Thread: I got the relativity blues :(

1. Consider a photon spinning as it travels through space, when the direction of spin approaches the direction of motion, the centre will be travelling through space at light speed, but the outer surface that is spinning in the same direction as travel will be going faster !

2.

3. Where the f... is delete ?

4. A photon is not a baseball. QM spin doesn't mean angular spin like you give a baseball to make it curve.

5. The only way to prevent this is if space has viscosity and the friction stops spin, magnetic flux itself would align any magnetic particles but the rest , maybe, the friction is great enough to make a toroid of the photon(the center flow does not exceed speed of light as it is not really a flow more the melt catches up to it than it catching the melt).

6. Originally Posted by MigL
A photon is not a baseball. QM spin doesn't mean angular spin like you give a baseball to make it curve.
So what should I call the spin I am describing ?

7. Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
Originally Posted by MigL
A photon is not a baseball. QM spin doesn't mean angular spin like you give a baseball to make it curve.
So what should I call the spin I am describing ?
Spooky?

8. I think it's safe to say that a photon doesn't have the same kind of outer surface as a macroscopic ball either.

9. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I think it's safe to say that a photon doesn't have the same kind of outer surface as a macroscopic ball either.
Who said it did ? I was giving an example for visualisation, my terminology/vocabulary/education does not allow me to describe it as accurately as you may prefer.

10. You implied it did when you said that the outer surface spins causing drag. Both spin, in this sense, and drag are macroscopic effects that don't necessarily apply to a photon.

11. Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
Consider a photon spinning as it travels through space, when the direction of spin approaches the direction of motion, the centre will be travelling through space at light speed, but the outer surface that is spinning in the same direction as travel will be going faster !
If this thing you describe were possible, then the outer surface wouldn't go faster than light. It would fall behind the inner surface, and the two surfaces would simply break apart. Either that, or surface tension (which is kind of nonsensical for a photon, but since we're already headed in a nonsense direction....) would cause the outer part to stop spinning to catch up with the inner part, and cause the inner part to start spinning so it can fall behind the outer part..... and it would just be a constant cycle like that. The outer surface is constantly falling behind, getting pulled into the center, moving to the front, and then getting pulled to the outside so it can fall behind again.

12. Originally Posted by kojax
Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
Consider a photon spinning as it travels through space, when the direction of spin approaches the direction of motion, the centre will be travelling through space at light speed, but the outer surface that is spinning in the same direction as travel will be going faster !
If this thing you describe were possible, then the outer surface wouldn't go faster than light. It would fall behind the inner surface, and the two surfaces would simply break apart. Either that, or surface tension (which is kind of nonsensical for a photon, but since we're already headed in a nonsense direction....) would cause the outer part to stop spinning to catch up with the inner part, and cause the inner part to start spinning so it can fall behind the outer part..... and it would just be a constant cycle like that. The outer surface is constantly falling behind, getting pulled into the center, moving to the front, and then getting pulled to the outside so it can fall behind again.
So regardless of whether it has surface tension or not you describe the same toroidal motion consistent with viscosity. Do you also feel space is not a vacuum ?

13. Okay, this conversation is so far off photons that it's not even wrong!
First, were dealing with the quantum world here, which bears almost no resemblance to our ordinary macroscopic world.
See; Introduction to quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wow, weird huh!
Now here's more on the photon itself; Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Now don't we feel a little silly about trying to make baseballs out of quantized electromagnetic phenomena, hmmm?

14. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Okay, this conversation is so far off photons that it's not even wrong!
First, were dealing with the quantum world here, which bears almost no resemblance to our ordinary macroscopic world.
See; Introduction to quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wow, weird huh!
Now here's more on the photon itself; Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Now don't we feel a little silly about trying to make baseballs out of quantized electromagnetic phenomena, hmmm?
No.
If it were a ball of fire wind would affect it, if it were a ball of electricity then cutting lines of flux would affect it. Relative viscosity.

15. I suppose we should start by acknowledging that quantum spin doesn't necessarily mean a photon spins in the intuitive sense. A group of photons with the same polarity can move through space without twisting the direction of its polarity as it goes. It can also be made to move so the polarity does twist as it goes. Since both things are possible, so it's kind of tough to say photon intrinsic spin works the same a well thrown football spins. It's clearly not the same thing.

If it were a classic spin, then the torroid effect would probably be how it worked, but that doesn't necessarily imply viscosity. More likely the effect would be caused by one of the four fundamental forces holding the wave together by attraction. I want to say gravity, but it could be any of them.

16. Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
If it were a ball of fire wind would affect it, if it were a ball of electricity then cutting lines of flux would affect it. Relative viscosity.
But seeing as it is not a ball of anything...

17. @Max Time Taken; When you say relative viscosity, what the hell are you talking about?

18. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
@Max Time Taken; When you say relative viscosity, what the hell are you talking about?
A body regardless of composition, when travelling through a medium(unless a true vacuum with no force or matter of any type), the medium is separated/sheared in order to pass over the body.

19. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
If it were a ball of fire wind would affect it, if it were a ball of electricity then cutting lines of flux would affect it. Relative viscosity.
But seeing as it is not a ball of anything...
It is a fundamental particle/boson. It is matter, as small as it gets in that form.
E=MC^2, energy is matter at speed.

20. Originally Posted by kojax
I suppose we should start by acknowledging that quantum spin doesn't necessarily mean a photon spins in the intuitive sense. A group of photons with the same polarity can move through space without twisting the direction of its polarity as it goes. It can also be made to move so the polarity does twist as it goes. Since both things are possible, so it's kind of tough to say photon intrinsic spin works the same a well thrown football spins. It's clearly not the same thing.

If it were a classic spin, then the torroid effect would probably be how it worked, but that doesn't necessarily imply viscosity. More likely the effect would be caused by one of the four fundamental forces holding the wave together by attraction. I want to say gravity, but it could be any of them.
Even if we considered it as the smallest bar magnet spinning about a point,free of axes, to create a ball shape field, when that magnet cuts flux the field it is affected, ac current is induced (frequency dependant on relative spin, and forward motion/ thickness,density,viscosity of flux being cut(time spent in flux), gives the relative amplitude induced,limited by mass).

21. Could it be that E=MC^2 shows : One particle who surface/satellite is travelling at C, enveloped by another, who's surface is again travelling at C but in the opposite direction hence^2 ? The speed of light^2 is the relativity that creates solidity ?

22. Bosons are made of any potential difference (that's 2 things).
A point of ref (nucleus) and a circumference (orbit). You need both of these things,point of ref and relative motion, to detect anything.

23. A sneak preview to what this is building up to:

Is space displaced by matter ? Does it wrinkle up and form a layer ? Is it that which holds electrons/planets at distance ?

Does the wrinkled space create spacial pressure, is that pressure gravity ? Our atmosphere would be that which is contained in the "wrinkled space" displaced by earth. Earths magnetic field flux lines showing the convolutions.

24. You can't build an argument on top of flawed fundamentals. If your argument depends on this viscous interpretation of a photon, you need to make sure that works first.

25. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
You can't build an argument on top of flawed fundamentals. If your argument depends on this viscous interpretation of a photon, you need to make sure that works first.
It is matter, if matter moves through a relative force it will be affected.

26. If a photon is the boson for electromagnetism , then passing through flux would be passing through similar sized particles, the viscosity is how easily the particles separate/shear and their friction/interaction.

27. That's not right but provides mental image. Particles will vary in size.
Size dependant on pressure just as particle size works in environmental pressure, the pressure created in the "ripple" dictates the size of particle that can be buoyant, get to big fall out of the flux. Bigger the particle the weaker it's surface interaction ?
Is it easier to pull an electron off a heavy nucleus atom ? I vaguely recall something in that nature.(outer shell*)

28. Perhaps fall out of the flux flow would be a better way of wording it, so a larger particle is not pushed out it can merely slow down against the tide, and fall into a denser pressure that will support it(or be knocked around like an interstellar football ).

29. A boson is a massless particle, although at speed ( its only possible speed, c ), it has energy and therefore a mass equivalent. It is not matter of any sort. Nor does it travel through anything which would affect it viscously ( shear or stress ). the aether was thrown out over 100 yrs ago by the Michelson-Morley experiment. It arises because Quantum Field Theory predicts the existence of force carrying virtual particles ( bosons such as photons, gluons, etc. ) between interacting leptons ( electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. ), and not 'action-at-a-distance'. Bosons do not interact with each other but facilitate lepton interactions. Incidentally I chose not to include bosons such as W and Z, because they have rest mass and would just complicate the explanation.

Intrinsic Quantum Mechanical spin is not the same as classical spin, but it can be thought of as similar to explain it. First and foremost, it is quantised, ie only multiples of Planck's constant are allowed and for bosons it is zero or whole multiples. Second there is no way to measure a radius of an elementary particle such as bosons and leptons, as a matter of fact, QFT considers them point particles ( which is the reason for the difficulties with infinities and the need for the renormalization 'trick' ) and so cannot have an angular spin.

What are you going to ask next ? Why the orbit of an electron doesn't decay as it orbits the nucleus ?
That makes just as much sense as your question.

30. E=MC^2 without mass no energy. Scale must need recalibration.

For a particle to flow through a gas it will collide with other particles. Just as a magnetic field will catch a piece of magnetic material.

An electron can only "decay" when its surface tension is breached through temp or impact.

31. We still have (is it..) 60% of matter to find ?

32. If you think nothing physically exists your scale needs to be recalibrated.

33. This whole thread is in need of recalibration to New Hypothesis, or Pseudo, or the trash. It read's like a fringe blog.
The only discussion of physics happening here is by a few individuals attempting to correct the gross misunderstandings of Max Time Wasted.
This is CRAP!
Admittedly, I've learned a couple interesting things from the responses of the sane members of this forum in their attempts to correct this fool.
But, I've learned because I don't just jam my fingers in my ear's and keep howling "LA,LA,LA..." ad infinitum.

34. How can something physically exist without mass ?
If boson are indeed massless then space is full of them, they would impede each others travel.
We know magnetic flux exists but the boson is photon, electromagnetism. So photon is just magnetism ? How can you think a magnet can travel through a magnetic field without experiencing viscosity ?

35. Originally Posted by GiantEvil
This whole thread is in need of recalibration to New Hypothesis, or Pseudo, or the trash. It read's like a fringe blog.
The only discussion of physics happening here is by a few individuals attempting to correct the gross misunderstandings of Max Time Wasted.
This is CRAP!
Admittedly, I've learned a couple interesting things from the responses of the sane members of this forum in their attempts to correct this fool.
But, I've learned because I don't just jam my fingers in my ear's and keep howling "LA,LA,LA..." ad infinitum.

36. I don't want parrot fashion learning entirely, I would like to understand, not just know what I've read.

37. Further... electricity is made by a conductor cutting flux so how does a massless,conductor less thing hold charge ? Again E=MC^2.

Massless seems to mean to small to measure.

38. Particle
noun
a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount; a tiny or verysmall bit:
Physics
.
a.one of the extremely small constituents of matter, as an atom or nucleus.

b.an quark, or gluon.

c.a body in which the internal motion is negligible.

particle derivative ( fluid mechanics ) The rate of change of a quantity with respect to time, measured at a point.

How many massless particles make mass ? This is my main issue.

39. Ok, so I'll take your word for it, all matter and lack of it are made from collections of massless particles that don't exist at rest. So at absolute zero everything dissipates ?

I do agree that mass would be fairly irrelevant when fully frozen into a medium but it would still exist.

40. In order to weave(mat), you need friction(attraction) of some sort or it will not hold together.

41. Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
How can something physically exist without mass ?
If boson are indeed massless then space is full of them, they would impede each others travel.
Why is space full of them? Why would they impede each others travel, rather than just act like waves and interfere with each other but still continue at the same speed?

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken
We know magnetic flux exists but the boson is photon, electromagnetism. So photon is just magnetism ? How can you think a magnet can travel through a magnetic field without experiencing viscosity ?
If the photon is just magnetism, then it isn't the magnet, is it?

42. Yes. The smallest magnet made of conductive material. Otherwise no induced electricity. Must have both poles and rotation for flux collapse and expansion for the high frequencies too.

Trying to visualise i get 2 parts spinning about centre, circumference touching on light speed, rotating perpendicular to forward motion when approaching c . (I wonder what interactions, sizes/frequencies of field would actually have an appreciable interaction? )

I wonder what materials are magnetic whilst giving off light through heat, many lose their magnetic qualities as they get hot. (I only did 5 lessons of chemistry )

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement