Lakshya Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start: E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation) E/c^2=m=0 (To prove) We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula: E=hv So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest, there is no frequency at rest. It will have no frequency. So, we will get E=h*0=0. Putting it in the previous equation, we get m=0. That's how I proved it. But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe. Okay let's take this experiment. Suppose we stop every matter in the universe. Then everything will vanish according to the above proof. So, anybody outside the universe will never be able to sense that there's a thing like time. And this state of stopping everything can be achieved by stopping time. Everything will come to rest and will vanish from the universe. Hence, we can derive that mass and motion can only exist when time exists or conversely time only exists when mass and motion exist. If time exists and mass and motion don't exist, then we can never feel time. We get that feeling when anything comes into motion. So, both are true. Thouhts please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 It is not physically valid to assume that c=0 (photons at rest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation) yes, this is true for objects at rest. can you tell me what a photon is not at? begins with an r ends in t and has es in the middle and is only 4 letters long. looks like your derivation faceplanted itself at the starting blocks without even making it to the first hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 time requires change (twice), the distance between this changes is Time. nothing else, it really IS that simple. no Mass, no Motion per se, or matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Since energy and mass exist, and not having motion is impossible, all the rest is kinda moot, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Yeah---(s)he has tacitly assumed that there is a good frame where one can take the photon at rest. But one of the postulates of SR is that there IS NO such frame. So (s)he's using the results of SR (specifically mass-energy relationships) in a frame where SR doesn't hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Yeah, good thing that it is impossible to reach 0 Kelvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Yeah, good thing that it is impossible to reach 0 Kelvin. still wouldn't hange the velocity of a photon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 There are no 0 Kelvin photons, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 well, it's an unphysical condition. all matter might as well spontaneously turn into humourously shaped sponge cakes for all the difference it would make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakshya Posted October 27, 2007 Author Share Posted October 27, 2007 yes, this is true for objects at rest. can you tell me what a photon is not at? begins with an r ends in t and has es in the middle and is only 4 letters long. looks like your derivation faceplanted itself at the starting blocks without even making it to the first hurdle. Look insane alien, I am doing a thought experiment to find the rest mass of photon = 0 and that's why I had to take it at rest. time requires change (twice), the distance between this changes is Time.nothing else, it really IS that simple. no Mass, no Motion per se, or matter. Yeah you are right but I have given proof of the statement you just said. Otherwise, you had to use common sense to find the answer and I have just presented you a proof. Yeah---(s)he has tacitly assumed that there is a good frame where one can take the photon at rest. But one of the postulates of SR is that there IS NO such frame. So (s)he's using the results of SR (specifically mass-energy relationships) in a frame where SR doesn't hold. Didn't you read that we should be outside the universe to watch this event happen? It's just a thought experiment, my friend. well, it's an unphysical condition. all matter might as well spontaneously turn into humourously shaped sponge cakes for all the difference it would make. I haven't said a single thing about 0 K. well, it's an unphysical condition. all matter might as well spontaneously turn into humourously shaped sponge cakes for all the difference it would make. I haven't said a single thing about 0 K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Look insane alien, I am doing a thought experiment to find the rest mass of photon = 0 and that's why I had to take it at rest. and there are other ways to do that but the fact of the matter is that E is not zero and for c to be 0 is unphysical hence the thought experiment is flawed and does not correspond to reality. Yeah you are right but I have given proof of the statement you just said. Otherwise, you had to use common sense to find the answer and I have just presented you a proof. a flawed proof. so it really doesn't prove anything. Didn't you read that we should be outside the universe to watch this event happen? It's just a thought experiment, my friend. another bit of unphysicalness. by definition the universe includes everything. seeing as this hypothetical observer hypothetically exists then he/she/it would be part of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Yeah you are right but I have given proof of the statement you just said. Otherwise, you had to use common sense to find the answer and I have just presented you a proof. I saw no Proof anywhere from you, in fact I contradicted your Post title entirely. And yes, mine was indeed wrought of Common Sense, I tend to find that a Gram of common sense it worth more than several Metric Tonnes of nonsense unless of course it employs the word "Chicken" repeatedly. wouldn`t you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I haven't said a single thing about 0 K. But you did. To be completely at rest, a particle must be at 0 K. An object might be considered to be at rest despite its temperature, but it will be composed of particles that are not at rest unless it is at 0 K. Hence, the prerequisites for your proof will never happen, since things cannot reach 0 K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 That the "proof" came up with the desired answer is not sufficient to demonstrate that it was unflawed. (We used to call this "answer by accident") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakshya Posted November 3, 2007 Author Share Posted November 3, 2007 u all should see that you are contradicting thge first part of my theory with the second part of the theory. Look carefully at it and try to imagine the whole scene first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 so you are saying that your theory is self contradictory? well thats a good way to get it chucked in the bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 E=0??? That sounds kinda unphysical you know! After all, matter is energy and energy is matter, you can prove this by the same equation you used above (E=mc^2).Every single body that reaches the speed of light, it's matter is completely turned into energy, and it also has no time (only for outside observers as the time deviation goes infinite). So saying that E=0 is the same as just saying "no mass, no existence", and we know that photons exist. It sounds kinda weird!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakshya Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 E=0??? That sounds kinda unphysical you know! After all, matter is energy and energy is matter, you can prove this by the same equation you used above (E=mc^2).Every single body that reaches the speed of light, it's matter is completely turned into energy, and it also has no time (only for outside observers as the time deviation goes infinite). So saying that E=0 is the same as just saying "no mass, no existence", and we know that photons exist. It sounds kinda weird!!! You know that I am talking the photon to be at rest and at rest it's E is 0 and when it's moving then it's not. What's your question then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I am talking the photon to be at rest You really should stop doing this, because photons really don't stop. Even when they get absorbed by a Bose-Einstein condensate there still has to be a corresponding transfer of momentum out of the BEC via the 'reference' beam. i.e. energy is conserved in all frames of reference (Al was right). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 You know that I am talking the photon to be at rest and at rest it's E is 0 and when it's moving then it's not. What's your question then? A photon at rest is not a valid reference frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakshya Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 A photon at rest is not a valid reference frame. U don't understand. We are taking the 'out of universe' view. Suppose we are God, then we can stop the photon to analyze it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 U don't understand. We are taking the 'out of universe' view. Suppose we are God, then we can stop the photon to analyze it. You still can't use the physics that's not valid in that frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 well, if there is something that can arbitrarily put the laws of physics on hold then the laws of physics do not hold and we can go have tea on the ceiling of a giraffe since that makes about as much sense. also, there is no 'out of universe' frame. there is no transfer of anything across any boundary that might exist(we don't think there even is a boundary per se. and any observer would be part of our universe by definition anyway. you need a valid frame to apply physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 insane_alien stop thinking so inside the box, and get with the times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now