by D wiltshire 20 Replies latest jw friends
I thought that in quantum theory you can for the purpose of forming a theory suppose the imposible as if it were possible and theorise from that abstract.
Or am I way off base?
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
quantum theory is funny in that way. it involves a lot of very specific, very advanced formulae that work absolutely perfectly and yet describe things that are absolutely impossible - it works best if you just dont think about it too hard.
mox
You're quite right about the time dilation effects, Dave. Nevertheless, according to Relativity, neither the occupants of a continually accelerating spaceship nor outside observers can ever see the ship reaching the speed of light, although it can in theory get arbitrarily close. I like your explanation about the relation between time and space, BTW.
Skeptic, the true nature of photons, matter and energy are unknown. So is the relation between inertial mass and gravitational mass, and rotational inertia and what we perceive as the physical universe. We have a great deal yet to learn.
Photons are said to have zero mass, even though they have energy. I don't know enough about quantum physics and relativity to say much more than that, except that I don't think it's valid to calculate a mass for a photon using E=mc^2. Photons have properties of both classical particles and waves. No one knows what they "really" are. All we can do is perform experiments on them and try to describe and understand the results.
One of the most profoundly disturbing properties of photons, and for that matter, small particles like electrons that have mass, is that they seem to behave both like particles and waves. One way to see this is to perform the famous "double slit" experiment. In this, monochromatic, coherent light such as from a sodium lamp is shined through two slits that are fairly closely space, about a millimeter apart if I remember right. The light is projected onto a special detection screen consisting of a material that glows when light hits it, or just a regular photographic film. The close-spaced slits produce a "diffraction pattern" consisting of alternating dark and light lines. This is normally thought of as being produced by "interference", where the high and low points of the light waves going through each slit reinforce or cancel each other when they hit the screen.
Normal photographic film can replace the fluorescent screen and you can then record the result. This phenomenon of diffraction is a classic result of the mathematics of wave propagation and interference, so this experiment indicates that light is a wave phenomenon. However, what happens when the intensity of the light is decreased to the point where a photo film takes many weeks to become exposed? The diffraction pattern still appears, which is not particularly surprising at first glance. However, if you observe what happens using the fluorescent screen instead, using a microscope to observe it, you find tiny flashes of light occurring from time to time all over the screen. What happens is that a single molecule absorbs the energy of the light, which then re-radiates the energy in the form of a light flash that you can see. This indicates that light consists of particles, since it is not evident how a single molecule could instantly absorb the energy of a spread-out light wave. If you use a camera focused on the fluorescent screen to photograph it over a period of weeks, or if you expose the film to these individual flash-events for weeks, lo and behold! You find the same diffraction pattern! This is extremely surprising if you try to look at light from the particle viewpoint. The particle of light must have traveled through either one slit or the other, right? And since the intensity is so low, only a single light particle at a time could be present in one slit or the other. The question then is: if only a single particle of light is present in one slit or the other, then what is interfering with what in order to produce the diffraction pattern? The answer is: no one knows. This experiment shows how light behaves as both a wave and a stream of particles.
Some physicists have written that anyone who is not profoundly disturbed by the result of the double-slit experiement does not understand physics.
Another disturbing thought is just how a rotating body "knows" that it is rotating. In the 19th century, I believe, it was proposed that rotation is defined in relation to the distant stars. However, according to relativity, matter and energy are limited by the speed of light in how they can project their effects on other bits of matter and energy. Thus, nothing that happens locally can possibly be affected by the distant stars. Think of it this way: suppose you managed to travel to a place out in intergalactic space where the density of matter is so low as to be completely neglible, perhaps one molecule per cubic meter, and the intensity of light from the distant stars is extremely low as well. We have little doubt that if you spun your little spaceship around, you'd feel the normal forces associated with rotational motion. But how would the matter in your body and your ship "know" that it was rotating? There could be no instantaneous communication with the distant stars, and the density of matter and energy outside your ship would be neglible, right? Yet you'd still be able to measure your rotation. The same goes for linear acceleration. How would you know you were accelerating? Accelerating with respect to what?
These are all profound questions that show that we have no understanding of what matter and energy are on a deep level, or what the "true" structure of our universe is. We can measure things, and manipulate matter and energy to a certain extent, and describe how they act, but we don't really know anything fundamental.
AlanF
"Also, since nothing can go the speed of light"
What about the Enterprise?
From the recorded history I feel there is clear evidence of the evolution of the mind of man.
Books and the internet I feel will have a profound impact on the evolution of the brain(excelerating it). Books and the internet are very much a product of evolution.
Since the brain works mainly on a subconscieous level, in prosessing information:
I ask what is realy happening to our brains, will this knowlegde change the way we both conscious and subconsciously veiw our world?
Will we evolve new senses in the future?
Maybe one day with evolution of our mind we will see more than just the dimensions we do now?
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Thank you all for not thinking my question was dumb.
Dave, you figure for the mass of a photon looks right, but i am going on a 20 year old memory...i haven't looked up the exact figure.
AlanF, thank you for the detail explaination. I remember doing experiemnts similar to that, but not as sophisticated. It has been a lot time....I read it twice and finally could follow it. I really appreciate it.
Richard
If E=MC^2, then energy has mass, and mass has energy.
Would this not account for the duality of the photon?
Are not these formulas true also?
E/M=C^2
E/C^2=M
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Not necessarily, DW. Those formulas describe relations between matter and energy in situations where matter or energy can be directly converted from one to the other. When an atom absorbs a photon (no one knows what is really happening here) one of the electrons "jumps" to a higher-energy state. The electron typically "orbits" the nucleus at a greater distance and the "size" of the atom grows. When the electron drops back down to a less excited state, a photon is emitted. There is a conversion between energy in the form of a photon and energy in the form of a more excited electron. The mass of the excited atom increases or decreases slightly when the photon is absorbed or emitted.
The point here is that Einstein's equation describes the conversion equivalence of mass and energy, when one is converted to the other. It is essentially another conservation relation of physics. The fact that a photon has energy does not mean that it simultaneously has mass. Mass can be converted into photon energy and vice versa, but whatever mass/energy is, it appears to manifest itself in only one form at a time.
Einstein's equation has no particular bearing on the duality of the photon. Massless particles like photons behave like waves, and so do particles that have mass, such as protons, neutrons, electrons, and all of the various subatomic particles that have been discovered. The wavelength of massive particles is inversely proportional to the mass. There's a special relationship between the wavelength of a photon and its energy. Even larger objects like people theoretically have a "wavelength" based on their mass, but in practice the concept is useless.
For more on this, get hold of a good physics textbook. It can explain this stuff far better than anyone can online.
AlanF
Alan,
I have been reading some good books on physics.
Having only a HS education it has been rather slow at the understanding what I read.
A truley fascinating book although written back in 1986 is:
"Twin Dimensions" by Geza Szamosi
This book opened my eyes to a whole new way to veiw the world.
I like throwing out ideas wrong or right, I don't mind showing my ignorance and getting corrected, it don't really hurt that much.
I've learn a lot here on JWD. There are a lot of deep thinkers that have been free of the borg alot longer than myself so I expect to be corrected.
I don't expect anyone to do alot of researsh to answer my questions, just answer from what the have learned or from the conclusions they have reached. This gives me and others sometimes a new way to veiw thing that may help in coming to more correct conclusions.
Even though I may argue with ab, jan, seeker, rem, yourself, and others, does not mean I reject everything they say. I have learned much from those mentioned and feel a certain fondness for their thinking and veiws even though I may put up counter arguements.
Could this be how Irion sharpens Irion?
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Ok, here's some iron for you, DW:
The following book covers the double slit experiment nicely:
Einstein's Moon: Bell's Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality, F. David Peat, Contemporary Books, 1990, hardcover.
These books cover related aspects and give a nice introduction to basic physics concepts for the layman:
Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher, Richard Feynman, Addison-Wesley, 1995, paper.
The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, The MIT Press, 1990, paper.
Hope this is useful.
AlanF
