It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Thought experiment with light.

page: 3
4
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:08 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

A magnetic field is light.

Not even slightly. However, half of light is a magnetic field.
edit on 17-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:10 PM

originally posted by: JUhrman

Everything you post in this thread shows the same level of understand of physics. That of a child.

You haven't met fungi yet, I see.

He thinks that everything in physics is determined by what he, personally, can analogize in English. Otherwise you're incorrect. That's why he will endlessly ask for 'what is it like'.

It's not that he's stupid, just arrogantly wrong, and illiterate in math.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:13 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How does a photon lose energy?

Colorfully.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:25 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

Meaning, I understand it and don't have to visualize it to do so. Math: it is your friend.

Math = visualization.

Math = non nothing.

Non nothing = visualization.

Mind = visualization apparatus

Attempt to do math without a mind.

I am right.

It is a small wooden ball, typically painted yellow.

It is never like a ball. Now I know that. You know a lot less than you think you do.

The reason you have to have a "what is it like" is because you can only deal with concepts verbally. That's not easy when it's something you will have difficulty visualizing or describing in high-school English. As you have had with light from day 1.

Everything that is non nothing, can be compared to geometry. That is what math is. Geometry is the visualization of math (points, lines, arcs, waves, forms etc.)

Light is like light. It's like other EM radiation.

I colloquially use the term light to refer to all EM radiation, like is acceptably done in physics conversations between people who know this is acceptably done, but now you will know that from now on.

Wrong-o. When an electron makes an orbital transition that emits a photon, there is no 'vibrating source'.

Marking over time and space, the point of an electron prior to it making an orbital transition, through to it finishing its orbital transformation, is what I referred to as a vibration.

The first time in my history of these types of discussions I didnt refer to it as 'acceleration'. of course you will sue me.

Map/territory. This is not a pipe.

If light is not nothing. It can be described by geometry, points and/or lines that move in space.

edit on 17-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

Not even slightly. However, half of light is a magnetic field.

Em radiation is a magnetic field.

But ok, going along with your statement, what is the other half?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:34 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How does a photon lose energy?

Colorfully.

Where does it loose its energy? if its not in the observers linear time frame. Then its the observers perception of it, which has changed. Perhaps its our perception of light that needs a makeover, and the maths, have been massaged to fit the perception. If it looses energy, then the wavelength lengthens, to the red . But that all depends on whether the source is moving to us or away from us . If the source, was moving toward us , we would perceive it as moving to the violet, because the observed wavelength would be shorter. But its only the perceived wavelength that we assume in our makeup of reality.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How does a photon lose energy?

Colorfully.

Where does it loose its energy? if its not in the observers linear time frame. Then its the observers perception of it, which has changed. Perhaps its our perception of light that needs a makeover, and the maths, have been massaged to fit the perception. If it looses energy, then the wavelength lengthens, to the red . But that all depends on whether the source is moving to us or away from us . If the source, was moving toward us , we would perceive it as moving to the violet, because the observed wavelength would be shorter. But its only the perceived wavelength that we assume in our makeup of reality.

Also consider any device that measures light, is a device that is moving multiple ways when it detects the light, that may have some non trivial effect.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:29 PM

originally posted by: anonentity
Where does it loose its energy?
Energy is not always conserved in general relativity, between the reference frames of different observers.

if its not in the observers linear time frame. Then its the observers perception of it, which has changed.
I don't know what you mean by "changed". Relativity says that observations differ depending on the observer's reference frame. Our reference frame is on earth. If a photon came from a distant star with an earth-like planet around it, observers on that planet would have observed the photons having higher energy because they wouldn't see cosmological redshift effects from such a close distance.

Relativity allows us to "translate" between what that Earth twin would see versus what we would see on our Earth. In relativity we don't think the object has really "changed" depending on the observer's reference frame, just the observation of it. For example when you travel at high speed in relativity, you perceive objects as having a shorter length, but the length of the objects isn't really shorter, they just look that way to you from your relativistic perspective in another frame of reference.

Perhaps its our perception of light that needs a makeover, and the maths, have been massaged to fit the perception.
Relativity is widely accepted because the math does fit most observations pretty well. However lacking a theory of quantum gravity we can only surmise that either relativity or quantum mechanics or both are at best incomplete.

If you really want to explore this in detail you can read more here but it involves math:

Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?
Scroll down to the section titled: "Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift" or read the whole article, it's not too long.

edit on 17-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:34 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

math = something you can't do

visualization = something occasionally useful, but also occasionally totally misleading

nothing = something you have trouble visualizing

Everything that is non nothing, can be compared to geometry. That is what math is. Geometry is the visualization of math (points, lines, arcs, waves, forms etc.)

Points have no dimension. Visualize that for a bit.

I colloquially use the term light to refer to all EM radiation, like is acceptably done in physics conversations between people who know this is acceptably done, but now you will know that from now on.

And now you know what light is like.

Marking over time and space, the point of an electron prior to it making an orbital transition, through to it finishing its orbital transformation, is what I referred to as a vibration.

Only it's not. I like to refer to my car as a flatulating unicorn. But it's not that either.

edit on 17-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:36 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

Not even slightly. However, half of light is a magnetic field.

Em radiation is a magnetic field.

No, it's not.

But ok, going along with your statement, what is the other half?

A time-varying electric field, at right angles to the time-varying magnetic field, that's its other half.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:37 PM

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

How does a photon lose energy?

Colorfully.

Where does it loose its energy?

That sort of depends on the circumstance. You have to give me a bit more to go on.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:20 PM

Considering the Earths rotation;

Imagine you are standing on the earths equator looking up;

(and to really get what I am trying to say, and establish this thought experiment, imagine the earths rotation slowed down, or just imagine for a moment the earth was not rotating)

And you are looking up;

And you take your left arm and point it 45 degrees from straight up above your head and straight out at your side.

And you take your right arm and point it 45 degrees from straight up above your head and straight out at your side.

Now do we agree that one photon can be coming aligned in the angle of your left arm, and one in the angle of your right arm?

Now considering the Earth rotating;

If the same type of photon, same energy signature, was travel the left arm angle as the right arm angle, considering the angular momentum of the earth;

Would the same energy signature photon be measured differently because one would hit the detector as the detector was moving away from the photon

And one would hit the detector as the detector was moving toward the photon?

(post by ImaFungi removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:37 PM
Thanks Bedlam for making my morning coffee enjoyable.
I might inject some new concepts to keep creativity flowing...
The catherine-laser-wheel squrits out a line of pineapple-flavored light-juice which gets progressively thinner in density as it propagates outwards. This just means each juice particle gets further from its lateral neighbor .

Something that might help ImaFungi : Imagine for a moment that instead of laser, its a directional sound speaker that is attached to the wheel. If you can visualize how speed of sound & how it travels through space is not violated , then you can do so for light. You dont have to turn the wheel very fast to imagine the effect.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:04 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Respond to my other points you coward.

I responded to every point in that post. You buffoon.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:32 PM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Respond to my other points you coward.

I responded to every point in that post. You buffoon.

No you didnt you nincompoopian charaltonian buggeried duggery

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:18 PM

The classical view is, that a sun pushes out a load of photons,3 million light years away. They are all on random trajectories, at different spacing's. It takes five photons to hit our retina, to release an electron that travels down the optic nerve to be decoded in our mind, which builds a model of reality. Which we actually see in our mind, from what is essentially code. The only reason that I am living in this reality with Bedlam, is because we are in the same linear time line, and for some strange reason we can communicate information. The information I get from Bedlam, is relative to his interpretation of this reality.

If we both look at the same, thing with due diligence. We can agree that we are observing the same slice of reality , the colours and hue of a certain object, we then each take a photograph, we compare them, and they are the same but from a slightly different point in space and time, but essentially the same. This has got to mean, that two independent minds, that are decoding reality , are seeing the same thing? how come? Unless we are actually seeing the same thing in each individual mind , which is unlikely as each individuals decoding would be different, the other option is, that it isn't in our minds but in some other shared space, that we think is our own mind, so the constructed reality is a testable consensus, its tested by logic and reason, and whomsoevers, is the best gets the prize, and sways the consensus of what is perceived as real, in his favour.

So, the thread becomes, not if time can be manipulated, but do we agree that in some way, we can create a reality, (which seems to be a shared mind space). Where it can, with the tools available. Just the same as flying like a bird , is now a commonplace occurrence . This makes physical reality a totally different concept. Sorry what was the question?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:36 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Would the same energy signature photon be measured differently because one would hit the detector as the detector was moving away from the photon

And one would hit the detector as the detector was moving toward the photon?
Take a monochromatic light source, measure the frequency (thus the energy) of the light, from a detector stationary with respect to the light. Move the detector toward the light source and the light appears blue-shifted (higher frequency thus higher energy) and move the detector away and the light appears red-shifted (thus lower energy).

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:13 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Would the same energy signature photon be measured differently because one would hit the detector as the detector was moving away from the photon

And one would hit the detector as the detector was moving toward the photon?
Take a monochromatic light source, measure the frequency (thus the energy) of the light, from a detector stationary with respect to the light. Move the detector toward the light source and the light appears blue-shifted (higher frequency thus higher energy) and move the detector away and the light appears red-shifted (thus lower energy).

So you said 'photon' loses energy over time (and space);

But the photon doesnt really lose energy, it is just that our detector is either moving slightly towards, or slightly away, at the moment of detection?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 11:31 PM
Yes, I meant relatively speaking, we observe the photons from a distant galaxy to have a lower energy than an observer local to the source would observe.

However, the cosmological redshift is different from the Doppler redshift which you posited, and we know to a high confidence that the cosmological redshift is NOT Doppler redshift! So, don't try to treat it as such. Read the math in the article I posted on cosmological red shift.

Red Shift

The redshifts of galaxies include both a component related to recessional velocity from expansion of the Universe, and a component related to peculiar motion (Doppler shift). The redshift due to expansion of the Universe depends upon the recessional velocity in a fashion determined by the cosmological model chosen to describe the expansion of the Universe, which is very different from how Doppler redshift depends upon local velocity. Describing the cosmological expansion origin of redshift, cosmologist Edward Robert Harrison said, "Light leaves a galaxy, which is stationary in its local region of space, and is eventually received by observers who are stationary in their own local region of space. Between the galaxy and the observer, light travels through vast regions of expanding space. As a result, all wavelengths of the light are stretched by the expansion of space. It is as simple as that..."

edit on 18-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

top topics

4