LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFrom where do the photons get the energy to travel?
From where does the photon supply itself with the energy needed to travel for billions of years?
June 11th, 2008, 02:44 PM
From where do the photons get the energy to travel?
From where does the photon supply itself with the energy needed to travel for billions of years?
http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/physica..._dilation.html
Photons travel at the speed of light (duh), so they basically do not age. Thus, they can travel through the universe forever.
Think AZ wants to know, why energy flows at C, impervious to the matter that created it. With all the (IMO) nonsense of bending waves (passing Gravity) I would like an answer as well. If gravity can bend light, how does it ever get released to begin with, then thought to be straight out from its source...something doesn't make sense.
As for C having a limit, understanding wave differentials (frequencies), it might be nice to explain what causes this particular limit. If there is an energy, that travels C+, from its source, how would we ever know...or if energy longevity is explained in GR and nothing ages at C velocity, how is it that atoms exist as atoms forever and need not travel anyplace.
While there is no energy that travels faster than c, it is rather easy to find effects that go faster than c. For example, take a laser pointer into space and point it at an object lightyears away, and then wave the pointer back and forth. The photons are still travelling to the object at c, but the dot that appears on the object will be moving back and forth extremely fast; depending on how quickly you moved the pointer, you could easily get the dot to move at speeds well over c.Originally Posted by jackson33
Another example would be phase waves in doppler systems. Take a look at the following standing wave systems travelling at different velocities, taking note of the phase waves moving to the right:
v = 0,1c
v = 0,5c
The speed of this phase wave is always greater than c, and actually slows down as velocity increases. A final image showing the phase shift progression as β increases towards c:
(Apologies for the sizes of the images.) Phenomenon that surpass c are particularly common, but everything composed of energy and having mass is restricted to c. One thing I have always been curious about has been moving kinetic energy through a long series of packed objects, similar to electrons moving down a conductor. Imagine one of those ball clackers that sit on executive desks, but instead stretch it out hundreds of miles with thousands of balls all lined up and ready to transfer motion. Would the kinetic energy still propagate at less than c, or would the ball on the far end move as soon as you hit the local end?
Jackson 33-Everything in the electromagnetic spectrum travels at c, light, radio waves, gamma rays, etc. There is a theory that this value for c, along with several other physical constants, were set by the way our universe was created.
Light escapes anything less massive than a black hole because only a black hole has an escape velocity greater than c.
Supposedly a hypothetical particle called a tachyon travels faster than light. If this is the case, then they would move backward through time.
According to quantum field theory, protons will eventually decay, so their atoms would dissolve with them.
Arch; First, I am not an advocate for time travel, but do feel there are entities that move or travel faster than C. You might check out 'Robert Mallet, a physicist professor, think University of Mass...He has been working on a 'Time Machine' using Einsteins ideas and the theoretical 'Tachyons' for many years. Aside from an interesting human interest story, he feels, time travel, if possible can only be to or from a operating means. That is unless there is a place set up for reception of the travelers, it could not be done. His idea basically is to 'warp' energy, placing the machine in tachyons, where the traveler could walk through time.
A neutron star, after collapsing into a BH, are said to have the same gravity effects as the total matter of the original star. Energy (light) once leaving the source, has no mass and should be oblivious to gravity, regardless of its concentration. Now, we see light from many stars which should go or have collapsed, looking out over billions of LY in the past. If there were anything luminous to observe (don't think possible), from a BH, IMO we would. Since there are suggestions some BH's have combined or absorbed many to millions of other stars and/or matter, again IMO, I see no reason why the free flow of energy should be effected. There is evidence of X-ray energy from where BH may exist and I think the new telescope sent into space this week, will add to that opinion.
On breaking down atoms; IMO all matter can and does break down, at least to the lighter elements, hydrogen & helium, maybe lithium. But what ever makes up an element, the particles remain in existence. My analogy to energy was to velocity and the breakdown, which is not required. Actually energy is also absorbed, re-emitted (breakdown) until its gone or wave less.
Frenchi; Thanks for your comments. Manipulating observation is a subject I don't get involved with and would argue if I had the knowledge. Much does seem to involve, manipulating the environment energy travel through, to get a result. On C+ travel of energy, there is a cause for this limit, which is apparently unknown, other than condensing wavelengths, which is what matter cannot achieve, or the energy required is thought to exceed possibilities. My thought to AZ's original question was a natural and spontaneous occurrence in nature, which is what energy is known to have.
For an example on this; If Tachyons did exist in the massless energy world, then this could be a resistance to energy its self and the reason for limitation past C, but they (tachyons) or any other phenomenon should have a source for existence and as our energy, would be from that source.
Since Einstein showed that energy and matter are the same, then energy does have a mass component and gets ‘bent’ by gravity. Thus nothing, not even light can escape a black hole’s gravity. The X-rays are emitted by the matter outside a BH accelerating into the BH from what is known as the accretion disk. So the matter is not in the BH as the X-rays are emitted.
Energy and matter have equal components to each other, but once a product (energy waves) is released, neither is dependent or related to the other. A star dies, the energy moves on and nothing is lost to the star, if the energy released is absorbed. The total of energy waves floating around in or out of our U is probably many times the total of all matter. Goes to regeneration, not a 'limited sum total'. In my opinion...
While we're on the subject of mass, theres another correllation I've noticed between mass and charge. Photons, electrons, and neutrinos are all elementary waves that interact like particles. Yet photons and neutrinos are charge neutral and massless, while electrons have a negative electrical charge and have mass. Is this simply coincidence, or is there something to be said about potential for electromagnetic interaction and mass?
Is this suppose to be some kind of joke? Scale your idea down to a much shorter distance and slower speed and you will see why its completely wrong. If you take a machine gun for example, hold the trigger down and spin in a circle. A high speed camera filming from above you will show the bullets flying in a cuuuuuuurve. This is the exact same thing that will happen in your little laser pointer experiment. The ONLY way your fictional idea would work is if you replaced your laser with a completely rigid body. Which doesn’t even exist.
It is not a joke. I think you have overlooked the significance of the word effects.Is this suppose to be some kind of joke?
Ah, sorry, perhaps I wasn't specific enough. What my example is concerned with is not the length of the laser from a top-down view. The only thing in my example that is moving faster than c is the dot at the end where the photons are striking the object; the photons are still traveling from the pointer to the object-light-years-away at c. Your bullet example would show the same properties on a slower scale if you concerned yourself not with how the bullets traveled through the air (they're traveling at their ballistic velocity), but with the speed at which the bullet holes in the wall are created around you as you spun (which is a product of how far the wall is from you and how fast you're moving the gun).
June 14th, 2008, 03:58 PM
First a photon is not a thing as such. It is an electrically balanced perturbation of the electromagnetic field. It carries energy and has no mass as such unless it is absorbed by matter and forms a spherical shape. Then it has rest mass.
The electrical field has a normal speed of C. The perturbation will flow at this speed for billions of years. From far stars we get a Doppler Red shift because the material universe is expanding. Thus it appears that the far stars are moving very fast but in reality if you are there they appear as stationary as our near stars. We thus see the perpetual expansion of the universe. This expansion never ends but is erased by the formation of antimatter universes which destroy the old and produce the new.
[quote="Frenchi"]While there is no energy that travels faster than c, it is rather easy to find effects that go faster than c.
JG: Your analysis is very good. However if the effect go faster than C, then the energy does travel faster than C.
Einstein produced a set of equations which are a good answer because they tend to be the root mean square of the Doppler Solution. A mass moving in a straight line has a forward mass larger than the rest mass and a rearward mass smaller than the rest mass. The result is the mass increases because it is the root mean square Doppler.
If we move into a higher light speed dimension, then two objects moving together at 0.8C will approach each other at 1.6C. All of Einsteins confirmations involved circular motion which gives the RMS Doppler answer. RMS Doppler does not have the clock paradox problem.
Einstein gave good answers yet for linear motion, they are incorrect.
Is it the effects of energy at C, or the effects of something energy flows in or possibly what energy does, in that massless world??? The photon is electrically neutral, plus said massless and keeping to the accepted, wouldn't a sub-scale action, energy or something else, also act or react in an opposit...as matter in atmosphere for instance.
June 17th, 2008, 03:39 AM
No energy is required for travel. That we might think so it an artifact of where we live on the surface of the earth at the bottom of a gravitational well (in a gratitational field if you like), where most motion involves some sort of friction which dissapates energy. It is one of Newton's laws, "that which is at rest tends to stay at rest and that which is in motion tends to stay in motion". It is only a change in motion that requires energy.
Light however, does not experience an friction except by a collision with something, in which case energy may indeed be transfered from the photon to the object it hits, in which case the energy of the photon itself (given by the frequency times Plank's constant) is reduced by the energy which is lost (resulting in a decrease in frequency). Light, i.e. a photon is itself a form of energy that may be converted to other forms of energy.
Is this redshift actually caused by the photons becoming more distant from each other, or only because the universe is compensating for more energy being created and therefore lowering the energy level per photon to conserve energy?From far stars we get a Doppler Red shift because the material universe is expanding.
I am still confused about the frequency of photons. From what I have read so far, we only know the frequency of a given type of light by using an equation to reverse the double slit experiment. Are we blindly giving different energy level photons a physical distance measurement because we happened to come to that result? I mean, if light is not based on the distance between photons, then what do the nanometers measure? Could it just be a probability wave distance measurement?
The way I see it, photons are virtual particles that are only allowed to exist in order to compensate for various law contradictions.
NO! Frequency is a property of the photon itself. Remember that it is an electromagnetic wave even though it is quantized in a discrete unit of energy. The frequency of a photon is relative to the inertial frame in which you consider it. The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames BUT the frequency is NOT. The redshift is a Doppler effect which is a wave effect.
We can measure the frequency of a photon by the way it interacts with things - not only by being directly proportional to its energy, but also by many optical effects like interference (oh yeah maybe that is what you mean by the double slit experiment), by materials whose index of refraction depends on the frequency of the light (why a prism makes rainbows).
It is because the conclusions of science are based on repeatable measurements that make them NOT blind.
NO! Virtual particles are something completely different - these are particles that consist of energy in violation of the conservation of energy which can only occur because of the uncertainty principle but only for short periods of time .
June 18th, 2008, 06:02 AM
Photons get their energy from the electron transitions within the HA's.
The forces here are the causes of these radiations.
During these electron transitions, the magnetic component undergoes the greater change in its force to create the photon.
As a result, the photon is a single one line radiation through the EM field.
I wrote an article here on this site called The Creation of Photons
Use 'search' on this site to locate it.
Cosmo'.
If it is only quantized as a discrete unit of energy, then how can we fire only one photon at a time? (or is it electron?)
Just by observing a photon, or photon wave in a vacuum, could you find any indication of its frequency, or does it have to react with something (like a prism) for you to tell?
I know what THE virtual particles are, I was using the term virtual as only the word implies for my interpretation. I called them virtual because they can form out of nothing in order to conserve energy (the kinetic energy of the electrons in a filament has to go somewhere, so photons are formed).
A photon is the quantum unit of electromagnetic energy. IT IS NOT A TINY BILLIARD BALL!!! It is a wave function that can either be highly localized or spread out over vast regions of space.
An electron is a quantum unit of a different kind of energy. IT ALSO IS NOT A TINY BILLIARD BALL! It is a wave function that can either be highly localized or spread out over vast regions of space.
There is no such thing as observing a photon or electron without interacting with it. And here is the kicker. By interacting with it you change it. In fact, quite often the very act of "observing" it (interacting with it of course) you create the very information that gain by your observation.
Lets take an example. You can use a device that will detect if an electron is in a box, but that device cannot work without interacting with the electron it detects. Now strangely enough, you can have an electron that is in two different boxes AT THE SAME TIME (equally). So if you use the device on one of the two boxes there is a 50% chance that it will find the electron in that box, but whether it finds the electron in the box or not, the interaction that the device has with the electron will change the electron so it is in only one of the two boxes. Before you use the device the electron is in both boxes, but the device changes the electron so it is what the device measures, either in the box or in the other one.
Ahhh.... Yes I had a very similar idea that a particle like a photon was like a wave of virtual particles in which was "mixed" a single "real" particle. I use quotations here because you cannot really tell which is the real particle at any given instance. If one of these virtual particles interact with something then that becomes the "real" particle. It is an interesting idea and makes sense to me. In fact I wrote up the idea in a paper and gave it to the professor I was working with at the university (Karel Kuchar). It was of course only his opinion, but he did not like the idea because it seemed to him that the whole idea of virtual particles was an artifact of perturbation theory. In other words, he had some doubts that there really were any such thing as virtual particles, but that these were contructs derived from approximation techniques.
Cold Fusion and MM
There are NO virtual particles
There are only REAL field negative charged particles (RNCP) that surround the electrons. It is the EM fields that transmit the photons.
These fields are REAL. Reason?
Their 'action at a distance'.
See my post on the 'Creation of Photons' below:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...eation+photons
Cosmo
| « The Red Shift | Triple phenomena of the satellites of Jupiter » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
