Alias Moniker Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Please attempt to understand before dismissing - not a strictly physics debate.E=mc2. Energy is mass moving at c2. The 'speed' of energy is c2."The best understanding we have is that it [light] is a disturbance in the electromagnetic fields of charged bodies." http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q212.html This is a link to the most recent report I could find for experiments attempting to observe or measure a photon without destroying it. http://www.livescience.com/41465-photons-seen-without-being-destroyed.html "The photon didn't interact with the atom directly, but it did alter the atom's phase — the timing of its resonance with the cavity. The scientists could use the difference between the superposition state — when the atom is in two states at once — and the atom's measured phase to calculate whether or not the photon entered the cavity. In that way they "saw" the photon without destroying it, without touching it." The title is misleading because this 2013 report concludes that the most advanced experiments to observe and measure a photon only observe how the photon interacts with other things, not the photon itself. Measuring and observing and predicting the impact that something has is not the same as measuring and observing and predicting the thing itself, even if your results are consistent and sensible. Special relativity states: The speed of light in a vacuum is always c, regardless of the velocity of the observer. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. These two statements that we know as "special relativity" indicate that c (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer (anything which is not traveling at c). The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. The observer is (anything that never travels at the velocity c). The laws of physics are the same for (anything that never travels at the velocity c). The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity c. Special Relativity also indicates that any experiments regarding the "speed of light" that are not conducted in a vacuum will not allow for a "proper" velocity of c. The laws of physics are the same for anything not traveling c, and because they are the same for anything not traveling c, we are able to transform the perspective of anything not traveling c, into the perspective of any other thing not traveling c, regardless of the velocities that each thing not traveling cis traveling. The laws of physics are not the same for any observer as they are for c. That is why we are not able to transform the perspective of c to the perspective of anything not traveling c, or the other way around. If the laws of physics were the same for us as they are for c, we would be able to travel c. It is light's different laws of physics, in its different universe, that allow it to travel at c, while here in our universe, without the laws that make it possible, we can never travel at c. c and "observers", which can never travel in uniform motion, are prevented from traveling in uniform motion by the different laws of physics that apply to each of them. Namely, c exists without time, so the entire concept of "motion" is different if you can't move from moment to moment, as well as from space to space. This is also why it's not possible for c to have an "inertial frame of reference", or for c to have "inertia". Where c exists, there is no time, so there is no change, so there is no resistance to change. The physics concept of inertia is inapplicable to c because c is not governed by time. Philosophically speaking, the two statements of Special Relativity could be said as: c is constantly different from everything else. Everything else is relatively the same. Why is this meaningful? Physicists would say that this only prevents us from applying physics to c's perspective, which is meaningless anyway; and then to understand c, physicists applies physics to c that don't govern c, the physics of anything not traveling at c. Other observer's have a different perspective of the same physics, which allows us to transform our perspective into any other observer's perspective; because we're using the same physics. If c had a different perspective of our physics, then we would be able to transform our perspective into c's perspective using our physics, the way we can with anything else that has a different perspective of our physics. Since c has a different set of physics, our definition of "perspective" can't be applied to c, so there can be no transforming between perspectives because only one "perspective" exists. Transforming perspectives between two observers is like two people who speak different languages agreeing on a single word for a color. Applying the perspective (or frame) of an observer to c(or vice versa) is like asking two people who speak different languages to agree on a single word for a color when one of them is blind and mute and the other one is deaf and illiterate. It explains the dual nature of light, being both particle and wave. Distinguishable from one another and yet the same thing. The photon exists outside of time in a parallel universe, while the wave "co-exists" in time, in our universe. More accurately, c is a cause, and c causes a disturbance, and the disturbance is an electromagnetic wave. Assume for a moment that time truly does not exist to the photon (c). We can't even say that it's "instantaneous" because an instant is a unit of time, and time doesn't exist. A photon (c) isn't created on the surface of the sun, it's created in a parallel universe. In that universe there is no time. If time does not exist in c's universe, when c is created, it must come into existence already existing at every infinite point in space between, and including, its point of origin and its destination. There is no time, so c can't travel from one location to the other, so it will just have to "be there". Strictly speaking, cisn't a "speed", it only appears that way in our universe where there is time. The "passing" of this "particle" (c) through space, but not through time, causes a sort of friction between space and time, a disturbance that manifests in our universe as the electromagnetic wave "light" (not "strictly" = c), which we measure and predict according to our laws of physics because it exists in our universe, unlike it's photon/particle/c counterpart. This disturbance, the electromagnetic wave "light", (not c) which unfolds in our reality, does not unfold according to the physics of c, the photon has already existed and is now gone, but according to the physics of our universe. What we observe in our reality is more like time catching up to the passing of the photon (or, catching up to the passing of 'whatever causes the disturbance that we observe as the electromagnetic wave, or, catching up to c). After the photon (the cause) is gone, the electromagnetic wave begins to ripple through space but now, this understanding of "light" (which does not strictly travel at c) is under the influence of time (because it does not strictly travel at c), which means it can't exist at two points simultaneously and instead it has to travel, much unlike it's photon (c) counterpart. So it's important to distinguish that when our physics predict "light" (not strictly c) it is only predicting "half of the total light phenomena", the half that exists in our universe and which is consistent with our laws of physics, known as the electromagnetic wave "light". Which is not strictly c. Trying to understand c by observing electromagnetic wave "light" is similar to trying to understand the cause "lightning" by observing its "disturbance", thunder; where in both cases, c and lightning, energy creates a wave form disturbance in a medium. Lightning creates the disturbance thunder in the medium of atmosphere, photon (c) creates electromagnetic wave (not strictly c) disturbance in the medium of "space time", or "time", or "our physical universe where time exists". It would then be more accurate to say that c is the "speed" of "time" (or the speed at which one escapes time), and c2 is the "speed of light" (or the speed of the pure energy "photon"). Theoretically, there could be one single photon in the photon's universe creating all of the electromagnetic wave disturbance light in all of our existence throughout all of our time. If you want to abandon the "photon theory of light", then this disturbance could also be explained by "quantum tunneling". The electron that is lost from its atom in the sun travels immediately through a wormhole to the atom that would absorb the loose energy. In theory, it wouldn't be necessary to "accelerate" a particle to c. In theory, removing a particle's "matter based mass" would achieve the same effect of c. "Matter based mass" is not the mass that can be added in the form of stored energy. In theory, time is a property of "matter based mass" that does not apply to pure energy. Time is a necessary force for matter to decay. Time is not necessary if you're not matter. This is a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Special Relativity and Light are talked about, starting at around 10 minutes. Really the whole video and series is great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUCBxS0_194&list=PLdgNN42xmuhmr7rrFRb8hWNrcd2gGW6Qc Edited July 22, 2014 by Alias Moniker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 E=mc2. Energy is mass moving at c2. The 'speed' of energy is c2. Not true. (What a surprise). This says nothing about the "speed of energy" (whatever that means). C2 is not a speed. It has the wrong units. The rest seems to be the same nonsense you keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 ! Moderator Note moved to speculations - please take a moment to read the rules of that sub-forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Energy is mass moving at c2. The 'speed' of energy is c2. Bollocks. Can't get anywhere if you start from a premise that means nothing. c2 is not a speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Moniker Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 None of you read or attempted to understand the entire post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 E=mc^2 is not the full equation. Of suggest further reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 "Measuring and observing and predicting the impact that something has is not the same as measuring and observing and predicting the thing itself, even if your results are consistent and sensible." Can you name one way of observing "the thing itself" rather than the impact it has? Not just for photons; anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 None of you read or attempted to understand the entire post. As the equation in the OP is wrong and your interpretation is laughably mistaken, why would we bother. As almost everything you say in almost every post is wrong, why would we bother. There is nothing to understand. Other than your motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 These two statements that we know as "special relativity" indicate that c (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer Not to me it doesn't indicate the above conclusion. What it indicates is that c is an asymptotic value to some curve. There are many other such examples in applied maths. All travelling entities follow the same laws of motion; At one end of the velocity curve (the low velocity end) the curve may be approximated by a straight line (as with many curves), which is equivalent to saying that the laws of motion are Newtonian (or Galilaean). At the other (high) end the velocity curve becomes asymptotic to a line defining c and Einstinian (or Lorentz) laws of motion hold. That's all there is to it - It's the same for all cats. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 These two statements that we know as "special relativity" These two statements are NOT what we know as special relativity. Special Relativity also indicates that any experiments regarding the "speed of light" that are not conducted in a vacuum will not allow for a "proper" velocity of c. Special relativity does NOT say anything about performing experiments in a vacuum. The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity c. This is obviously NOT true. We measure the laws of physics for things travelling at the speed of light and they seem to be what we think they are. (That may seem a bit garbled, but it is hard to work out how to respond to such not-even-wrong nonsense.) The laws of physics are not the same for any observer as they are for c. 1. What to do mean by "the laws of physics for a programming language"? Do you mean "c"? 2. In which case, what to do mean by "the laws of physics for a speed"? Do you mean "at c"? c and "observers", which can never travel in uniform motion, are prevented from traveling in uniform motion by the different laws of physics that apply to each of them. This is NOT true. There is nothing wrong with observer travelling in uniform motion. We do it all the time. The "passing" of this "particle" (c) through space What is this "C particle" of which you speak? After the photon (the cause) is gone, the electromagnetic wave Photons and electromagnetic waves are the same thing. the electromagnetic wave begins to ripple through space but now, this understanding of "light" (which does not strictly travel at c) So you are now saying that Maxwell's equations are wrong as well? Where will this madness end? It would then be more accurate to say that c is the "speed" of "time" It would not. If you want to abandon the "photon theory of light", then this disturbance could also be explained by "quantum tunneling". It really couldn't. Really the whole video and series is great. You would think that someone who said that might be interested in science. But apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 None of you read or attempted to understand the entire post. No, I didn't. When the opening bit is blatantly wrong, it does not foster hope that it will get better. If I posted a treatise based on the moon being made of green cheese, would you bother to read through and then dissect the conclusion? ! Moderator Note And upon further review I see that this is almost identical to other posts you've made, and you were asked to confine this to the open thread. Like the previous effort, this is locked. Do not open a new thread on the topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts