- #1
jackpot337
- 5
- 0
Just was wondering if there was something that pushed photons or if it just a property of light. Also what happens to photons from other stars when they reach our sun?
jackpot337 said:Just was wondering if there was something that pushed photons or if it just a property of light. Also what happens to photons from other stars when they reach our sun?
jcsd said:photons are not the only things gthat travel at c (neutrinoes are no longer beleived to travel at c tho'), it's a general property of massless particles.
selfAdjoint said:You can derive the relativistic equation for energy [tex]e^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/tex]. Here p is the magnitude of the three dimensional momentum, m is the invariant mass of the particle, and c, of course is the speed of light. I repeat that this equation follows from the postulates, the basic definition of relativity.
...
On the other hand suppose m=0; in this case the particle is massless and the equation reduces to [tex]\inline e = pc[/tex], the energy is the size of the three-momentum times the speed of light...
great!marcus said:"there is a certain speed that is the same to all observers"
good question. actually it brought me to a slightly crazy idea right away: from this algebra, it can also be seen, that it is impossible to accellerate a massive particle above c, if initially it was moving slower than c. The same may be true for particles initially moving faster than c - that is they can't be deccellerated to sub-c speeds... Now what if we assume that there is another - greater - velocity? Kinda second "upper-bound" - for super-c particles we can't observe? say this speed equals 2c. and no super-c objects can't be accellerated to super-super-c speeds, and so on... :yuck:marcus said:I'm sure this is oversimplifying, but it is a striking idea and immediately prompts one to ask "what if there were two invariant scales instead of just one?" Are there maybe several quantities in the universe that look the same to all observers---a speed and at least one other type of physical quantity.
No, logic does not say this, or anything like this. Logic is a tool that allows you to derive conclusions from axioms. Please don't misuse terms. What you mean to say is that common sense says that the velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of the emitter. This concept is called "emitter theory" and has been as soundly defeated as any theory in the history of science. The most damning experiment is one that was done with neutral pions, a type of particle made from two quarks, traveling at nearly the speed of light in a particle accelerator. When these pions decay, they produce gammas -- high-frequency light. The speed of these gammas was measured directly, and was found to be -- drum roll, please -- c. Even though the pions were themselves traveling almost the speed of light, the light they emitted was still going c.urtalkinstupid said:Simple logic says that if you are moving towards a light source the velocity of light would be dependent on that source.
[tex]\vec{v}_{light}=c+\vec{v}_{observer}[/tex]
Or if the object is moving away from the light source
[tex]\vec{v}_{light}=c-\vec{v}_{observer}[/itex]
Maybe they are the other way around, but logic says light speed should be dependent on velocity of the source of the observer or light source.
chroot said:Not quite kurious. I think you mean:
[tex]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/tex]
http://www.google.com/search?num=30...nstant+*+the+magnetic+constant)+=&btnG=Search
- Warren
Sorry, mentors, if my expression of opinion shouldn't go here but rather in a thread in Theory Development.
chroot said:And, no, your post does not belong here at all. Please don't make a habit of posting non-mainstream theories in the wrong forums here.
I think chroot includes material such as that in 'aliceinphysics' as non-mainstream theories. If you would like to discuss the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of relativity that are evident in 'aliceinphysics', please start a thread in Theory Development.urtalkinstupid said:Common sense is a branch of logic. Common sense says speed is dependent on velocity of source or object. My common sense is actually derived from reality based situations. For light to be constant, it would have to have the characteristic of being in two palces at once. Two trains traveling towards each other. Light is coming from two directions. Both light beams hit the two trains. Will the light hit the observers at the same time? It is said yes. Why can it not? Light can not go into the back and front of the train at the same time. By the emitter theory, do you mean how light is emitted and absorbed through different densities?
chroot, take a look at this. I'm sure you won't think much of it. It makes sense to me. After reading Einstein's work and reading this. I've found the link I'm fixing to provide you to make more sense. That's just me though. :rofl: Here it is
marcus said:A physicist once explained in my hearing that
[tex]\mu_0[/tex]
and
[tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]
are not real physical quantities
they are not actual measurable properties of empty space
but are fictions, their formal existence established by convention within the SI system
therefore according to him it does not explain why the speed of light is c
if one merely demonstrates that putting [tex]\mu_0[/tex]
and
[tex]\epsilon_0[/tex]
into Maxwell equations causes one to get out a speed which is c
So I have come to regard
[tex]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/tex]
as a kind of tautology or a stacked deck
selfAdjoint said:Marcus, you can measure [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] and [tex]\mu_0[/tex]! I don't know where your physicist got this relational stuff, but it would take more than a rumor to convince me they are not as real as the fine structure constant. Maybe you can expain further?
Not sure who I would address this to (Einstein's editor?), but names like "train paradox" and "twins paradox" are somewhat misleading. They are only paradoxes when using incorrect physics, ie applying Galilean relativity to situations where it doesn't apply. People read "twins paradox" regarding Relativity and assume its a paradox in Einstein's theory. It isn't. How about "apparent train paradox"? I guess when Einstein was doing his work though, they were still unresolved paradoxes.chroot said:The simple fact is that tens of thousands of people in the scientific community have thoroughly examined the theory of relativity for over a century, and there are no paradoxes in it. Any paradoxes you claim to find are only evidence of your own misunderstandings.
- Warren
[/understatement]I don't understand why u are trying to say that light speed isn't constant. It has been proven experimentally sereral times.[emphasis added]
I think I know why it would be said that [tex] \mu_o [/tex] and [tex] \epsilon_0 [/tex] are not physically measurable. They depend on the way we define quantities like one metre, one second, one unit of current, etc. For example, in SI one Ampere is that current that enters the Biot-Savart law so that [tex] \mu_o [/tex] is *exactly* as shown. These dimensionful quantities can always be redefined. I have not done the math, but I think we could say that light travels exactly one meter per second, then adjust all other fundamental quantities to recover the same physics. There is a principle that says physics must be independent of the choice of units. On the other hand, no amount of tinkering can let us redefine the value of the fine structure constant, as that is a dimensionless parameter and must be preserved if we redefine our choice of units. That is truly a fundamental parameter of the observed universe.marcus said:Goodness!
It says here that the value of mu_0 is exactly
[tex]4\pi \times 10^{-7}[/tex]
how can something like 4pi be measurable?
surely this can't be an actual physical property of empty space
what kind of intrument can you picture using to measure it?
An excellent point; I prefer to refer to such things as the "twin scenario" or the "twin experiment" to emphasize that there is no unsolved paradox threatening relativity there.russ_waters said:Not sure who I would address this to (Einstein's editor?), but names like "train paradox" and "twins paradox" are somewhat misleading. They are only paradoxes when using incorrect physics, ie applying Galilean relativity to situations where it doesn't apply. People read "twins paradox" regarding Relativity and assume its a paradox in Einstein's theory. It isn't. How about "apparent train paradox"? I guess when Einstein was doing his work though, they were still unresolved paradoxes.
marcus said:...
So I have come to regard this equation:
[tex]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/tex]
as a kind of tautology or a stacked deck
...
chroot said:Yes, hemmul, the particles you describe are called tachyons. Their mechanics are already well-understood, but there has been any evidence that they actually exist.
- Warren
is incorrect - because its basis violates the relativity principle :shy:hemmul said:One of the "difficult" questions about that is "why do we live in [0,c] range?"
zefram_c said:I think I know why it would be said that [tex] \mu_o [/tex] and [tex] \epsilon_0 [/tex] are not physically measurable. They depend on the way we define quantities like one metre, one second, one unit of current, etc. For example, in SI one Ampere is that current that enters the Biot-Savart law so that [tex] \mu_o [/tex] is *exactly* as shown. These dimensionful quantities can always be redefined. I have not done the math, but I think we could say that light travels exactly one meter per second, then adjust all other fundamental quantities to recover the same physics. There is a principle that says physics must be independent of the choice of units. On the other hand, no amount of tinkering can let us redefine the value of the fine structure constant, as that is a dimensionless parameter and must be preserved if we redefine our choice of units. That is truly a fundamental parameter of the observed universe.
...