PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-12-09, 18:13:03
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]
Author Topic: Ricks best video's  (Read 12020 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
...
Then there is also that big one-->E = mc^2.
This means that any object that has mass,as it gets closer to the speed of light,it's mass will increase.
Once at the speed of light,it's mass becomes infinite.
So,if a photon had mass,and it is traveling at the speed of light,then one single photons mass would be infinite.
As we know this is not the case,and the photon travels at the speed of light,then it can have no mass.


Brad

You are explaining why the photon rest mass is null so it can travel at light speed, and why you can't accelerate a not zero mass at rest up to the light speed.
You must link that with quantum mechanics. There is no evidence that a photon exists between its source and its destination, for it its an instantaneous transaction while you see it as a travel of ordinary matter, which it is not. There is no time from the photon "viewpoint".



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
You are explaining why the photon rest mass is null so it can travel at light speed, and why you can't accelerate a not zero mass at rest up to the light speed.
You must link that with quantum mechanics. There is no evidence that a photon exists between its source and its destination, for it its an instantaneous transaction while you see it as a travel of ordinary matter, which it is not. There is no time from the photon "viewpoint".

If a photon has no mass,then it's only source of energy is it's momentum.
A photon must travel,as it is the collision of a photon with an electron that makes a solar panel produce a current flow,or develope an EMF across it.

The photon has no rest mass,which is why it can travel at the speed of light.
Most all other particles interact with the Higgs field,which is why they have mass,and the closer to the speed of light these particles get,the more massive they become.

The photon travel's through,but dose not interact with the Higgs field,and so has no mass regardless of the speed at which they travel.

Here is a great video about the photon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAKRL0mhZc


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 158
There is no evidence that a photon exists between its source and its destination, for it its an instantaneous transaction while you see it as a travel of ordinary matter, which it is not. There is no time from the photon "viewpoint".

I believe you're referring to the 'realism vs locality' debate still being discussed among the Quantum science community?
   https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs?t=40

The propagation velocity of a photon is determined by the impedance of the medium it travels through.  This is determined by the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability of that region of space.
(The same rule applies to EM waves ^-^).


TinMan, thanks for the link.  It's so interesting that in QM, light and EM waves are considered the same thing. ???


---------------------------
Critical thinking is important, but a professional skeptic will never discover anything new.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
If a photon has no mass,then it's only source of energy is it's momentum.
A photon must travel,as it is the collision of a photon with an electron that makes a solar panel produce a current flow,or develope an EMF across it.

The photon has no rest mass,which is why it can travel at the speed of light.
Most all other particles interact with the Higgs field,which is why they have mass,and the closer to the speed of light these particles get,the more massive they become.

The photon travel's through,but dose not interact with the Higgs field,and so has no mass regardless of the speed at which they travel.

Here is a great video about the photon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAKRL0mhZc


Brad

"A photon has no mass" is an oversimplification. What physics says is that the rest mass of photons is zero.
The rest mass is the mass of a particle as measured by an observer who sees the particle stationary and at zero velocity. Such an observer at the speed of light cannot exist, the notion of photonic mass has no meaning. It is the distinction between mass and energy that creates a paradox, and this paradox no longer exists when we admit that mass and energy are one and the same reality. And they are because E=m.c² and c² is a constant.
Quantum mechanics is considered to be the best we have today to model reality. Wheeler's experiments with delayed choice show that the photon is not a corpuscle, a kind of grain of matter, that would move through space at velocity c. The results of an optical experiment can be changed by changing the conditions somewhere along the photon path, AFTER it has passed (and before it has arrived).
For an object moving at speed c, time does not pass.
The idea that the photon would be subject to what it encounters as it travels along its path, and not to an overall condition of the path occurring at the time of the quantum transaction between the photon emitter and its receiver, is a classical view of a classical particle at velocity < c. One must not mix the two because one cannot accelerate a classical particle to c: this would be mixing the asymptote with its limit. Either the particle has a non-zero rest mass and it will never go at speed c and for it there is a time that passes, or the particle exists at speed c and it has an energy (equivalent to a mass but not at rest) and its proper time is frozen.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
...
The propagation velocity of a photon is determined by the impedance of the medium it travels through.
...

This velocity is the ratio distance/time between the start and the arrival of a photon. Its a mean velocity of a signal, not a corpuscle speed.
No referential can be attached to a photon, it has no center of mass, even its shape (field topology) is not constant.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
I believe you're referring to the 'realism vs locality' debate still being discussed among the Quantum science community?
   https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs?t=40

The propagation velocity of a photon is determined by the impedance of the medium it travels through.  This is determined by the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability of that region of space.
(The same rule applies to EM waves ^-^).


TinMan, thanks for the link.  It's so interesting that in QM, light and EM waves are considered the same thing. ???

Ah,but are the guru's right ?
Dose QM have it nailed?.

Lets think about this--
Lets take a plain old mirror.
Now,with that mirror we can redirect/reflect sunlight at almost 100% efficiency.
this means that the photons of light will hit the mirror and bounce off in a direction determined by the angle of the mirror to that of the source(in this case,the sun).
But what of electromagnetic waves?
I am not aware of any mirror being able to redirect/reflect electromagnetic waves,as the electromagnetic wave would simply pass straight through the mirror.

It would seem to me that the EM wave's and the photon are two different entities.
If electromagnetic waves were reflected of a mirror,then we should get a merging of the waves heading toward the mirror,and the waves being reflected of the mirror at a different angle. This would be seen as a blurring effect in the mirrors reflection. But we do not see this in the reflection,we see a perfectly clear reflection,were no wave mixing has taken place. If we place two identical mirrors opposite each other,facing each other,and then place a small object in between those mirrors,we see an infinite amount of reflections in each mirror of that object,where each reflection gets smaller and smaller-->but we never see any blurring or mixing of electromagnetic waves-->we see an infinite amount of perfect reflections.

Have you ever wondered as to why each reflection in each mirror seems to get smaller and smaller ?.
Dose this show us photons traveling between each mirror in opposite directions?
Are the photons trapped between the two mirrors,just continually bouncing from one mirror to the other?.
Do we our selves emit photon's?,if not,how do we see our self in the mirror.
Do photons bounce of us,hit the mirror,then reflect those very photons back to our eyes ?

I still think there is much yet unknown when it comes to light.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
...
It would seem to me that the EM wave's and the photon are two different entities.
...

It was a relevant question... in the 19th century. Max Planck in 1900, then Einstein, answered.
It is an electromagnetic wave, and the quantified aspect that makes it see it as a particle only appears during its interaction with matter.

When it is "in flight", even if it is reflected infinitely by mirrors, we only have a superposition of electromagnetic fields. Since the medium of the superposition is linear, no mixing effects can occur.

Quote
Have you ever wondered as to why each reflection in each mirror seems to get smaller and smaller ?

It's like seeing an object very far away. This distance is that of many reflections, it is the spacing of the mirrors multiplied by the number of reflections.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 158
"A photon has no mass" is an oversimplification. What physics says is that the rest mass of photons is zero.
The rest mass is the mass of a particle as measured by an observer who sees the particle stationary and at zero velocity. Such an observer at the speed of light cannot exist, the notion of photonic mass has no meaning. It is the distinction between mass and energy that creates a paradox, and this paradox no longer exists when we admit that mass and energy are one and the same reality. And they are because E=m.c² and c² is a constant.

C is constant in a vacuum.  In the real world, the measured velocity of a wave is dependent on the impedance of the medium it travels through.
(re: electric permittivity and magnetic permeability)
Those values need-not be homogeneous nor static during the transmission.
When a wave passes a change in density(impedance), its frequency is shifted up or down depending on this change in density.  And the frequency of the wave determines its energy E=HF (Planck's Constant).



Quote
Quantum mechanics is considered to be the best we have today to model reality. Wheeler's experiments with delayed choice show that the photon is not a corpuscle, a kind of grain of matter, that would move through space at velocity c. The results of an optical experiment can be changed by changing the conditions somewhere along the photon path, AFTER it has passed (and before it has arrived).
For an object moving at speed c, time does not pass.
The idea that the photon would be subject to what it encounters as it travels along its path, and not to an overall condition of the path occurring at the time of the quantum transaction between the photon emitter and its receiver, is a classical view of a classical particle at velocity < c. One must not mix the two because one cannot accelerate a classical particle to c: this would be mixing the asymptote with its limit. Either the particle has a non-zero rest mass and it will never go at speed c and for it there is a time that passes, or the particle exists at speed c and it has an energy (equivalent to a mass but not at rest) and its proper time is frozen.

It seems like there are two systems involved when dealing with QM.  One part appears to propagate faster than C that determines the result of a wave function (double-slit experiment or Bell inequality).  The other travels slower than C that generates the resulting blip on a detector.
A photon behaves as an Electro-Magnetic wave, possessing an electric and magnetic component; one would imagine those are the two components involved. :P


If a wave does not physically travel between source and destination (as is implied by Bell's inequality and double-slit experiment), then the energy must still exist in some state between those two points.  Since we're talking about ElectroMagnetic waves, the implication is that the energy exists within the dielectric and magnetic fields (defined by Coulombs and Webers).
The transmission is then governed by the inductance/capacitance of the medium, which may vary with respect to time.



Quote from: TinMan
I am not aware of any mirror being able to redirect/reflect electromagnetic waves,as the electromagnetic wave would simply pass straight through the mirror.

The metal screen in your microwave reflects the electromagnetic microwaves so they heat up the popcorn instead of you. :)
The reflectivity of a wave is largely dependent on the frequency of the incoming wave, the angle-of-attack, and the index of refraction.  Below a certain threshold the wave will refract, above the threshold it will reflect.
https://youtu.be/pUwVZUOSTvk?t=40

Quote from: TinMan
Do we our selves emit photon's?,if not,how do we see our self in the mirror.
We do emit blackbody radiation.  Thermal cameras pick this up.


BTW I am thoroughly enjoying these chats.  Much more productive than the soap opera drama that's been going on the last few months. O0 ;D


---------------------------
Critical thinking is important, but a professional skeptic will never discover anything new.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
C is constant in a vacuum.  In the real world, the measured velocity of a wave is dependent on the impedance of the medium it travels through.

The mistake is to confuse "light" with "photon" as if light were a set of particles when it is only an electromagnetic field.
As in matter the electromagnetic field constantly interacts with electrons and atomic nuclei, there is no reason to say that a "photon" wrongly seen as a corpuscle would pass through matter in a straight line. As already mentioned, the speed of light in matter is an average velocity of an electromagnetic wave whose path is blurred and topology changing, which is confirmed by the Hartman effect during a tunnel crossing. It's not that of a point attached to a non-deformable object.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1556
Rather than saying that Light or Photons have zero mass
why not say that, instead, it (they) has (have) distributed mass.
A small mass distributed over a very wide area of propagation.

If mass can convert to energy then back again into mass,
how is it possible for any manifestation within the cycle to have
zero mass?


---------------------------
A man gets depressed, he gets sad, he thinks about quitting and folding, but he never does. He pushes through adversity. - Chad Howse
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 9
Rather than saying that Light or Photons have zero mass
why not say that, instead, it (they) has (have) distributed mass.
A small mass distributed over a very wide area of propagation.

If mass can convert to energy then back again into mass,
how is it possible for any manifestation within the cycle to have
zero mass?


   muDped:  Sounds like you are starting with mass, in the first place. Instead of considering that all mass comes from the Aether, as Tesla has mentioned. Therefore, mass is created from this unseen and as yet un prove able force. Although main stream science discards that possibility, and most people buy into that assumption. However, for there to be any "free energy", it  must come from somewhere. Mass is only source. Such as with NMR. But, we are still just burning "mass", instead of tapping into the "Cosmic Soup".  Isn't there more to it, than burning things up???
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1556
Quote from: NickZ
Isn't there more to it, than burning things up???

Good question.  Yes, I believe very much more to it.

Which came first, Mass or Energy?    I believe Energy was first.


---------------------------
A man gets depressed, he gets sad, he thinks about quitting and folding, but he never does. He pushes through adversity. - Chad Howse
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
Rather than saying that Light or Photons have zero mass why not say that, instead, it (they) has (have) distributed mass.
...

That's correct. Photons have "zero mass at rest" but photons at rest don't exist. Photons have an energy E=h.ν, ν being the frequency, therefore they have an equivalent mass M=h.ν/c². Where is this mass? It has the same distribution as the energy of the electromagnetic field whose density is 1/2.(B²/µ + ε.E²).
A photon has no specific shape and is not rigid, it is a packet of electromagnetic field. The distribution of the field depends on how it is produced (and on its possible interactions).
What can be safely said is that this distribution is considerably larger than the atom that can emit it or absorb it, for example in the photoelectric effect, because these interactions are not the effect of the impact of an imaginary "grain of light" with the atom, but of the coupling of an electromagnetic field with those of the atoms.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
...
Which came first, Mass or Energy?    I believe Energy was first.

It's the same reality. Just take c=1 as unit of speed, like in this interesting proposition, and it becomes obvious.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 158
The mistake is to confuse "light" with "photon" as if light were a set of particles when it is only an electromagnetic field.

Of this we are in complete agreement. :)  The wave/particle duality is indeed solved by treating every interaction as a wave-interaction.
(In a sense, the truth doesn't matter as long as the formulas and experiments still work as predicted.)


Quote
As already mentioned, the speed of light in matter is an average velocity of an electromagnetic wave whose path is blurred and topology changing, which is confirmed by the Hartman effect during a tunnel crossing. It's not that of a point attached to a non-deformable object.

My focus is more on how waves are affected when the path/topology changes dynamically with respect to time.  QM appears to share some concepts with classical electrical engineering.


Which came first, Mass or Energy?    I believe Energy was first.

Energy can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without energy, so I would say Energy came first, as it is the more primordial element.

Somewhat related question:
  Does electricity arise from matter, or does matter arise from electricity?
:D


---------------------------
Critical thinking is important, but a professional skeptic will never discover anything new.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 9
   All good questions... Now, we just need to know how to tap either this "matter", or this field called "Aether", to extract some use able juice therefrom.
   The idea is that both can serve our purpose, it would appear.  But, tapping the Aether seams to be quiet the trick, and not as easy as it sounds.
   Yet, "we do it because it's hard", Kennedy once said, about going to the moon. Same goes for "free energy".

   EDIT:  I must add, that light does not "travel", at all. The speed of light is the rate at which a light wave will "polarize", at what is erroneously called the "speed of light". Yet, there is nothing moving, NO THING moving, from point A to point B.  That may seam to be unimportant, or irrelevant, to some.  But...
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 615
All these questions are flawed. "Matter" comes from our sensitive experience. In physics we only have "baryonic matter", which excludes the fundamental bosons carrying the four fundamental forces, although they have mass and/or energy. This "matter" does not represent anything mathematically defined, unlike the charge or fields. There is no "unit of matter" (except in chemists who talk about moles, but still count in number of atoms with the number of Avogadro).
To ask what matter is is to assume in advance that it would be a single physical reality, which is false.

To believe that a term of language, vague as "matter" or even well defined as "electric field", should coincide with a uniquely defined physical reality is to confuse the map and the territory. An electric field is a property of the space where a charge is subjected to a force, such as E=F/q. That's all there is to it, by definition.

Scientists arbitrarily choose the abstract elements that allow them to describe observation of reality through equations, and define them mathematically. The "matter" is not even part of it. 
The most ignorant of science and logic imagine that every mathematical object in physics such as the electric field would be a physical entity. Worse, they often believe that these objects would not be what scientists say they are, when their arbitrary choice is made without ever claiming that each term has a strict unique physical correspondence. This simply does not make any sense. It is a crude confusion between the map and the territory that only leads to quibble without any hope of knowledge or operational results.
What matters is not to try to imagine what would be under the words, but to find and define unambiguous terms in order to describe and predict our observations of reality.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 158
F6FLT, I agree.

All science is a lens through which we view reality, and a model can still be wrong despite being accurate and predictive.  The Ptolemaic model is a great example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model.  Such a system was incredibly detailed and predictive, and probably accurate enough that we could launch space probes to other planets TODAY with it.
One could easily envision the Standard Model having similar fundamental flaws in it despite its accuracy and predictive power.

IMO, the underlying reality doesn't really matter as long as the formulas work and are technologically useful to us.


---------------------------
Critical thinking is important, but a professional skeptic will never discover anything new.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-12-09, 18:13:03