It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 66
74
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes. The error was obvious and easily corrected for, though.




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

to be honest i didnt realize how many misconceptions there are on light and relativity. But than when you think about it many sights choose these things to attack science so there just appears to be alot of wrong information put out there. And even if wrong people wont know it how could they? Im betting alot of it has to do with the electric universe crowd because they try desperately to disprove current theories like somehow that proves theirs.And of course observations with EM waves directly conflicts with the theory. And maybe some people will learn along the way that science isnt set in stone and constantly in flux as we learn new things.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Where does it state that a photon have mass like you state that it have?

Why does it say here that a Photon dosent have mass? en.wikipedia.org...

Physical properties


A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[11] and is stable.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66
He didn't say the photon has mass, he said we aren't completely sure that it's massless. This isn't the same thing.

We suspect that it's massless, which is why you see our unproven suspicion reported in sources like the one you cited.

Even if it doesn't have mass, we are unlikely to be able prove it is exactly zero. Instead, what we can do it put upper limits on how large the mass is and say if it does have mass, it must be smaller than an experimentally determined amount.

This link contains the values of mass etc that particle physicists have experimentally determined for various particles, and that's how the photon mass is expressed, as less than 1×10^−18 eV/c^2 (It doesn't say the mass is zero and this is a fairly authoritative source).

pdg.lbl.gov...

The photon is the first boson listed in the boson table. Note that the "no electric charge" is also not confirmed in experiment, and it also shows an upper limit instead of zero. But the "no electric charge" and "no mass" are pretty decent assumptions for many purposes. If someone does a more refined experiment, then that photon mass value may be lowered to, say, less than 1×10^−19 eV/c^2 for example, but it's hard to imagine that it will ever show zero, as right now we can't devise an experiment to prove that.

If you study physics, you find many things you are taught in introductory level courses turn out to be not completely true when you take more advanced courses. If you read the introduction to Feynman's lectures which are from an introductory course in physics, Feynman explains why this teaching approach is used, to simplify concepts for beginning students. If you cite rudimentary sources like the one you cited, you're likely to get some explanations that are similarly simplified.

a reply to: dragonridr
The sad thing about electric universe is that the universe does have many very real and very interesting electrical properties, and people who follow the EU garbage may miss out on the "real electric universe" that they would be interested in, if not for the charlatans misleading them.
edit on 27-10-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Photons are special instead of mass they have frequency. However we dont know if they do have 0 mass we know right now its below what we can measure. I suspect in some distant future we will find it has some but for all intensive purposes its so small as to be useless. But lets discuss something quickly since i brought up frequency. Light and matter are different light cant stand still even if we slow it down it will eventually speed right back up. But we need to get this energy from somewhere right? Well we do we get it from its frequency. Just as matter trades off mass light trades off frequency. The energy of a photon is related to it’s frequency (E=hf), but why are photons so special? Why do they get to have frequencies? Well turns out there not everything has a frequency even you. Problem is they dont change or at least we dont think they do. But science fiction writers love to play wih this idea of what would happen if we could.

iguess what im trying to say is matter and light arent all that different and peoples confusion often relates to believing it is. We of course know how to turn matter into light and we can now turn light into mater as well.So there in the end isnt a difference between matter and light other than the speed they can travel.

www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 10/27/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Thanks to both of you again: Arbitrageur and dragonridr.

I think i will have a question for Arbitrageur about the Source he presented and it will also be ralated to dragonridr reply. I just need some time to Digest all this


English is not may main Language so its not always easy to Express a accurate eqestion(s). Sorry if this is taking up Your time. But right now this very interesting.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: spy66
He didn't say the photon has mass, he said we aren't completely sure that it's massless. This isn't the same thing.


Yes, the truth is even stronger though: there has been no experimental evidence that the photon has mass, and the Standard Model assumes photons have no mass and is exceptionally quantitatively predictive, and a non-trivial photon mass would have profound experimental impacts which are not observed.

Maybe the Sun is really green, but I'm betting that tomorrow it will still be yellow.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

If i were you wouldnt take that bet since the sun isnt yellow its white. Any way if photons do have mass it wouldnt change anyrhing do to how small that mass would be. In other words statistically still be zero. Only change i can think of is it would up the speed limit in Einstein's equations but we have done this already as our instruments get better.


Oh thought id add one thing alot of people dont know our sun actually puts out more light in the green end of the spectrum so we could argue its green lol.

edit on 10/27/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Check out Arthur Eddingtons expedition to test star images bending around the sun during an eclipse.

arxiv.org...

It really wasn't conclusive but opens the door to lots of good thought experiments.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a non-trivial photon mass would have profound experimental impacts which are not observed.
"non-trivial" is not specific. PDG published a more specific figure of "less than 1×10^−18 eV/c^2".

Are you saying a non-zero mass smaller than that amount would have "profound experimental impacts which are not observed", or are you saying that published value allows the photon's mass, if any, to meet your definition of "trivial"?

The PDG values aren't set in stone; they are updated annually, and there is a live section of the website where even more frequent updates occur. I would expect future experiments and updates to lower that published "less than" value.


originally posted by: dragonridr
Only change i can think of is it would up the speed limit in Einstein's equations but we have done this already as our instruments get better.
We weren't sure if neutrinos had mass and thought they were probably massless, but now it seems that they do have mass, but it can't be very large for them to travel as close to the speed of light as they do, or as you suggest perhaps our value for the speed of light could be slightly off.

Another interesting thing is that the only particle the PDG reports as having a mass of zero is the gluon, with a note attached to it that zero is only a theoretical value which doesn't preclude the gluon also having mass.
edit on 27-10-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: mbkennel
a non-trivial photon mass would have profound experimental impacts which are not observed.
"non-trivial" is not specific. PDG published a more specific figure of "less than 1×10^−18 eV/c^2".

Are you saying a non-zero mass smaller than that amount would have "profound experimental impacts which are not observed", or are you saying that published value allows the photon's mass, if any, to meet your definition of "trivial"?


I think that limit counts as "trivial".



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

A gluon is a force carrier between quarcs in the strong force. The gluon is only simular to the Exchange of photons in the electromagnetic Field, "the weak force". A gluon have a simular function as a photon would have in the weak force.

In this periodic table you can see that only G, W, Y,Z Bosons are guage carriers. There si also a W- boson not mentioned in this table.

A: photon , W, W- and Z bosons belong to the weak force.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is an electron in free space coupled to the EM field surrounding it? (I would love to see an explicit drawing/rendering of what the smartest physicists believe this appears as)

If so. Any time the electron moves, is accelerated, it will cause a change in the relation to where it is coupled to the EM field which surrounds it. The smartest physicists really have some work cut out for them to explain how in whatever way the incoming EM energy approaches our test electron in free space, how it interacts with out test electron, how our test electron is accelerated, and instead of the surrounding EM field locally in relation to the test electron relaying the vibration forced upon the electron (as moving your hand under water will relay the movement of your hand to the water which surrounds it) and result in 1 single line (wavy line, or point particle) photon traveling away from this event.

Using extreme honesty, intelligence, knowledge, logic, rational, reason, science, information, obviousness, it appears as if in such an interaction, it would be impossible, to not have more then 1 infinitesimal point (where electron meets EM field) surrounding the test electron, to be effected. If your belief is true, the EM field must be some type of zipper, and when the electrons acceleration disturbs the prior relative order, the total mass and compressed nature of the EM field is focused on this one tiny break, which 'works itself out' by traveling indefinitely, unallowed to expand, by the total pressure of the orderly EM field which surrounds it. If something like that is the case, then I easily admit my theory is incorrect. I have not witnessed anyone attempt to explain explicitly, generally, simply, reducibly, analogously, anyway approaching confidence in understanding, how the EM field exists as an energetic phenomenon, and how it is coupled to the electron, and how when the electron is accelerated, only 1 infinitesimal point on that area of coupling, is effected, in such the way, as to ripple away from the electron, while all other EM coupled directions surrounding the electron locally, remain unaffected, in such that way, as to also, ripple away, as EM radiation.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


If i were you wouldnt take that bet since the sun isnt yellow its white.

I thought it was chicken?

At 3:24:



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is an electron in free space coupled to the EM field surrounding it? (I would love to see an explicit drawing/rendering of what the smartest physicists believe this appears as)
I'd recommend the following reading:

www.feynmanlectures.info...

Introduction:
The Feynman lectures on Physics, Volume 1
Page 28-2
Equations 28.2 and 28.3

Intermediate:
The Feynman lectures on Physics, Volume 2
Chapter 21: Solutions of Maxwell's Equations with Currents and Charges
There are some illustrations and many equations
Equation 21.1 is a repeat of equation 28.3 from volume 1, but then he explains the solution in more detail than in volume 1.

As stated previously, Maxwell's equations are classical approximations of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED). Volume 3 gets into some quantum mechanics of the electron in certain conditions as at the beginning of chapter 13, though I don't recall any discussion of the quantum behavior of an electron in free space. Maxwell's equations are a pretty good approximation unless you're interested in talking about individual photons in which case photons are beyond the scope of Maxwell's equations.

It's not such a simple topic as Feynman explains, and it would be difficult to make a simple drawing which adequately expresses the interaction.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yea I will take a look at that. But as you say towards the end, yes I am interested in exactly what I asked. About the most fundamental nature of the way in which the EM field is coupled to the electron, and how the relation of that coupling, progresses, from the moment the electron is accelerated, and onwards. You are suggesting, when an electron is accelerated, a squiggly point 'darts, or waves away' from 1 point along the coupling of the electron and EM field. I am asking for your explanation and understanding as to why you believe this is the case. I am asking for a physical explanation greater but also less than (because I am just asking general expressions and statements, talk in the crude language I am using, electron, EM field, EM wave) 'the authorities interpretations of experiments tell me to believe this'.

There is an electron, it is coupled to surrounding EM field. (Yes?)

When that electron moves, does the surrounding EM field move?

You are saying, yes it does, but only 1 squiggly point line moves away from the electron.

I am saying, how do you explain this, even in crude words and terms, please attempt to explain how this would happen.

And to clarify why I ever used the term 'spread out'. I used it in the sense of how when you drop a stone in a pond, the ripple 'spreads out', increases in area. Your version of detecting a photon, in my version, is being at one point in that pond, and detecting the ripple, you would say 'I detected a wave packet of water wave, and it doesnt spread out'. You see I was not talking about the point that spreads out.
edit on 28-10-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Using extreme honesty, intelligence, knowledge, logic, rational, reason, science, information, obviousness, it appears as if in such an interaction, it would be impossible, to not have more then 1 infinitesimal point (where electron meets EM field) surrounding the test electron, to be effected. If your belief is true, the EM field must be some type of zipper, and when the electrons acceleration disturbs the prior relative order, the total mass and compressed nature of the EM field is focused on this one tiny break, which 'works itself out' by traveling indefinitely, unallowed to expand, by the total pressure of the orderly EM field which surrounds it. If something like that is the case, then I easily admit my theory is incorrect. I have not witnessed anyone attempt to explain explicitly, generally, simply, reducibly, analogously, anyway approaching confidence in understanding, how the EM field exists as an energetic phenomenon, and how it is coupled to the electron, and how when the electron is accelerated, only 1 infinitesimal point on that area of coupling, is effected, in such the way, as to ripple away from the electron, while all other EM coupled directions surrounding the electron locally, remain unaffected, in such that way, as to also, ripple away, as EM radiation.


www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...

Classical physics: The EM field and moving charges form an initial value problem with a coupled set of partial differential equations (Maxwell's) plus the motion of the charge themselves. It is assumed that the field emitted from charges does not interact with the charge itself instantaneously.

You could write software (and people have done it) to simulate the evolution of combined fields and particles---a particle-based plasma physics model.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yea I will take a look at that. But as you say towards the end, yes I am interested in exactly what I asked. About the most fundamental nature of the way in which the EM field is coupled to the electron, and how the relation of that coupling, progresses, from the moment the electron is accelerated, and onwards. You are suggesting, when an electron is accelerated, a squiggly point 'darts, or waves away' from 1 point along the coupling of the electron and EM field. I am asking for your explanation and understanding as to why you believe this is the case. I am asking for a physical explanation greater but also less than (because I am just asking general expressions and statements, talk in the crude language I am using, electron, EM field, EM wave) 'the authorities interpretations of experiments tell me to believe this'.

There is an electron, it is coupled to surrounding EM field. (Yes?)

When that electron moves, does the surrounding EM field move?


It changes values across space, if you consider that to be "moving" for a field which is reaosnable.



You are saying, yes it does, but only 1 squiggly point line moves away from the electron.


What is one squiggly point line? Is that the photon? Are you mixing up classical with quantum mechanics?
I think you're confused.

check this simulation out.

www.cco.caltech.edu...


In the practical classical case, the fields would be spreading out in many directions continuously, not just one, and the field values represent effectively the expectation value (i.e. average over quantum mechanical observations) of seeing photons. In practical cases, like for instance radio, the number of photons is immense and it's not practical or useful to discuss or compute them individually, using the Maxwell equations is plenty good enough.



I am saying, how do you explain this, even in crude words and terms, please attempt to explain how this would happen.

And to clarify why I ever used the term 'spread out'. I used it in the sense of how when you drop a stone in a pond, the ripple 'spreads out', increases in area. Your version of detecting a photon, in my version, is being at one point in that pond, and detecting the ripple, you would say 'I detected a wave packet of water wave, and it doesnt spread out'. You see I was not talking about the point that spreads out.


What spreads out is something which can be connected to the probability of observing something. Quantum field theory is difficult conceptually, please learn classical physics first.
edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Can we agree that an electron is 3d like and/or spherical like...at least 3d like? Meaning we can surround it up and down, left and right, and front and back, and there would be an 'it' that we would be surrounding, and that it would be the electron?

Is the EM field coupled to the electron in a similar manner? That is to say, surrounding it, and attached to it, in some manner?

It seems as if Arb thinks and/or believes that when an electron is accelerated...ok, say surrounding the electron, or on what can be called to be the closest thing to being the electrons surface, which any further inward would be inside the electron, and any further outward would be where the EM field meets the electron, can be said to have 360 degrees, or even 12. First we have to agree that the electron is at least a 3d object. If you dont agree with that statement, I would smilingly ask you to provide me with 1 (at least 1, but 1 worthy statement would do the trick to convince me you speak truth) statement which hints at even the possibility of 'something that exists' (especially so prevalently as the electron) in our at least 3d reality, being less than 3d. If you want to talk about point particles, please comprehend that that has nothing to do with reality, but only mathematical simplifying for convenience, I am not concerned with such models, and dont take offense to that, you see I am talking about reality and truth, and if you want to sidetrack and detour me with the models, when in the end, you never escape them to get to the reality and truth, which is all I am after, I am forced to take offense to such action.

So, any number of degrees surrounding our 3d electron. Arb, or the theory that is not mine, appears to think that when the electron is accelerated, at only 1 degree surrounding the electron, is emitted the oscillating EM wave. That is what Arb seems to be saying, that a photon is a wave (of electro and magnetic field lines, that are coupled to charged particles, for this example, the electron), which comes from 1 electron when the electron is accelerated, and it comes off of the electron, as if one had a basketball one said existed surrounded by and attached to a field of jump ropes, some of the jump ropes are red and some are blue, and when the red ones move one way they create a blue one to move the other way perpendicular (with analogy hopefully touched up with your quick wit and intelligence) and when the basketball is accelerated, it is only attached to two jump ropes, and those jump ropes wiggle/wave heading away from the basketball in one direction and that is a photon.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

Can we agree that an electron is 3d like and/or spherical like...at least 3d like? Meaning we can surround it up and down, left and right, and front and back, and there would be an 'it' that we would be surrounding, and that it would be the electron?


The electron isn't 3d or spherical like, but the space over which the fields are defined (our normal physical space), and in which the electron moves is 3-d. And the electric (only) field arising from the charge of the electron at rest is spherically symmetrical.

If you're looking at the 'size' of the electron or 3-d structure then that can't be answered in any reasonably intuitive classical theory and you have to go to QED, but that is not going to help you get an intuitive sense, though it will give great answers for scattering of particles.


Is the EM field coupled to the electron in a similar manner? That is to say, surrounding it, and attached to it, in some manner?


I don't know what attached means in this instance but yes the charge obviously is a source term in the fields and alters fields nearby the location of the electron. A real electron also has an intrinsic magnetic dipole as a source of magnetic field even with the electron at rest.

Have you looked at any of the simulations?

Here's one of a charge at rest, given an impulse.

www.tapir.caltech.edu...

What is plotted are field lines, which are what you get if you start at a point and integrate in the direction of the electric field vector. (there is no physical object with those lines).

Naturally it is a 2-d projection for computer display and the reality is in 3-d.

More common radiated electromagnetic waves:

www.tapir.caltech.edu...



edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join