Parallel Universes and Physical Constants

the more I think about the postulate of the constant speed of light, the crazier it sounds

photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)

=> okay, there's only momentum and no mass
so in theory they could absorb momentum from their source

maybe the observation here is as with the particle acceleraters a WRONG interpretation
btw, maths ARE an interpretation of an observation (some people here don't seem to understand this)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi c'est moi,

"photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)."

You formulated the answer in your own post:

Very well said!

Bye!

Crisp

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

c'est moi,

"photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)"

I have a weird idea about photons and why they travel at c.

Almost all the matter in the universe posesses a uniform unipolar gravitational field. In other words, all matter has a single gravitational pole surrounding it, but unlike the electric/magnetic interactions, similiar gravitational poles attract each other.

On the other hand, photons are different. They have a bipolar gravitational field: gravity facing forward, antigravity facing backwards. The repulsion force at the back of the photon, and the attractive force at the front of the photon, along with it's small mass, allows it to accelerate to c very quickly.

Although this idea is strange, it would explain why the photon's "natural" speed is c. It would also mean that the gravitational field of a photon is at right angles to it's electric, and it's magnetic field. In other words, there is a force for each dimension, and in a three dimensional world there are only three fundamental forces: electric, magnetic, and gravitational, and they are all at right angles to each other. Of course, the more dimensions there are, the more fundamental forces exist.

Before anyone laughs at me and says my idea is stupid, please give me your idea of why photons travel at c.

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some facts are just facts and cannot be explained further. There were various possible explanations for the Michelson/Morly experiment (about 1888) which led to relativity theory and belief in the constancy of the velocity of light.

• The earth is stationary, which seems absurd and has never been considered as an explanation. It is interesting to note that if the experiment had been done several hundred years earlier, the church would have been delighted & who knows what would have happened to science.
  
• The velocity of light is constant.
  
• Various ideas about the size of objects being distorted by the drag effect of the ether, causing erroneous measurements. None of these ideas seemed as plausible as the assumption about the constancy of the velocity of light.

Why is the velocity of light constant? Why is gravity attractive instead of repulsive? These and other questions might not have answers. They seem to be observation facts on which we base theories about how the universe works. Perhaps like axioms for logical systems, they just have to be accepted as true.

There are various theories about the constants of physics being different in other parts of the universe or in parallel universes. While we can never be sure, it seems reasonable to assume that the constants and the laws of physics are the same everywhere. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why not make that assumption?

As for Pi, e, and various constants of mathematics, it seems absurd to assume that they could ever be different in some other time or some other place. The ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle is not the only property of Pi, so more than geometry would be involved in its having a different value.

 

Thank you Dinosaur for those wise words.

The reason people have trouble understanding the constant speed of light postulate is that they are treeting time as an absolute measurement. Time is NOT absolute, it is relative. This means that time is different for observers in different reference systems. THIS is why light always seems to travel at the same speed.

 

I will just ignore those last two posts I guess
I'm amazed how some people are able to miss the point completely
particles involve mechanics
if a particle, ONLY ONE type of particle in this case, follows different rules this must be explained
science's purpose is to explain
we know photons have momentum
why don't they absorb momentum from the source from which they are emitted, that is a question that needs to be answered by quantum physics
prosoothus, it's not really clear
maybe you should work it out more

 

I had time to do a bit of a hit around for Data, and came up with these two links to sites that have information on the subject at hand.

Ritz on the Optics of Moving Bodies
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/rtz-mir.htm
(In French and English)

The Doppler Effect
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node106.html

From what is said in general:

There is a mention that light is suppose to travel at C when emitted from a moving source, How ever during it's emmision there is a form of quantum compression that changes the frequency of the light.

This means that I originally was write, but really pretty crap at explainations. lol

If you read my original statement I was trying to explain about the compression with helixes, which can be perceived as frequency change.

 

c'est moi,

"why don't they absorb momentum from the source from which they are emitted, that is a question that needs to be answered by quantum physics"

When photons are emmited, momentum is conserved. It has been found that atoms recoil as they emit photons, just like a gun when it fires a bullet. This is one of the reasons that convinced me that photons DO have mass.

Tom

 

Prosoothus,

Photons can behave like that without mass, it just means that a photon bears a portion of electromagnetic frequency in it's makeup. This can explain how a photon can keep it's velocity.

 

It is claimed that photons have a rest mass of zero, which is slightly weird since they can never be stationary.

I thought they had mass related to kinetic energy, which would allow them to have momemtum & act like particles except when somebody tries to measure their wave properties, under which circumstances they act like waves.

 

Stryderunknown,

There are two ways to measure mass:

1. By it's gravitational effect
2. By it's inertial effect

If you were to test a photon using these two methods, you would find that photons qualify as mass.

1. Photons are effected by gravity because their paths curve as they pass massive objects.

2. Atoms recoil as they emit photons and photons exert a force on objects that they hit. Both of these effects prove that photons have inertia, which is the second property of mass.

Some people claim that photons have mass when they are traveling at c, but have no rest mass. Kind of a weird conclusion since no one has ever witnessed a photon at rest.

:bugeye:


I say if it looks like chicken, smells like chicken, and tastes like chicken, it's chicken.

If photons possess all the qualifications of mass, then they have mass.

Tom

 

"When photons are emmited, momentum is conserved. It has been found that atoms recoil as they emit photons, just like a gun when it fires a bullet. This is one of the reasons that convinced me that photons DO have mass."

no, it can't per relativity
for example the light emitted from a car whether it is moving or not, doesn't matter
light remains at the same speed when it is emitted from that car
but a photon does have momentum
a car that is moving has momentum
photons should take that momentum with them
nobody explains this (at least you tried)

the issue mass or no mass is just about rest mass only
recoiling would be caused by interial mass
it does not proof the rest mass though I have to follow you on the chicken issue

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Stryderunknown

I was led to believe that, in darkness, the pupil dialates to take in more light to increase the ability to see at night. When an oncoming car with headlights approaches at night, then, I would think that the associated 'blindness' would be a result of a large amount of light entering the pupil due to the increased surface area, not due to the increased speed of the light because of the car's movement. But, that's just my opinion.



Chris

 

Tre,

The pupil does dilate, but I was mentioning that light blinds me more with moving vehicles. I could be standing in a flood-lit street and still be blinded by a car passing me.

Prosoothus,

If light had mass at rest, our universe would hardly have any space left.

 

If you were standing in a floodlit street, your eyes would be adapted to that level of light. At night with moving cars, your pupils are dilated and the light is a sudden effect, too much light pouring in before your pupils can contract.

 

My question about parallel universes is this: Take a look at a diagram explaining Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Space-time is depicted as a 3-d plane in which large masses create a 'dent', causing such things as gravitational orbits. I assume that a parallel universe would then exist outside of our space-time, in it's own plane - but, if that plane existed, would it have to be parallel to ours, or could that plane eventually intersect with the one that we are in? And what would occur at such an intersection?


And a final answer to the matter of light having mass:

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

p is momentum, so, when m=0, momentum still exists. Also, according to this law, mass and energy are just different forms of the same thing, so a photon does have mass at rest but not when it is pure energy (when it is moving at light speed).

 

The easiest way to explain universal quanta and parallels is Smale's Horseshoe.

Basically if a parallel is created from a timeline, at that instance the quanta of the two universes becomes 1/2 it once was. As a person existing in either of these universes you will notice no quanta change, but if you were standing from a multiworld perspective (In the universe that both parallels exist in) you would be able to see the differences as the universes diverge.

Now as I've mentioned before, if a parallel was created tomorrow from this universe, then that parallel would have existed before it's creation but not intersecting, it's intersection only occurs on it's creation and possibly for a while afterwards.

If two universes collide or intersect depending on how mellowdramatic you want to be, you might find that universal changes cause "Quanta spikes", where two atoms might be entangled differently while occupying the same space.

There is also the possibility that if a universe was to lose mass in comparison to a parallel that it would cause a gravitational Bump, where the now lighter in weight universe could be intersected with one of a higher weight.

(The above piece explains how Schrodinger's cat would exist in both an alive and dead state. It's alive self would be a universe with more weight than the dead self and this paradox would cause the dead universe to intersect with the live one and cause the cat to exist as a multiworld state.)

If you feel this wrong in anyway, please feel free to correct.

 

That would mean, essentially, that each universe would diverge so much that eventually nothing would exist in any of them - be it mass or whatever else. (?)

Also, I've done some research on light/photon nature, and I've learned that light always has a constant frequency, so even when the speed changes it is only the wavelength that will change. Hope that can spark a new train of thought on the issue...

 

Tre

Thanks for mentioning that, it allows me to point something I missed out.

When parallels are created they eventually diversion away from the their "Intersection". Now according to my belief of how the universe can be "split" again and again through quantum folds.

I neglected to mention that the universe itself is like the surface of water, where a universe is split it's like a circle of waves eminating from a point where a pebble is dropped.

At first the immediate problem is how you stated, but overtime the entrapy of the whole universe causes the preverbial water to become still again.

The only time something would disappear into nothing, would be if at the instance of the parallel split, it made multiples of parallels (in it's thousands) and all of them coincided with each other.

(Of course this could cause something to disappear, or on the otherhand burst into a bunch of flames depending on how their parallel quanta entangles.)

 

Pi is measured using flat spaces, and by "dipping" the center of the circle, you are creating a dome. The circumference and diameter are still connected with 2piD =c because you are only using it to measure the flat base of the dome. In order to find the distance across over the hump, you would need to know the arc measure of the dome in relation to the sphere it was taken from and then use that in relation to the diameter of the sphere. I'm a sophomore in high school so if anything there sounds wrong please feel free to argue with me, but im confident that it is correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!