Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

dragonridr

Nochzwei

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok I think I see what you are saying. Am I wrong in thinking the principle applies, when dealing with bosons to them occupying the same exact space? Or it is only regarding the same exact state? Because once earlier when I came across this theory I feel like I recall it mentioning bosons can exist 'on top of each other', like pass through each other without affecting, but im not sure.

State/spin/freq or any other attribute is immaterial.
2 particles cannot occupy the same space simultaneously

Bosons can there just force carriers like an electromagnetic field for example. Two electromagnetic fields indeed can exist in the same place at the same time. Bosons are force carriers and they can have the same spin or exist in the same place thats what a laser is photons made of bosons. So yes two particles can occupy the same space just not two fermions.

edit on 2/16/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

How can it be 2 separate particles (or according to theory 999999 separate particles, or lets just say infinite) exist in the same exact place? Like with all other kind of 'stuff' there is a limit to how much you can cram into a single volume, density and pressure and such. How can infinite quanta exist in the same very limited volume, for example a volume the size of 1 quanta, can fit infinite of that quanta in it if it is a boson?

ImaFungi
Like with all other kind of 'stuff' there is a limit to how much you can cram into a single volume, density and pressure and such.

I think the big bang theory posits that when energy density exceeds a certain amount, the laws of physics as we know them now may not apply, and you get things like the hypothetical inflaton field. The problem is, these energy densities are beyond our ability to measure, so we've never confirmed the inflation hypothesis including the inflaton particle or field with observation, but the hypothesis does seem to suggest that it's not "business as usual" when the energy density gets above a certain point.

ImaFungi

dragonridr

Nochzwei

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok I think I see what you are saying. Am I wrong in thinking the principle applies, when dealing with bosons to them occupying the same exact space? Or it is only regarding the same exact state? Because once earlier when I came across this theory I feel like I recall it mentioning bosons can exist 'on top of each other', like pass through each other without affecting, but im not sure.

State/spin/freq or any other attribute is immaterial.
2 particles cannot occupy the same space simultaneously

Bosons can there just force carriers like an electromagnetic field for example. Two electromagnetic fields indeed can exist in the same place at the same time. Bosons are force carriers and they can have the same spin or exist in the same place thats what a laser is photons made of bosons. So yes two particles can occupy the same space just not two fermions.

edit on 2/16/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

How can it be 2 separate particles (or according to theory 999999 separate particles, or lets just say infinite) exist in the same exact place? Like with all other kind of 'stuff' there is a limit to how much you can cram into a single volume, density and pressure and such. How can infinite quanta exist in the same very limited volume, for example a volume the size of 1 quanta, can fit infinite of that quanta in it if it is a boson?

Ok since this thread is about light and einstine we can tie this together. first think of a laser and what it does it produces photons all exactly the same with the same spin heading in the same direction. Now we get another laser cross the beam and where those two lasers meet you will have to identical photons sitting in the same space with the same spin heading in different directions.
But here is what im going to do to talk about bosons. Something we can do with boson particles is form a Bose-Einstein condensate, This phenomenon predicted by Einstein back in the 1920s but wasnt actually done until 1995. Cornell and Wieman cooled a small sample of atoms down to only a few billionths (0.000,000,001) of a degree above Absolute Zero. Well when this happens the atoms stop moving and go to their lowest energy point.This is exactly how we can use cesium to start and stop light.But back to BEC these atoms did something atoms are not supposed to do they literally stacked up in the same place meaning more that one atom was in the same place at the same time. Einstein figured it was possible however what he didnt know is it doesnt work with all atoms but i won't get into that right now. But effectively we created a new form of matter by getting rubidium to act like bosons.but this means we can make atoms behave like light for example mix to BECs together we can cause them to cancel each other out meaning two atoms equals no atoms just as we can with two light beams.

Heres a great place to learn about it you can see there nobel prize and follow links to see the experiment.

www.nist.gov...

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
Like with all other kind of 'stuff' there is a limit to how much you can cram into a single volume, density and pressure and such.

I think the big bang theory posits that when energy density exceeds a certain amount, the laws of physics as we know them now may not apply, and you get things like the hypothetical inflaton field. The problem is, these energy densities are beyond our ability to measure, so we've never confirmed the inflation hypothesis including the inflaton particle or field with observation, but the hypothesis does seem to suggest that it's not "business as usual" when the energy density gets above a certain point.

edit on 17-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I don't know, if before all matter and forces this hypothetical inflaton field existed, how big is the probability things ended up like they did, and maybe bigger question why ?

How convenient this question can not be answered in other way then hypothetical. So to say "we have no idea how it works but we are sure it is working exactly this way, so has our theory predicted"

reply to post by KrzYma

In the case of inflation, we can say the idea is supported by inference. I'll use an analogy that's not very good, but let's say you see some bear tracks in the snow, and you conclude that a bear walked by, but you never actually saw the bear. The tracks are pretty good evidence of the bear, even though you never saw the bear.

This is sort of the logic behind inflation theory, that we think we can see something along the lines of "bear tracks" even though we can't observe any "bear" directly. I said it's not a good analogy because I think it overstates the case a little, but that's sort of the idea. However scientists are still trying to make more observations to see how inflation theory holds up:

Inflation

An experimental program is underway to further test inflation with more precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background. In particular, high precision measurements of the so-called "B-modes" of the polarization of the background radiation will be evidence of the gravitational radiation produced by inflation, and they will also show whether the energy scale of inflation predicted by the simplest models (10^15–10^16 GeV) is correct. These measurements are expected to be performed by the Planck spacecraft, although it is unclear if the signal will be visible, or if contamination from foreground sources will interfere with these measurements. Other forthcoming measurements, such as those of 21 centimeter radiation (radiation emitted and absorbed from neutral hydrogen before the first stars turned on), may measure the power spectrum with even greater resolution than the cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys, although it is not known if these measurements will be possible or if interference with radio sources on earth and in the galaxy will be too great.

So given there are still efforts to test inflation; it's not the case that it's just being completely accepted without question.

Even in the case of relativity, there are still experiments being done to test it. This is what I love about science. There may be some slowness to abandon old ideas and accept new ones, but the ideas are always being tested so this should bring us closer to truth.

reply to post by dragonridr

2 discreet atoms of even a BEC cannot occupy the same space

ImaFungi
]

How can it be 2 separate particles (or according to theory 999999 separate particles, or lets just say infinite) exist in the same exact place? Like with all other kind of 'stuff' there is a limit to how much you can cram into a single volume, density and pressure and such. How can infinite quanta exist in the same very limited volume, for example a volume the size of 1 quanta, can fit infinite of that quanta in it if it is a boson?

In a nutshell, is there a mutual repulsion? If not, there's no problem. Photons don't interact with one another and they're bosons, so there's no problem.

Why do you assume there's "always" a pressure? Usually, certainly. If the particles are fermions then the rules of quantum mechanics give a "pressure".

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by mbkennel


Photons are something, not nothing right?

How can a quantity of something, exist, in the exact same place as another quantity of something? 2 apples cant occupy the exact same space, how come 99999999999999999999 photons can occupy the exact same space?

Nochzwei
reply to post by dragonridr

 

2 discreet atoms of even a BEC cannot occupy the same space

Your wrong when you sufficiently cool the atom to absolute zero its electric charge disappears meaning it acts no different than a photon. And we can do some really strange things with this form of mattter. Einstein predicted this when he applied bose theory to atoms however Einstine was shall we say reluctant to believe what his math was telling him. See Einstein was looking over the edge into the quantum mechanics world and the strangeness of it scared him.

reply to post by ImaFungi

All is clear if you read up on the Pauli Exclusion principle.
en.wikipedia.org...


As a gauge boson, they may occupy the same space, and they don't directly couple, only by higher order couplings. In some extreme circumstances these photons and their couplings (higher order ones) can actually induce a pressure.

Fermions with identical quantum numbers cannot occupy the same space, however if they are of opposite spin (+1/2 and -1/2) they may occupy the same space/energy well.

Our current understanding of the Atomic model, in which each energy level follows a 2n^2 electron capacity is best understood by the exclusion principle. In that filled cells are more stable than half empty ones. Such when you look at ionization energies they appear to follow that when knocking electrons out of a stable system, it requires more energy than one that is less stable and complete.

Also these kinds of principles can be used from first orders to predict the sizes and masses of White Dwarfs and Neutron stars, And it turns out that it works pretty well. The Chandrasekhar and Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limits and the experimental observations of white dwarfs and neutron stars in binary systems show these limits work out... The exclusion principle is at the heart of both.

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Photons are something, not nothing right?

How can a quantity of something, exist, in the exact same place as another quantity of something? 2 apples cant occupy the exact same space, how come 99999999999999999999 photons can occupy the exact same space?

Well it has to do with the nature of light itself it is a wave form that can easily add itself to others. Waves can exist at the same place at the same time. Depending on whether the wave is at a trough or a crest and the amplitude, the waves either cancel each other out or amplify each other.Waves meeting in the same place will simply interact then move along there trajectory. This is why BEC is so strange it turns atoms into waves we can measure and treat the same as light. Matter waves do interact more and will be effected more than light waves but react the same way. We can use atoms to create interference patterns cancelling each other out as if they were not even there. And the properties of the atoms themselves change allowing us to play with super conductivity for example.

Here since people are confused NASA does a good job explaining it because they have been doing massive research in there cold matter lab.

science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by dragonridr

See reply #1 at this link:

www.thenakedscientists.com...

He agrees that they can occupy the same space but then goes on to say that since there's no density increase, it's more like a blurring of the boundaries.

To use a crude analogy what he's saying is if you put say 10 tomatoes on your shelf in the refrigerator just tall enough for tomatoes, only one can occupy any given space on the shelf. But if you smash all 10 tomatoes with a sledgehammer and they all splatter all over the shelf, the remains of all 10 tomatoes are now superimposed because each of them is spread over the entire shelf, but there's really no density increase.

I don't know if he's right or not and he doesn't seem to sure either, but does any of that make any sense?

Arbitrageur
reply to post by dragonridr

 

See reply #1 at this link:

www.thenakedscientists.com...

He agrees that they can occupy the same space but then goes on to say that since there's no density increase, it's more like a blurring of the boundaries.

To use a crude analogy what he's saying is if you put say 10 tomatoes on your shelf in the refrigerator just tall enough for tomatoes, only one can occupy any given space on the shelf. But if you smash all 10 tomatoes with a sledgehammer and they all splatter all over the shelf, the remains of all 10 tomatoes are now superimposed because each of them is spread over the entire shelf, but there's really no density increase.

I don't know if he's right or not and he doesn't seem to sure either, but does any of that make any sense?

Yes bosons when in the same place intermix but it goes back to probability again heres the catch if we check the position of a photon it acts like a particle instead of a wave. By doing this we end up with tomato soup to use his phrase. Meaning we look at a place and all we see is fuzziness of the photons as they try to become particles all at the same place. As far as BEC there is alot of debate on if we can create a density increase. See when matter waves interact just like light waves were changing there frequency but there mass often shows up somewhere else or not at all. This is why we are so intrigued and doing cold matter research the reactons we find are nothing short of amazing.

reply to post by ErosA433


Ok I think we might be having a misinterpretation of terms and intent.

All I am wondering is if space has anything to do with this, area/volume? Or if when I first heard of this theory a while ago I mistook the word state, to mean space? I am not talking about atoms, I am talking about logical theory here, something that caught me off guard that does not seem like it should be possible I am trying to understand how it is explained as being possible.

So if this pauli exclusion boson theory has to do with space/area/volume, then I am interested in continuing asking this question.

Say there is an area/volume of space that equals 1. That space cannot change or grow, it does not have more then 1 within it (does it?)? Lets say it is just purely 1.

Lets say we have a boson that takes up exactly an area of 1. If bosons are something. How can an infinite amount of somethings, exist 'on top' of each other? What would be happening there, you just keep putting one there and one there, and they are just like ghosts to each other? They each still exist as their own quanta with their energy and vibration, all of them do equally, but they just vibrate and dont touch, an infinite quanta, or the highest 9999999999999999 number you feel like using in thought experiment.

ImaFungi
reply to post by ErosA433

 

Ok I think we might be having a misinterpretation of terms and intent.

All I am wondering is if space has anything to do with this, area/volume? Or if when I first heard of this theory a while ago I mistook the word state, to mean space? I am not talking about atoms, I am talking about logical theory here, something that caught me off guard that does not seem like it should be possible I am trying to understand how it is explained as being possible.

So if this pauli exclusion boson theory has to do with space/area/volume, then I am interested in continuing asking this question.

Say there is an area/volume of space that equals 1. That space cannot change or grow, it does not have more then 1 within it (does it?)? Lets say it is just purely 1.

Lets say we have a boson that takes up exactly an area of 1. If bosons are something. How can an infinite amount of somethings, exist 'on top' of each other? What would be happening there, you just keep putting one there and one there, and they are just like ghosts to each other? They each still exist as their own quanta with their energy and vibration, all of them do equally, but they just vibrate and dont touch, an infinite quanta, or the highest 9999999999999999 number you feel like using in thought experiment.

Ok i think i see what your asking space doesnt in and of itself have a limit nor does it impose one. This is what happens in a singularity for example a huge amount of mass all in one point in space.So its not space that doesn't allow fermions into the same point in space its the fermions. Light is a lot less picky think of one point in space how many photons from different stars constantly are in that same spot.Because light has no mass we see no effects.