Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: I got the relativity blues :(

  1. #1 I got the relativity blues :( 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 !


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Where the f... is delete ?


    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 21st, 2011 at 03:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    A photon is not a baseball. QM spin doesn't mean angular spin like you give a baseball to make it curve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman gottaBtold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I think it's safe to say that a photon doesn't have the same kind of outer surface as a macroscopic ball either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,302
    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.
    How was that read?
    Now don't we feel a little silly about trying to make baseballs out of quantized electromagnetic phenomena, hmmm?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    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.
    How was that read?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    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.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,302
    @Max Time Taken; When you say relative viscosity, what the hell are you talking about?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 23rd, 2011 at 05:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 ?
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 23rd, 2011 at 05:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 23rd, 2011 at 06:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 23rd, 2011 at 06:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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*)
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 23rd, 2011 at 10:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    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.
    Last edited by MigL; July 23rd, 2011 at 01:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    We still have (is it..) 60% of matter to find ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    If you think nothing physically exists your scale needs to be recalibrated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,302
    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.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    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.
    This reads to me like - This guy is asking questions I can't answer .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I don't want parrot fashion learning entirely, I would like to understand, not just know what I've read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 elementary particle, 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.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    In order to weave(mat), you need friction(attraction) of some sort or it will not hold together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Time Taken View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    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 )
    Last edited by Max Time Taken; July 30th, 2011 at 02:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •