Some Thought Experiments (simple ones)

  • Thread starter Deepak Kapur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Experiments
In summary,1. A clock is placed on a light beam.2. The clock will stop if it's placed on the light beam at the speed of light.3. If a massless particle is placed on the beam, nothing would happen.4. An electron is placed on the beam and it will oscillate.
  • #36
Frame Dragger said:
Ah, my bad... I get... heated in these situations. I don't like seeing intellectual capital (you and kev) wasted this way. This is the kind of thing that turns helpful and outgoing people like you two, into angry pricks like me.

Just chill :wink: :cool: :smile:

lol.. please do not use my name in the same sentence as intellectual capital.. its makes me a target and its kinda embarrassing.. I am just learning like most other folks around here...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
DaveC426913 said:
This definition may get you into trouble in unforseen ways.

It is probably better to remain cognizant of what a shadow is: an area where photons are blocked. Those photons still obey the laws of physics.

I did foresee that there are some problems with my definition. I think I was hoping no one would notice :tongue: I have edited #34 to be less definate.
 
  • #38
Deepak Kapur said:
1. A clock is placed on a light beam.

Will the clock stop?

If yes, why doesn't the beam stop altogether?
It's not possible to answer a question that supposes something that makes the theory we're supposed to use to answer the question logically inconsistent.

Light moves as described by null geodesics (i.e. at speed c in inertial frames). Clocks moves as described by timelike geodesics (i.e. at speeds <c in inertial frames). Therefore, you can't put a clock on a light beam.

Deepak Kapur said:
2. A ruler is placed on a light beam.
Same answer. I actually answered these questions in the thread where you made your first few posts the other day. I recommend that you go back and read that answer again. One of them includes a link to a post that discusses the "photon's point of view" in detail.

Deepak Kapur said:
3. A massless particle is placed on the beam.

What would happen?
Nothing. (If you mean what I think I mean. You could have been more specific).

Deepak Kapur said:
4. An electron is placed on the beam.

What would happen?
Electrons are massive, so see my answers to 1 and 2, and my answers in that other thread.


Deepak Kapur said:
I am nobody to talk of Einstein, but when he did his thought experiments, they were indeed impossible in principle. It's only afterwards that a conceptual framework in which they became possible was devised.
It's not surprising that a person who at the time didn't actually know SR would consider thought experiments that SR say are impossible in principle.

Deepak Kapur said:
1. Light is at least 'something' if not matter. How could anything move with the speed of light?

2. Photons of light have been proved to possesses particle nature, How can these 'particles' travel with the speed of light.
Unfortunately the answer is very mathematical. There's no way you can understand it without studying for years. You will either have to do that, or just accept the fact that particles with m>0 move at speeds <c in inertial frames, and particles with m=0 move at speed c in inertial frames.

Deepak Kapur said:
3. The photons of light must be involed in some vibration, oscillation, etc. When time stops at the speed of light, how are such processes possible in the case of photons.
There's no such thing as "at the speed of light". See my earlier comments about the photon's point of view in this thread and the other one.

Deepak Kapur said:
You mean to say that light is energy. Does it mean that energy (being at least something) is able to move with the speed of light.
Massless particles can (only) move at the speed of light, and they carry energy.

Deepak Kapur said:
So, what about mass energy equivalence. Mass can be taken to be as a concentrated (unqualified term, I suppose) form of enegy.
Every particle (massless or not) satisifes [tex]E^2=\vec p^2c^2+m^2c^4[/tex], where m is the mass, p is the momentum and E is the energy.
 
  • #39
Deepak has revealed him/herself as a crank, promoting a personal agenda. Probably best to not feed the trolls and let this thread die.
 
  • #40
Since this thread appears to be going nowhere, it is done now.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
432
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
950
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
938
Replies
1
Views
594
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
997
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
925
Back
Top