about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Memento Mori]

f is frequency, h is Planck's constant. hf is just the product of h and f.

Oh yeah. Sorry, I don't see Planck's constant enough to remember it as being h. We need more letters!

 

[Johnny]

The first thing that hit me is the implied contradiction.

If p=mv

and

If E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

then

E² = m²c⁴ + (mv)²c²

then substituting M=0 yields...

E² = 0c⁴ + 0c²

or

E² = 0

or

E = 0

Then taking your math quoted above...

p = E/c

p = 0/c

p = 0

No matter how you slice it, the answer comes up zero. Zero mass = zero energy. Zero energy = no photon.

Strong work, Clete.

However, you've substituted a newtonian equation (p=mv) into a relativistic equation and noted the apparent contradiction. This is to be expected when using "outdated" Newtonian equations. In order to use the Newtonian equation to define the momentum of a photon, you have to use the photon's relativistic mass, m_rel (m = E / c²). When physicists say that photons have no mass, they are referring to the photon's rest mass, or m_rest.

This is something that is really tangential to the rest of this thread. Massless photons are not a direct prediction of relativity, so I think that you are misguided when (or if) you point out this as a contradiction of relativity. Massless photons are a prediction of our current models, and, as noted, we are able to put an upper limit on the mass of photons by indirectly measuring their effects. Currently this upper limit on photon rest mass is over ten orders of magnitude less massive than electrons.

Relativity actually explains how photons have momentum by defining them in terms of relativistic mass via the mass-energy equivalence principle. Without relativity, the momentum of photons would be unexplained. Again, relativity does not specifically predict that photons have no rest mass -- that's something born out of other models.

Perhaps one day we will discover that photons do, in fact, have a rest mass. This will require adjusting a lot of what we know about the universe to account for it, but I have no doubt that some young physicists would be up to the challenge.

It seems Relativity, in spite of its usefulness in predicting certain things, is riddled with contradictions, both in common sense and mathematics.

As far as I know, the mathematics is sound. This would be the first thing physicists would pick up on.

One might argue that Relativity is the best we've got but I think its way over stepping to hold to the idea that Relativity has been proven to be factual in every respect. The truth is not contradictory and thus, no matter how much one might like Einstein's theory, it can and almost certainly will be replaced with something far superior that not only explains the phenomena that Relativity accurately predicts but does so without all the obvious contradictions.

I agree. Relativity, like the models before it, and like all scientific theories, is only an approximation of the truth. As our ability to precisely measure the universe continues to evolve, so will our models evolve towards ever increasing accuracy in explaining and predicting natural phenomena.

Relativity is almost certainly not the whole picture, as it has yet to be reconciled with some aspects of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, like relativity, has volumes of evidence supporting the current models (and perhaps to a far greater precision). One of these theories needs to be modified, and I have little doubt that within our life time someone will figure out how to make these them compatible. But it will not come without adjusting our current views, even if only slightly.

 

[Stripe]

Do we not measure photons by recording their impact on film media? If they leave impact markers then I would expect them to have mass. If they have mass then they can be affected by gravity. If there is a prediction that m_rest = 0 then it seems like it's only another mathematical necessity that never translates into a physical reality.

Said simply, light is always moving and will thus always be affected by gravity.

 

[Johnny]

Do we not measure photons by recording their impact on film media? If they leave impact markers then I would expect them to have mass. If they have mass then they can be affected by gravity. If there is a prediction that m_rest = 0 then it seems like it's only another mathematical necessity that never translates into a physical reality.

Who appointed you "the man who determines what translates into a physical reality"? When our models predict things we can wrap our heads around, you have no problem with it. Yet when they predict something counter-intuitive, suddenly we deem that part of the model a mathematical oddity? Physics equations are all-or-nothing. They either describe the real universe, or they don't. You don't get to pick and chose which part of them describes reality and which parts don't.

Furthermore, remember that photons can either be measured in discrete particles or as electromagnetic radiation in the form of waves. Are you now going to argue that all electromagnetic radiation has mass?

If they leave impact markers then I would expect them to have mass.

That's what you would expect. But we already know they carry momentum because they carry energy, and energy has a mass equivalence. Photons have mass equivalence. In other words, imagine a box filled with photons bouncing off mirrors inside the box. In this case we say that the photons contribute to the mass of the system because of their energy contribution to the system -- though it is not technically correct to say that the photons have mass in and of themselves.

 

[Stripe]

Who appointed you "the man who determines what translates into a physical reality"? When our models predict things we can wrap our heads around, you have no problem with it. Yet when they predict something counter-intuitive, suddenly we deem that part of the model a mathematical oddity? Physics equations are all-or-nothing. They either describe the real universe, or they don't. You don't get to pick and chose which part of them describes reality and which parts don't.

Don't be dense, Johnny. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I am perfectly justified in rejecting the name given to a mathematical process as a description of physical reality. We can add and subtract numbers to describe simple economics, that does not mean we believe there are crates of negative amounts of certain goods on container ships somewhere.

Furthermore, remember that photons can either be measured in discrete particles or as electromagnetic radiation in the form of waves. Are you now going to argue that all electromagnetic radiation has mass?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, why it's important or where this came from. I'm trying to follow the discussion as best I can, but you're going to have to explain this a bit more.

That's what you would expect. But we already know they carry momentum because they carry energy, and energy has a mass equivalence. Photons have mass equivalence. In other words, imagine a box filled with photons bouncing off mirrors inside the box. In this case we say that the photons contribute to the mass of the system because of their energy contribution to the system -- though it is not technically correct to say that the photons have mass in and of themselves.

It seems, whatever reality is, that photons are affected by gravity. Whether that is because they have mass or because they have something else is kinda irrelevant to my side of the discussion. Given ignorance, I would far prefer to assume something known (gravity) is affecting them than assume something unknown is.

If you're going to assume it is something unknown then you could call it anything. You call it "curved space", but what would be the difference if it was named "cluttered space"? :idunno:

 

[chair]

...
Also, if you had any logical and critical thinking skills you would recognize that mass doesn't change, not even from rest to motion.:dunce::duh:
...

Go read a book on the topic. You are woefully ignorant.

 

[Johnny]

Don't be dense, Johnny. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I am perfectly justified in rejecting the name given to a mathematical process as a description of physical reality. We can add and subtract numbers to describe simple economics, that does not mean we believe there are crates of negative amounts of certain goods on container ships somewhere.

You're perfectly content accepting that photons have mass because they have momentum, and because classically momentum is defined in terms of mass and velocity. So you assume that the Newtonian version of momentum describes reality and you're actually using this Newtonian model as a basis for rejecting the relativistic model. You don't seem content to accept the relativistic definition of momentum as E/c, which implies that photons can have momentum without having a rest mass.

What criteria do you use to determine which equations describe reality? It's certainly not experimental basis, as Newtonian equations can be quite easily shown to be inadequate, whereas relativistic equations describe phenomena to much greater accuracy.

I am perfectly justified in rejecting the name given to a mathematical process as a description of physical reality.

What's your justification, then?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, why it's important or where this came from. I'm trying to follow the discussion as best I can, but you're going to have to explain this a bit more.

Photons are both waves and particles -- depending on how you measure them. Do you accept, then, that all electromagnetic radiation, even in its wave form, has mass?

It seems, whatever reality is, that photons are affected by gravity. Whether that is because they have mass or because they have something else is kinda irrelevant to my side of the discussion. Given ignorance, I would far prefer to assume something known (gravity) is affecting them than assume something unknown is.

General relativity also says that what we call gravity is effecting photons. No one is disagreeing with that. General relativity goes a step further then your proposition and seeks to explain what gravity actually is. In the process it makes a number of testable predictions -- including but not limited to exactly how and to what extent gravity effects our experience of time. That's why its a vastly superior model to absolutely no explanation, which you seem to be supporting.

If you're going to assume it is something unknown then you could call it anything. You call it "curved space", but what would be the difference if it was named "cluttered space"?

No one is assuming it is something unknown.

 

[Stripe]

Photons are both waves and particles -- depending on how you measure them. Do you accept, then, that all electromagnetic radiation, even in its wave form, has mass?

I'm prepared to accept that photons have mass and the only time they may not have mass is when they are at rest. I'm also prepared to accept that photons are never at rest. Thus I can leave behind the mathematical predictions of what a resting photon's mass is and look at things from a Newtonian perspective (although we still need to do some correcting to get fine accuracy).

General relativity also says that what we call gravity is effecting photons. No one is disagreeing with that. General relativity goes a step further then your proposition and seeks to explain what gravity actually is. In the process it makes a number of testable predictions -- including but not limited to exactly how and to what extent gravity effects our experience of time. That's why its a vastly superior model to absolutely no explanation, which you seem to be supporting.

You call this explanation "curved space" and claim that it explains exactly what is happening. But you could just have easily called it anything and have claimed it explained what is going on. It seems to me that, although nobody might assume it is something unknown, gravity still is exactly that, unknown. The means by which it projects its force is unknown. I would far prefer to assume the thing called gravity is in action rather than invoke another, arbitrary term.

I believe it is possible to arrive at relativistic accuracy by using a mathematical system called Adjusted Newtonian Mechanics based on the assumption that gravity affects the instruments we use to measure time and space. I believe this description would have absolutely no impact upon our ability to calculate and it has the advantage of not asserting any unnecessary "real" descriptions upon "non-physical" things.

Said simply, you call it curved space and I don't like the name.

 

[Yorzhik]

That is the answer, essentially. The clock's never leave each others "frame", though, as Bob suggests they should.

Then I must be misunderstanding what a frame is. There must a "different place" for each clock to reside so that one can age while the other doesn't.

What would you like to test? Propose a test for us. We can accelerate particles to very close to the speed of light. If we count the stationary measuring device as one observer, and the particles whirling around at close to the speed of light as the other, then we've got two observers moving towards each other very, very fast.

I'd like to test metabolism at the very least. A living quarters with many life forms would be even better. It is a way to test multiple "clocks" as it were.

Could we see effects of time dilation with present technology on 2 living quarters rushing toward each other at more than 1/2 the speed of light each? Going faster than the speed of light relative to each other should be a great test.

 

[Clete]

Do we not measure photons by recording their impact on film media? If they leave impact markers then I would expect them to have mass. If they have mass then they can be affected by gravity. If there is a prediction that m_rest = 0 then it seems like it's only another mathematical necessity that never translates into a physical reality.

Said simply, light is always moving and will thus always be affected by gravity.

Actually, I think they have succeeded in bringing a photon to a complete stop.

Don't ask me how. I just remember reading something about it.


More importantly, in my view, is the modern physicist's willingness to abandon common sense and the simple rules of rational thought in order to stay on the road they are currently on.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy." - Albert Einstein (emphasis added)​

The willingness to accept contradiction and to intentionally create one paradox after another makes for really cute quotes, not to mention questionable fashion choices, but it can hardly be considered true science, or any other sort of truth for that matter.

Photons have no mass but photons have momentum that requires mass (by definition).

Photons not only have momentum but angular momentum which means something has to be spinning. Well, what the hell is spinning if a photon is entirely energy, which is what the Relativistic solution for its momentum (i.e. E = pc) presumes?

"But wait!", the modern physicist protests. "Photons are both waves and particles -- depending on how you measure them."

Do you see the problem with this?

If you look at photons a particular way, they look exactly like particles. If you look at them another way, they look exactly like waves. This much is true but photons ARE NOT both waves and particles! And it is precisely this erroneous leap of logic that physicists make that has derailed the whole of science.

I understand the need to go with observation over theory but I do not understand the need to make irrational conclusions based on those observations. I will concede that having done so has lead to some amazing discoveries and that a very large portion of our modern society exists because of such "out of the box" thinking but getting good results from bad behavior does not turn the bad behavior into good behavior. Good science would be looking at the contradictions, prying at them, pounding away at them until they crack, not blithely accepting them as irrational facts of life as though there really were such a thing.

Another problem with photons is how physicists will concede that they probably have some mass while moving (as Johnny said, the zero mass idea has to do with when a photon is at rest). Well if a moving photon has mass, how could it move at the speed of light? Wouldn't you have to multiply that mass by infinity once it reached the speed of light? Isn't that the reason the speed of light cannot be reached by anything else but light?

Anyway, I wish I could go more into that issue but, as usual, I'm out of time. I'll have to leave it that and let you guys hash it out for a while.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'd hate for anyone to think I've plagarized anything so in the interest of full disclosure (which I think is rather silly in the context of such an informal internet chat), I found the article I was thinking of when I mentioned that I had read something about bringing a photon to a complete stop and it inspired much of this post. Here's a link to that web page.

 

[chair]

Actually, I think they have succeeded in bringing a photon to a complete stop.

Don't ask me how. I just remember reading something about it.


More importantly, in my view, is the modern physicist's willingness to abandon common sense and the simple rules of rational thought in order to stay on the road they are currently on.

"Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy." - Albert Einstein (emphasis added)​

The willingness to accept contradiction and to intentionally create one paradox after another makes for really cute quotes, not to mention questionable fashion choices, but it can hardly be considered true science, or any other sort of truth for that matter.

Photons have no mass but photons have momentum that requires mass (by definition).

Photons not only have momentum but angular momentum which means something has to be spinning. Well, what the hell is spinning if a photon is entirely energy, which is what the Relativistic solution for its momentum (i.e. E = pc) presumes?

"But wait!", the modern physicist protests. "Photons are both waves and particles -- depending on how you measure them."

Do you see the problem with this?

If you look at photons a particular way, they look exactly like particles. If you look at them another way, they look exactly like waves. This much is true but photons ARE NOT both waves and particles! And it is precisely this erroneous leap of logic that physicists make that has derailed the whole of science.

I understand the need to go with observation over theory but I do not understand the need to make irrational conclusions based on those observations. I will concede that having done so has lead to some amazing discoveries and that a very large portion of our modern society exists because of such "out of the box" thinking but getting good results from bad behavior does not turn the bad behavior into good behavior. Good science would be looking at the contradictions, prying at them, pounding away at them until they crack, not blithely accepting them as irrational facts of life as though there really were such a thing.

Another problem with photons is how physicists will concede that they probably have some mass while moving (as Johnny said, the zero mass idea has to do with when a photon is at rest). Well if a moving photon has mass, how could it move at the speed of light? Wouldn't you have to multiply that mass by infinity once it reached the speed of light? Isn't that the reason the speed of light cannot be reached by anything else but light?

Anyway, I wish I could go more into that issue but, as usual, I'm out of time. I'll have to leave it that and let you guys hash it out for a while.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'd hate for anyone to think I've plagarized anything so in the interest of full disclosure (which I think is rather silly in the context of such an informal internet chat), I found the article I was thinking of when I mentioned that I had read something about bringing a photon to a complete stop and it inspired much of this post. Here's a link to that web page.

Too bad that you didn't read, or at least didn't understand, the answer posted in the source that you quoted.

Scientist did not come up with these theories in order to come up with "cute quotes". They came up with these theories because the old theories, the ones that are more intuitive and fit with your (and most people's) idea of "common sense" don't work. The old theories do not explain the observed experimental results. The new theories explain them quite well, and make predictions that have been tested.

The new theories work. They are "true" in the sense that any scientific theory is true. It is unfortunate that they don't "make sense" to you. That is largely a result of ignorance, and that can be cured by learning. Read. Take a course in modern physics.

And give science and scientists a little credit. They have managed to accomplish a thing or two over the past few centuries.

 

[Johnny]

I'm prepared to accept that photons have mass and the only time they may not have mass is when they are at rest. I'm also prepared to accept that photons are never at rest

Very well then. I would add "relativistic" in front of the word mass in your sentence, but otherwise I agree.

You call this explanation "curved space" and claim that it explains exactly what is happening. But you could just have easily called it anything and have claimed it explained what is going on.

Well, no, I couldn't. Curved space is the best way to describe what the models imply. Einsteins general relativity is actually a bunch of differential geometry which describes the relationship between mass and the shape of space. It doesn't just say "curved spacetime explains everything" and leave it at that. In other words, if you take a gravitational field, Einstein's general relativity explains exactly what the geometric configuration of space is that produces what we feel as the gravitational field. Then, it allows you to precisely predict the behavior of a photon passing through that geometric configuration of space, it allows you to predict what massive bodies would behave like passing through that geometry, it allows you to predict how clocks will run in that configuration, etc. It's like Newtons equations on steroids. Newton just observed relationships. Einstein provided a rationale, which explained the relationships to far greater accuracy. Again, no matter how counter-intuitive, it makes testable predictions.

I believe it is possible to arrive at relativistic accuracy by using a mathematical system called Adjusted Newtonian Mechanics based on the assumption that gravity affects the instruments we use to measure time and space.

I know. That's absurd and completely anti-science.

 

[Johnny]

More importantly, in my view, is the modern physicist's willingness to abandon common sense and the simple rules of rational thought in order to stay on the road they are currently on.

Which is exactly what they should do if the road they're on continues to make ever more precise predictions.

Common sense does not have a place in science. A large portion of what science deals with is outside what information is normally available to our senses, or is outside of our common experience. Thus, to claim that our common experience -- our common sense -- should be a reasonable guide in science is, I believe, misguided.

Humans evolved (or were created -- our origin is irrelevant in this argument) in the context of a very limited scope of reality. We live in a world of mountains and ants, and we have developed our principles of rationality and common sense around things which we easily perceive. Things fall to earth when dropped, objects cannot pass through other solid objects, a wave cannot also be a particle, an object can only spin in one direction, time flows the same for everyone, etc. These are ideas that are developed out of our common experience, and our brains don't possess the ability to comprehend anything different.

It requires a special kind of arrogance to claim that what we perceive in our every day earth experience somehow applies to everything, on every scale, in the universe. Yet for some reason, humans have a knack for thinking that their extremely limited experience allows them to understand everything in the universe. There is a whole universe out there that exists outside the realm of anything we will ever perceive directly, and it is silly to assume that our common experience should have any relevance in these matters.

There is the universe on a galactic scale, with distances so vast that we had to invent the concept of light-years just to put reasonable numbers on them. There are objects so massive that they implode on themselves, creating such strong curvature of space that even light becomes trapped. There are pulsars with their tremendous rotational velocity, and there are objects so far away that they are receding from us faster than the speed of light.

Then there is the quantum world, on scales so small that even with our best technology we cannot even approach. There is wave particle duality, there are wavefunctions, there are point particles with spin but with no dimensions, there are particles that are somehow intrinsically entangled, there are particles with both up and down spin simultaneously, there are single particles that seem to travel through two separate slits simultaneously in order to interfere with itself and alter its course appropriately, and then there is the strange fact that if we try and actually observe which slit the particles goes through, the results change completely.

Sure, all of these things present serious problems for our brains. We are ill-equipped to comprehend them, let alone even imagine them. But to claim our inability to comprehend these ideas as a basis for rejecting them is, in my opinion, silly. Indeed our only guiding light is to experiment, the foundation of science. If a model is incomprehensible yet consistently yields strong experimental results, then who are we to claim the idea is wrong because it does not fit in with what we know from our common experience? We are nothing in this universe. We inhabit but a tiny tiny fraction of a fraction of the scales on which this universe operates, yet we are attempting to model the whole universe. It's silly to expect that everything should make complete sense to us.

Well if a moving photon has mass, how could it move at the speed of light? Wouldn't you have to multiply that mass by infinity once it reached the speed of light? Isn't that the reason the speed of light cannot be reached by anything else but light?

Technically, according to our models, a massive body can move at the speed of light, it just can't be accelerated to the speed of light.

 

[Clete]

Too bad that you didn't read, or at least didn't understand, the answer posted in the source that you quoted.

I've read it several times, jackass.

If you had read and understood my post you would have noticed that I drew from both the question asked and the answered offered to it.

Scientist did not come up with these theories in order to come up with "cute quotes".

I didn't say they did.

They came up with these theories because the old theories, the ones that are more intuitive and fit with your (and most people's) idea of "common sense" don't work.

If common sense were all they were bucking against I wouldn't have a problem, its the law of contradiction that they're ignoring that I have a problem with.

The old theories do not explain the observed experimental results.

No kidding. But that isn't an excuse to leap off into irrationality. Indeed, simply stating "The old theories do not explain the observed experimental results." is itself a rationally unfounded conclusion. It would be more accurate to say that we have not yet figured out a way to reconcile the old theories with observed experimental results.

Where you aware of the existence of mathematically rigorous theories that attempt to reconcile those experimental results without throwing Newton (not to mention common sense and sound reason) into the garbage bin

The new theories explain them quite well, and make predictions that have been tested.

Actually they only account for them, they do not explain them. No one can explain how space, which is nothing, can be bent. The theories state that space is bent but do not explain HOW or WHY it is bent.

The new theories work. They are "true" in the sense that any scientific theory is true.

This begs the question. I am not going to expain to you why. Figure it out for yourself - or not.

It is unfortunate that they don't "make sense" to you.

"To me" is irrelevant. The truth is NOT contradictory. Your so called science says otherwise. It is therefore false - by definition. That isn't my opinion, its a fact.

That is largely a result of ignorance, and that can be cured by learning. Read. Take a course in modern physics.

More question begging B.S.

And give science and scientists a little credit. They have managed to accomplish a thing or two over the past few centuries.

Did you even read my post?

You know what, you can just kiss my butt. I don't give a damn about you or anything else you have to say. Consider yourself ignored from this point forward.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Sure, all of these things present serious problems for our brains. We are ill-equipped to comprehend them, let alone even imagine them. But to claim our inability to comprehend these ideas as a basis for rejecting them is, in my opinion, silly.

That isn't the claim I made.

Do you know what the law of contradiction is? I'm talking not about our ability to fully grasp every detail of some particular phenomena, I'm talking about our ability to know something - anything. I might not be able to understand and explain precisely what a photon is but what I do know is that it is what it is. That might sound like a silly, obvious thing to say, and indeed I hope that it does sound rather obvious because that is nothing more than one of the laws of reason. Its called the Law of Identity, which states that a thing is what it is and/or that a thing is not something other than what it is. In other words, we can KNOW that a claim which presents a contradiction is a false claim in some respect. But Quantum Mechanics and Relativity insist that contradiction is at the heart of the very nature of nature! And my point is that once we are willing to throw the simple laws of reason out the window we not only throw science out the window but all knowledge of any kind, whether scientific or otherwise!

Indeed our only guiding light is to experiment, the foundation of science.

Experimentation could not be done without REASON! And modern physicists use the very experimentation that their reason says they should perform and evaluate the results of that experimentation with reason and then come up with a conclusion that states that they should throw out reason!

Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a problem with that?

If a model is incomprehensible yet consistently yields strong experimental results, then who are we to claim the idea is wrong because it does not fit in with what we know from our common experience?

I repent of having used the phrase "common sense". What I'm talking about is the very objective, absolutely undeniable, unflappable, irrefragable laws of reason.

We are nothing in this universe. We inhabit but a tiny tiny fraction of a fraction of the scales on which this universe operates, yet we are attempting to model the whole universe. It's silly to expect that everything should make complete sense to us.

Once again, just to repeat for emphasis, I'm not talking about complete understanding. If that were the case then nothing could be considered science because there is very little, if anything, that we completely understand in every respect. I'm simply stating that we should not accept as fact that which is contradictory, like "a photon is both a particle and a wave", or "space is something that is nothing", for example.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chair]

That isn't the claim I made.

Do you know what the law of contradiction is? I'm talking not about our ability to fully grasp every detail of some particular phenomena, I'm talking about our ability to know something - anything. I might not be able to understand and explain precisely what a photon is but what I do know is that it is what it is. That might sound like a silly, obvious thing to say, and indeed I hope that it does sound rather obvious because that is nothing more than one of the laws of reason. Its called the Law of Identity, which states that a thing is what it is and/or that a thing is not something other than what it is. In other words, we can KNOW that a claim which presents a contradiction is a false claim in some respect. But Quantum Mechanics and Relativity insist that contradiction is at the heart of the very nature of nature! And my point is that once we are willing to throw the simple laws of reason out the window we not only throw science out the window but all knowledge of any kind, whether scientific or otherwise!



Experimentation could not be done without REASON! And modern physicists use the very experimentation that their reason says they should perform and evaluate the results of that experimentation with reason and then come up with a conclusion that states that they should throw out reason!

Are you seriously telling me that you don't see a problem with that?


I repent of having used the phrase "common sense". What I'm talking about is the very objective, absolutely undeniable, unflappable, irrefragable laws of reason.


Once again, just to repeat for emphasis, I'm not talking about complete understanding. If that were the case then nothing could be considered science because there is very little, if anything, that we completely understand in every respect. I'm simply stating that we should not accept as fact that which is contradictory, like "a photon is both a particle and a wave", or "space is something that is nothing", for example.

Resting in Him,
Clete

sigh.
hopeless, I guess.

 

[Stripe]

Well, no, I couldn't. Curved space is the best way to describe what the models imply.

:squint: The models you are using to imply something are already called curved space!

I will agree with you that to explain the mathematics it is helpful to refer to a thing called curved space and it is helpful to demonstrate what happens by making analogies to depressions being formed in fabric. But these explanations do not force a physical reality upon what is not a physical thing.

Einsteins general relativity is actually a bunch of differential geometry which describes the relationship between mass and the shape of space.

The "shape of space" is an attempt to standardise the way we measure so that when we do calculations they can all be done with reference to some constants. But the differential geometry must always be done to describe the relationship between two physical entities. It is meaningless to describe an objects motion as compared to space. An objects motion must be compared to another object.

...[relativity] is like Newtons equations on steroids.

I would say that relativity is Newtonian equations with a correction for the effect of gravity on the tools being used to measure.

I know. That's absurd and completely anti-science.

Why? It's exactly what happened (you just admitted as much above). The only difference is the name.

 

[Lighthouse]

If that were the case, particle accelerators should be able to easily accelerate particles to far beyond light speed.

Really? Why?

That equation doesn't mean a particle must have mass to have energy. It only tells you how much energy a given relativistic mass is equal to.

Then explain how something has energy without mass...

If gravity didn't propagate through space, how could it affect anything?

How does a magnet work?

In the following post from chair's Science, Intuition and "it doesn't make sense" you said you reject the theory of relativity not because you don't understand it, but because you do:

And?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

lain:

Space being nothing, for instance.

What is it?

Do you need mass to have potential energy?

:dunce::duh:

That's patently wrong. A particle can have potential energy because of its charge, for instance.

In that scenario the energy belongs to the charge.

:blabla:

Before posting what I said about photons having momentum I did a quick search just to make sure I hadn't gotten the idea confused with another and I came across the same information on Wikipedia. The first thing that hit me is the implied contradiction.

If p=mv

and

If E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

then

E² = m²c⁴ + (mv)²c²

then substituting M=0 yields...

E² = 0c⁴ + 0c²

or

E² = 0

or

E = 0

Then taking your math quoted above...

p = E/c

p = 0/c

p = 0

No matter how you slice it, the answer comes up zero. Zero mass = zero energy. Zero energy = no photon.

How can a non photon with no energy have momentum?

It seems Relativity, in spite of its usefulness in predicting certain things, is riddled with contradictions, both in common sense and mathematics. In short, my position is that there is something about Relativity that gets things right but it seems like it does so in spite of itself. As though its getting to some aspect of the truth through the back door, if you will.
One might argue that Relativity is the best we've got but I think its way over stepping to hold to the idea that Relativity has been proven to be factual in every respect. The truth is not contradictory and thus, no matter how much one might like Einstein's theory, it can and almost certainly will be replaced with something far superior that not only explains the phenomena that Relativity accurately predicts but does so without all the obvious contradictions.


Resting in Him,
Clete

:thumb:

Well, duh, you're using the formula for momentum of a particle with mass on a particle with no mass.

Care to explain how something with no mass can gain mass simply because it moves?

Strong work, Clete.

However, you've substituted a newtonian equation (p=mv) into a relativistic equation and noted the apparent contradiction. This is to be expected when using "outdated" Newtonian equations. In order to use the Newtonian equation to define the momentum of a photon, you have to use the photon's relativistic mass, m_rel (m = E / c²). When physicists say that photons have no mass, they are referring to the photon's rest mass, or m_rest.

This is something that is really tangential to the rest of this thread. Massless photons are not a direct prediction of relativity, so I think that you are misguided when (or if) you point out this as a contradiction of relativity. Massless photons are a prediction of our current models, and, as noted, we are able to put an upper limit on the mass of photons by indirectly measuring their effects. Currently this upper limit on photon rest mass is over ten orders of magnitude less massive than electrons.

Relativity actually explains how photons have momentum by defining them in terms of relativistic mass via the mass-energy equivalence principle. Without relativity, the momentum of photons would be unexplained. Again, relativity does not specifically predict that photons have no rest mass -- that's something born out of other models.

Perhaps one day we will discover that photons do, in fact, have a rest mass. This will require adjusting a lot of what we know about the universe to account for it, but I have no doubt that some young physicists would be up to the challenge.

As far as I know, the mathematics is sound. This would be the first thing physicists would pick up on.

I agree. Relativity, like the models before it, and like all scientific theories, is only an approximation of the truth. As our ability to precisely measure the universe continues to evolve, so will our models evolve towards ever increasing accuracy in explaining and predicting natural phenomena.

Relativity is almost certainly not the whole picture, as it has yet to be reconciled with some aspects of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, like relativity, has volumes of evidence supporting the current models (and perhaps to a far greater precision). One of these theories needs to be modified, and I have little doubt that within our life time someone will figure out how to make these them compatible. But it will not come without adjusting our current views, even if only slightly.

So, Newton was wrong and Einstein is correct?

What makes you so sure?

Go read a book on the topic. You are woefully ignorant.

You are willfully ignorant.

 

[pozzolane]

...Then explain how something has energy without mass...

...Care to explain how something with no mass can gain mass simply because it moves?...

To you, and in terms you can comprehend? My dear Lighthouse, such a feat is impossible.

So, Newton was wrong and Einstein is correct?

Wrong. They are both correct, however, one is more accurate than the other. If you had a basic junior college level understanding of the scientific method and science philosophy, you would have never asked such a question.

 

[Lighthouse]

To you, and in terms you can comprehend? My dear Lighthouse, such a feat is impossible.

Not according to the tests I was given in second grade.

Wrong. They are both correct, however, one is more accurate than the other. If you had a basic junior college level understanding of the scientific method and science philosophy, you would have never asked such a question.

Understanding and education are not the same thing.

But I don't expect you to care to be honest and forthright here. All you've shown is contempt and disinterest. You have no desire to even try to discuss these things. You're a selfish, conceited little brat.