. The Sun roars ... and we could not only be burned to a crisp, but rendered deaf, if the Sun was too close ;-) Sonic energy moves much faster thru the Sun ... but probably un-quantized. Regular atomic lattices make quantum sound ... called phonons.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2016, 07:54:58 PM
The greatest energy transfer mechanism in the Sun's mantle, isn't EM or heat, it is sonic. The Sun roars ... and we could not only be burned to a crisp, but rendered deaf, if the Sun was too close ;-) Sonic energy moves much faster thru the Sun ... but probably un-quantized. Regular atomic lattices make quantum sound ... called phonons.
Baruch, I made corrections to your previous post, yet you've ignored those. I've asked you before and I'm asking you again: stay out of my thread if you're only going to post nonsense, start your own thread.
So are you saying that the turbulence of the Sun is quantized? Seems pretty classically chaotic to my mind's eye.
Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2016, 01:33:31 PM
So are you saying that the turbulence of the Sun is quantized? Seems pretty classically chaotic to my mind's eye.
There is such much fucking nonsense in your posts, to answer all of it would take pages, only for you to ignore. From now, I will ignore everything you ever post. You're just a fucking asshole. Get the fuck out.