Yeah, and I just realised, the guy's name is Higgs, the apostrophe goes after the s. (more universal trivia).
All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
light, gravity, electrostatic force, em force, em wave and gravitational wave are all travel at c speed, there must be some connection?
the results from double slit experiment, if explained by gravitational wave between the light source, the slits, targets and the detector, there would be no magic/mystery.
how do you think?
the results from double slit experiment, if explained by gravitational wave between the light source, the slits, targets and the detector, there would be no magic/mystery.
how do you think?
Your temporary ban didn't seem to have any affect on your behavior.
Is that because you're too stupid to realize what the problem is, or because you're an unremarkable and ubiquitous sort of fucking halfwit professional troll?
Yeah, I bit. Fuck you. What a charmer. Another notch in your stubby, eh? Good luck, again, and report me, won't you? Dolt.
Is that because you're too stupid to realize what the problem is, or because you're an unremarkable and ubiquitous sort of fucking halfwit professional troll?
Yeah, I bit. Fuck you. What a charmer. Another notch in your stubby, eh? Good luck, again, and report me, won't you? Dolt.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
'Origin' admitted that he did not read your post......He catches others very promptly, but not you, yes but he does not support you so openly either....
Brucep, is a complete dishonest poster. He should have nudged you when you implied Photon Rest Frame.....
And for your information photon movement has got nothing to do with Photo Electric Effect.....Are you referring to arrival of Photon on a proto surface...
I did not imply any photon rest frame, and to say I did reflects on your lack of understanding.
Photoelectric effect distinguishes wave and particle [photon...photons certainly do move. Are you implying a photon rest frame?
Origin did not read my post?? So? He has certainly read plenty of yours and pulled you up on many errors.
Now try and avoid to much emotion and stay reasonable and forget your past failures and my part in them.
This is another thread and not for you to rubbish as you have your own threads.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Here's a nice little run down on what can be logically perceived in a photon's frame of reference.
http://www.askamathematician.com/20...oesnt-experience-time-then-how-can-it-travel/
Q: If a photon doesn’t experience time, then how can it travel?
Posted on April 25, 2013 by The Physicist
Physicist: It’s a little surprising this hasn’t been a post yet.
In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling. But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all. So how can light get from one place to another? The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.
Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).
At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover. Left: regular, sub-light-speed movement. Right: “movement” at light speed.
The name “relativity” (as in “theory of…”) comes from the central tenet of relativity, that time, distance, velocity, even the order of events (sometimes) are relative. This takes a few moments of consideration; but when you say that something’s moving, what you really mean is that it’s moving with respect to you.
Everything has its own “coordinate frame”. Your coordinate frame is how you define where things are. If you’re on a train, plane, rickshaw, or whatever, and you have something on the seat next to you, you’d say that (in your coordinate frame) that object is stationary. In your own coordinate frame you’re never moving at all.
How zen is that?
Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is something other things do. When you describe the movement of those other things it’s always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates.
The last coordinate to consider is time, which is just whatever your clock reads. One of the very big things that came out of Einstein’s original paper on special relativity is that not only will different perspectives disagree on where things are, and how fast they’re moving, different perspectives will also disagree on what time things happen and even how fast time is passing (following some very fixed rules).
When an object moves past you, you define its velocity by looking at how much of yourdistance it covers, according to your clock, and this (finally) is the answer to the question. The movement of a photon (or anything else) is defined entirely from the point of view of anything other than the photon.
One of the terribly clever things about relativity is that we can not only talk about how fast other things are moving through our notion of space, but also “how fast” they’re moving through our notion of time (how fast is their clock ticking compared to mine).
http://www.askamathematician.com/20...oesnt-experience-time-then-how-can-it-travel/
Q: If a photon doesn’t experience time, then how can it travel?
Posted on April 25, 2013 by The Physicist
Physicist: It’s a little surprising this hasn’t been a post yet.
In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling. But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all. So how can light get from one place to another? The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.
Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).
At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover. Left: regular, sub-light-speed movement. Right: “movement” at light speed.
The name “relativity” (as in “theory of…”) comes from the central tenet of relativity, that time, distance, velocity, even the order of events (sometimes) are relative. This takes a few moments of consideration; but when you say that something’s moving, what you really mean is that it’s moving with respect to you.
Everything has its own “coordinate frame”. Your coordinate frame is how you define where things are. If you’re on a train, plane, rickshaw, or whatever, and you have something on the seat next to you, you’d say that (in your coordinate frame) that object is stationary. In your own coordinate frame you’re never moving at all.
How zen is that?
Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is something other things do. When you describe the movement of those other things it’s always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates.
The last coordinate to consider is time, which is just whatever your clock reads. One of the very big things that came out of Einstein’s original paper on special relativity is that not only will different perspectives disagree on where things are, and how fast they’re moving, different perspectives will also disagree on what time things happen and even how fast time is passing (following some very fixed rules).
When an object moves past you, you define its velocity by looking at how much of yourdistance it covers, according to your clock, and this (finally) is the answer to the question. The movement of a photon (or anything else) is defined entirely from the point of view of anything other than the photon.
One of the terribly clever things about relativity is that we can not only talk about how fast other things are moving through our notion of space, but also “how fast” they’re moving through our notion of time (how fast is their clock ticking compared to mine).
And another more simplistic answer in light of the confusion of some.......
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/quest7.html
Question:
If we go near the speed of light we have weird effects, time slowing, lengths contracting to zero. But light doesn't. Why isn't light subject to relativity?
Answer:
Light is certainly subject to relativity. Light has zero rest mass, and relativity says that anything with zero rest mass always has to go at the speed of light along lightlike trajectories in spacetime. If you want to be anthropomorphic about it, a photon doesn't experience the passage of time. To it, it is everywhere at once."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Obviously again, to put one's self in the frame of reference of a photon, is not just hard, it is forbidden by Relativity, since unlike the zero rest mass of the photon, we have a non zero rest mass.
And the non absolute nature of space and time.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/quest7.html
Question:
If we go near the speed of light we have weird effects, time slowing, lengths contracting to zero. But light doesn't. Why isn't light subject to relativity?
Answer:
Light is certainly subject to relativity. Light has zero rest mass, and relativity says that anything with zero rest mass always has to go at the speed of light along lightlike trajectories in spacetime. If you want to be anthropomorphic about it, a photon doesn't experience the passage of time. To it, it is everywhere at once."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Obviously again, to put one's self in the frame of reference of a photon, is not just hard, it is forbidden by Relativity, since unlike the zero rest mass of the photon, we have a non zero rest mass.
And the non absolute nature of space and time.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Now, please read how like a chameleon you change color ! Not good to lie at 70+.....
You are obviously a troubled soul Rajesh.
Again no where do I say a photon can be at rest, hence the links I gave.
Have you heard of frames of references?
Your interpretation has been askew in the past, and obviously due to other things on your mind, is askew again
I stand by all three statements...
"it is very hard to place one's self in a photon's frame of reference"
"Due to infinite length contraction, light could traverse the whole Universe in no time at all"
Please read the links I have provided.....They should help you to understand.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
What does above statement of yours Imply ?? Does it not imply existence of rest frame for reference ?
This is comedy again!! Same old story, you read some non sense from somewhere on the web and stick to that to troll around. The science is, paddoboy, that it is meaningless to assign Photon's Frame of reference, as Lorentz transformation maths go haywire.....This is like your point singularity, mathematics returning absurdities...
You agreed (to Rpenner showing you some Maths) to sound intelligent that you understand his math ? if you had understood what he put up in his post, then you would not have put up such beauty as above.
And that Photo Electric Effect non sense also, take away from your mind...
PS: Now do not copy paste or give a link justifying above comic strip.
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Thats your quote copied from somewhere !! Its not hard, its forbidden, meaningless....
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yup, but the relevant point, in the context of your earlier remarks, is that if this is so then there is no need to invoke communication between physically separated entities and the problem of supposedly instantaneous communication disappears.
Please read the two links given or stay ignorant.
Not as near nonsensical as suggesting that [1] BNS exist, [2] HR does not predict compulsory collapse, and [3] that BHs and gravity within overcome all other forces.
No I certainly did not understand his genius maths, and neither did you.
And that's why I had the funny face after my comment...one of these.
Need I remind you that its you who has had your threads shifted to the fringe section? You don't accept photons I see, among your many other crank cosmological thoughts.
I've posted two links already supporting what I said, and that certainly trumps your pseudo take on things.
So your emotional rant concerns my use of the word "hard" instead of "forbidden".
Ever heard of sarcasm...or facetiousness Rajesh?.
Obviously anything with mass, cannot be accelerated to "c".....that goes without saying.
And just as obvious we would find it very to be in a photon's frame of reference for that reason......But a thought experiment it is and the facts that can be implied are that length time dilation and length contraction combine to illustrate a picture of light being everywhere at the same time.
Again, you need to read the reputable links.
On your other problem, really Rajesh, you are now acting like a child that's been kicked out of his play pen and starts throwing sand at the other kids.
Just calm down now, do some thinking, forget about your demolished BNS, and all that trauma, and I'll do my best to take you on the continued path of knowledge.
PS: Were you not going to publish another paper?
Something about fixing up your original mess with regards to the BNS?
Or have even the questionable non peer review sites turned their backs on you?
Anyway, I'll wait until you let us know.
Last edited: