As you approach the speed of light, any change of movement begins to slow down, because time begins to slow down.
This implies that consistency, such as continuing to travel across space at a high velocity, can still occur even if your clock has stopped, but change is what can no longer occur.
Therefore, if you are a photon, and time is at a stand still for you, then no movement in the form of change can occur, since Time is at a stand still.
And so, how can the properties of a Photon " Change " if Time is at a stand still for that Photon.
As you may recall, according to my theories, Photons also travel across Time with the same amount of momentum as do they travel across Space, Hence the momentum of C*SQRT2 across Time-Space.
If a Photon passes through three polarized filters, with the first being a Horizontally polarized filter, the second being a polarized filter that is rotated 45 degrees relative to the first, and the third being a Vertically polarized filter, then 25% of the light will pass through the three filter combination.
In this example, the polarity property of the Photon clearly has changed, since it started by passing through the first Horizontally polarized filter, and then at the end it had to exit through the Vertically polarized filter. To do so, change must occur.
If " Change must occur ", then Time must permit it.
If " Time must permit it ", then the Photon must be passing across the dimension of Time as well as across the dimension of Space, just as my theory says.
KSP
I hope what I say is OK .. it ought to be mainstream but the mainstream seems to have dived off in another direction entirely so now I'm not so sure. If I get sent to stand in the crackpot corner I'll have a rethink.
As you approach the speed of light, any change of movement begins to slow down, because time begins to slow down.
There is a star which is exactly ten light years away (convenient or what?). I'll call it B. I'll call our star A. Everybody gets really good clocks .. nothing wrong with any of them. We are currently receiving television signals which left B in 1996 so we say that in spacetime terms B is X million miles and 10 years away from us. Naturally on B they are receiving our TV from 1996 and they are symettrically X million miles and 10 years away. If we had sent off an encoded version of the Right Stuff off in 1996 then it would arrive at B in 2006 and it would still be the same 1996 encoded version that we sent off in 1996. It follows that for the encoded version that no time has passed and that the spacetime trip between A and B is equivalent to a journey forwards in time by ten years. Has time slowed down for anyone or does it all actually make perfect sense? Although a spaceship (obviously) can't do the trip in zero time (like light) it can get fairly close and all the nonsense about comparing clocks and how fast they go carries on until somebody explains what is really happenning. (I doubt that person will be me).
This implies that consistency, such as continuing to travel across space at a high velocity, can still occur even if your clock has stopped, but change is what can no longer occur.
It would be an odd business indeed if photons started making up new Simpon's episodes on their way to planet B.
Therefore, if you are a photon, and time is at a stand still for you, then no movement in the form of change can occur, since Time is at a stand still.
I'm not sure which way round the logic ought to be but the result seems OK to me.
As you may recall, according to my theories, Photons also travel across Time with the same amount of momentum as do they travel across Space, Hence the momentum of C*SQRT2 across Time-Space.
No comment.
If a Photon passes through three polarized filters, with the first being a Horizontally polarized filter, the second being a polarized filter that is rotated 45 degrees relative to the first, and the third being a Vertically polarized filter, then 25% of the light will pass through the three filter combination.
Seems Ok so far
In this example, the polarity property of the Photon clearly has changed, since it started by passing through the first Horizontally polarized filter, and then at the end it had to exit through the Vertically polarized filter. To do so, change must occur.
Ok
If " Change must occur ", then Time must permit it.
There might be a delay in the filters.
If " Time must permit it ", then the Photon must be passing across the dimension of Time as well as across the dimension of Space, just as my theory says.
I don't think any general conclusion about photons and/or the dimension of time can be drawn from the possibility of a delay caused by a polarised filter.
-C2.
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
As you approach the speed of light, any change of movement begins to slow down, because time begins to slow down.
There is a star which is exactly ten light years away (convenient or what?). I'll call it B. I'll call our star A. Everybody gets really good clocks .. nothing wrong with any of them. We are currently receiving television signals which left B in 1996 so we say that in spacetime terms B is X million miles and 10 years away from us. Naturally on B they are receiving our TV from 1996 and they are symettrically X million miles and 10 years away. If we had sent off an encoded version of the Right Stuff off in 1996 then it would arrive at B in 2006 and it would still be the same 1996 encoded version that we sent off in 1996. It follows that for the encoded version that no time has passed and that the spacetime trip between A and B is equivalent to a journey forwards in time by ten years. Has time slowed down for anyone or does it all actually make perfect sense? Although a spaceship (obviously) can't do the trip in zero time (like light) it can get fairly close and all the nonsense about comparing clocks and how fast they go carries on until somebody explains what is really happenning. (I doubt that person will be me).
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
This implies that consistency, such as continuing to travel across space at a high velocity, can still occur even if your clock has stopped, but change is what can no longer occur.
It would be an odd business indeed if photons started making up new Simpon's episodes on their way to planet B.
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
Therefore, if you are a photon, and time is at a stand still for you, then no movement in the form of change can occur, since Time is at a stand still.
I'm not sure which way round the logic ought to be but the result seems OK to me.
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
As you may recall, according to my theories, Photons also travel across Time with the same amount of momentum as do they travel across Space, Hence the momentum of C*SQRT2 across Time-Space.
No comment.
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
If a Photon passes through three polarized filters, with the first being a Horizontally polarized filter, the second being a polarized filter that is rotated 45 degrees relative to the first, and the third being a Vertically polarized filter, then 25% of the light will pass through the three filter combination.
Seems Ok so far
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
In this example, the polarity property of the Photon clearly has changed, since it started by passing through the first Horizontally polarized filter, and then at the end it had to exit through the Vertically polarized filter. To do so, change must occur.
Ok
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
If " Change must occur ", then Time must permit it.
There might be a delay in the filters.
QUOTE (The Right Stuff+)
If " Time must permit it ", then the Photon must be passing across the dimension of Time as well as across the dimension of Space, just as my theory says.
I don't think any general conclusion about photons and/or the dimension of time can be drawn from the possibility of a delay caused by a polarised filter.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 19 2006, 03:12 PM)
I don't think any general conclusion about photons and/or the dimension of time can be drawn from the possibility of a delay caused by a polarized filter.
Sorry about the Delay in getting back to you, but I was asleep, so no real Change occurred in my opinions, since I was asleep during the Delay.
Describe this Delay that you speak of, and how it has power over that photon that may be be frozen in Time, the power needed to change the photon's properties despite it being frozen in time.
Sorry about the Delay in getting back to you, but I was asleep, so no real Change occurred in my opinions, since I was asleep during the Delay.
Describe this Delay that you speak of, and how it has power over that photon that may be be frozen in Time, the power needed to change the photon's properties despite it being frozen in time.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 19 2006, 03:12 PM)
It follows that for the encoded version that no time has passed and that the spacetime trip between A and B is equivalent to a journey forwards in time by ten years. Has time slowed down for anyone or does it all actually make perfect sense ?
You say that it is an " equivalent to a journey forwards in time by ten years ".
With this being the case, no " Change " has occurred for the encoded version of the Right Stuff, no change for a period of 10 years. Therefore it appears to the encoded version of the Right Stuff, as thought it has journeyed forward in Time by 10 years.
In Short, a 10 year Delay of any events happening to the encoded version of The Right Stuff, has occurred.
And so, the encoded version of The Right Stuff remained exactly as it was, and did so throughout those ten years.
It has interacted with nothing as it stands still in time.
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
You say that it is an " equivalent to a journey forwards in time by ten years ".
With this being the case, no " Change " has occurred for the encoded version of the Right Stuff, no change for a period of 10 years. Therefore it appears to the encoded version of the Right Stuff, as thought it has journeyed forward in Time by 10 years.
In Short, a 10 year Delay of any events happening to the encoded version of The Right Stuff, has occurred.
And so, the encoded version of The Right Stuff remained exactly as it was, and did so throughout those ten years.
It has interacted with nothing as it stands still in time.
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
TRS, the fact that the photon changes/waves is proof that light has its own time/clock. Light's clock is the fastest. 
Hi Nick,TRS,
Nick: WE normally get photons from a source where the number of photons emitted varies with time .. clearly at every point in the path of those photons the number of photons detected will vary with time .. by my definition of a wave this is not a 'wave'. For the properties of a single photon see quantum mechanics (eg http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html )
TRS:
I think we have a surprising amount of agreement on some points but an underlying difference of interpretation. Would it be OK to concentrate on establishing the agreed facts?
Happily it seems muons are pretty much ideal for the purpose .. they don't have clocks in them but they do have a well established decay rate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...iv/muon.html#c3
If you slide down to the bottom of the page there is a funky calculator thing. You can put 1.00 c in for the muon speed and see that none decay during the trip through spacetime between upper atmosphere and detector. This is all mainstream standard relativity stuff.
Do muons and the calculator thing give the results you expect?
You seem to want to draw us into a discussion of the mechanism of polarisation .. is this fundamental to the point you wish to make? Can I suggest we just put a block of glass about a foot thick in the path of the encoded TRS .. this might give a delay that is easier to analyse.
For convenience of analysis I propose we 'invent' a type of photon with a muon type decay built into it .. a muoton. (?) . My prediction is that a TRS encoded into a beam of muotons could be beamed out to a star 10 light years away and not a single muoton would decay. The spacetime movement would equate to a distance shift of 10 light years and a time shift of 10 years. For the muoton no time would pass.
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
I don't understand the emphasis you seem to place on this. If the path includes interactions then there are interactions and if it doesn't then there aren't.
If the muotons pass through a glass block .. hm .. I predict there would 'probably' be some decay during this part of the trip . Assuming we agree that light travels more slowly through glass than a vacuum then the precise mechanism would be crucial. If we regarded the delay as being due to some sort of multiple internal reflection type process then no decays but if we regarded the delay as being due to interaction between our muotons and the components of the block then our muotons would cease to be 'pure' muotons and we would have to determine the decay rate of the (effective) new particle type.
-C2.
Experimental results for muons are briefly summarised here...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../muonex.html#c2
Nick: WE normally get photons from a source where the number of photons emitted varies with time .. clearly at every point in the path of those photons the number of photons detected will vary with time .. by my definition of a wave this is not a 'wave'. For the properties of a single photon see quantum mechanics (eg http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html )
TRS:
I think we have a surprising amount of agreement on some points but an underlying difference of interpretation. Would it be OK to concentrate on establishing the agreed facts?
Happily it seems muons are pretty much ideal for the purpose .. they don't have clocks in them but they do have a well established decay rate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...iv/muon.html#c3
If you slide down to the bottom of the page there is a funky calculator thing. You can put 1.00 c in for the muon speed and see that none decay during the trip through spacetime between upper atmosphere and detector. This is all mainstream standard relativity stuff.
Do muons and the calculator thing give the results you expect?
You seem to want to draw us into a discussion of the mechanism of polarisation .. is this fundamental to the point you wish to make? Can I suggest we just put a block of glass about a foot thick in the path of the encoded TRS .. this might give a delay that is easier to analyse.
For convenience of analysis I propose we 'invent' a type of photon with a muon type decay built into it .. a muoton. (?) . My prediction is that a TRS encoded into a beam of muotons could be beamed out to a star 10 light years away and not a single muoton would decay. The spacetime movement would equate to a distance shift of 10 light years and a time shift of 10 years. For the muoton no time would pass.
QUOTE (TRS+)
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
I don't understand the emphasis you seem to place on this. If the path includes interactions then there are interactions and if it doesn't then there aren't.
If the muotons pass through a glass block .. hm .. I predict there would 'probably' be some decay during this part of the trip . Assuming we agree that light travels more slowly through glass than a vacuum then the precise mechanism would be crucial. If we regarded the delay as being due to some sort of multiple internal reflection type process then no decays but if we regarded the delay as being due to interaction between our muotons and the components of the block then our muotons would cease to be 'pure' muotons and we would have to determine the decay rate of the (effective) new particle type.
-C2.
Experimental results for muons are briefly summarised here...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../muonex.html#c2
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 20 2006, 12:06 PM)
You seem to want to draw us into a discussion of the mechanism of polarization .. is this fundamental to the point you wish to make?
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
I don't understand the emphasis you seem to place on this. If the path includes interactions then there are interactions and if it doesn't then there aren't.
The Polarization is simply brought to the surface to point out that CHANGES may actually occur to a Photon.
Also, I am attempting to clarify what it means to be at a stand still in time.
If we approach the speed of light, then time would stop, but we would continue to move across Space.
Motion continues even though we are frozen in Time, however " CHANGES " can NOT occur any longer now that we are frozen in Time !
But in the Photon Polarized filter experiment, CHANGES do occur.
Therefore logic says that a Photon is not at a stand still in time at all.
If a Photon is frozen in time, then there is no source of a beginning to allow a change to occur.
You could argue that there is always matter somewhere and a photon will interact with anything and everything so it is never truly 'free' .. is this the point you wish to establish? It seems (experimentally) that photons behave pretty much as though they are free to the point where length is now defined in terms of time and the speed of light.
You could argue that there is always matter somewhere and a photon will interact with anything and everything so it is never truly 'free' .. is this the point you wish to establish? It seems (experimentally) that photons behave pretty much as though they are free to the point where length is now defined in terms of time and the speed of light.
Therefore I say again, light not only travels across Space at the C momentum, but it also travels across time with " C " momentum, hence the momentum of light across Space-Time is C*SQRT2.
Momentum was defined by Newton in the 17th century. p = m v . It is a definition therefore not open to modification.
The definition is as useful as it ever was ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
E = sqrt( (pc)^2 + (m0c^2)^2) where m0 is the rest mass. Note this is precisely the same as the apparently simpler E = m c^2 but uses only rest mass instead of the (nightmare) 'relativistic mass'.
By using momentum in the 'wrong' way it just seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
You could invent a new word (say) 'flop' and say that flop (by definition) = c^2 . I don't think this would get either of us any further forward.
The current understanding of spacetime is explained (a bit) here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
I hope this helps,
-C2.
QUOTE (TRS+)
NON of the Properties of the encoded version of The Right Stuff " Changed " during that ten year " Delay " of possible events, of possible interactions.
I don't understand the emphasis you seem to place on this. If the path includes interactions then there are interactions and if it doesn't then there aren't.
The Polarization is simply brought to the surface to point out that CHANGES may actually occur to a Photon.
Also, I am attempting to clarify what it means to be at a stand still in time.
If we approach the speed of light, then time would stop, but we would continue to move across Space.
Motion continues even though we are frozen in Time, however " CHANGES " can NOT occur any longer now that we are frozen in Time !
But in the Photon Polarized filter experiment, CHANGES do occur.
Therefore logic says that a Photon is not at a stand still in time at all.
We seem to have a problem differentiating between a photon travelling in vacuum (where I maintain the clock is 'frozen') and a photon interacting with 'something' where I maintain the clock runs at a rate determined by the type of interaction.
From the possibility of the clock running during an interaction you wish to draw the conclusion that the clock is running even when there is no interaction?
My 'explanation' for what it's worth is that an 'interacting photon' is no longer purely a photon .. it is a combination of itself and the things it is interacting with. Any interaction is going to be extremely difficult to analyse in full. A photon going in and a photon coming out gives us no insight whatsoever into what has happened in between. In the case of a photon in glass the analysis should proceed along the lines of a glassblockyphoton and there will be another half to this analysis which will be a photonyglassblock. If a photon interacts with something then it is (by definition) no longer a free photon. If you are truly unable to differentiate between a free photon and an interacting photon and you wish to draw conclusions from that lack of discrimination then that is really the end of the line as far as I am concerned.
-C2.
From the possibility of the clock running during an interaction you wish to draw the conclusion that the clock is running even when there is no interaction?
My 'explanation' for what it's worth is that an 'interacting photon' is no longer purely a photon .. it is a combination of itself and the things it is interacting with. Any interaction is going to be extremely difficult to analyse in full. A photon going in and a photon coming out gives us no insight whatsoever into what has happened in between. In the case of a photon in glass the analysis should proceed along the lines of a glassblockyphoton and there will be another half to this analysis which will be a photonyglassblock. If a photon interacts with something then it is (by definition) no longer a free photon. If you are truly unable to differentiate between a free photon and an interacting photon and you wish to draw conclusions from that lack of discrimination then that is really the end of the line as far as I am concerned.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 20 2006, 01:25 PM)
We seem to have a problem differentiating between a photon traveling in vacuum (where I maintain the clock is 'frozen') and a photon interacting with 'something' where I maintain the clock runs at a rate determined by the type of interaction.
You are actually supporting my point.
If interaction causes the clock to run at a rate determined by the type of interaction, then change must occur.
If it is frozen in time, then it is frozen in time.
To allow change, time is required. An interaction requires Time. That is the function of time.
If a Photon is frozen in time, then there is no source of a beginning to allow a change to occur.
If, however, a particle is in motion that is less than " C ", then time is a ticking, and this allows change to occur, it allows a beginning to occur, it allows this because there is the presence of the property of time which produces the window of opportunity for that beginning.
Without that window of opportunity, there can be no beginning.
Therefore I say again, light not only travels across Space at the C momentum, but it also travels across time with " C " momentum, hence the momentum of light across Space-Time is C*SQRT2.
You are actually supporting my point.
If interaction causes the clock to run at a rate determined by the type of interaction, then change must occur.
If it is frozen in time, then it is frozen in time.
To allow change, time is required. An interaction requires Time. That is the function of time.
If a Photon is frozen in time, then there is no source of a beginning to allow a change to occur.
If, however, a particle is in motion that is less than " C ", then time is a ticking, and this allows change to occur, it allows a beginning to occur, it allows this because there is the presence of the property of time which produces the window of opportunity for that beginning.
Without that window of opportunity, there can be no beginning.
Therefore I say again, light not only travels across Space at the C momentum, but it also travels across time with " C " momentum, hence the momentum of light across Space-Time is C*SQRT2.
QUOTE
If a Photon is frozen in time, then there is no source of a beginning to allow a change to occur.
You could argue that there is always matter somewhere and a photon will interact with anything and everything so it is never truly 'free' .. is this the point you wish to establish? It seems (experimentally) that photons behave pretty much as though they are free to the point where length is now defined in terms of time and the speed of light.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If a Photon is frozen in time, then there is no source of a beginning to allow a change to occur. |
You could argue that there is always matter somewhere and a photon will interact with anything and everything so it is never truly 'free' .. is this the point you wish to establish? It seems (experimentally) that photons behave pretty much as though they are free to the point where length is now defined in terms of time and the speed of light.
Therefore I say again, light not only travels across Space at the C momentum, but it also travels across time with " C " momentum, hence the momentum of light across Space-Time is C*SQRT2.
Momentum was defined by Newton in the 17th century. p = m v . It is a definition therefore not open to modification.
The definition is as useful as it ever was ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1
E = sqrt( (pc)^2 + (m0c^2)^2) where m0 is the rest mass. Note this is precisely the same as the apparently simpler E = m c^2 but uses only rest mass instead of the (nightmare) 'relativistic mass'.
By using momentum in the 'wrong' way it just seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
You could invent a new word (say) 'flop' and say that flop (by definition) = c^2 . I don't think this would get either of us any further forward.
The current understanding of spacetime is explained (a bit) here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
I hope this helps,
-C2.
In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
There is a discussion of space-time intervals
1/ s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2
IMHO this is really the source of all the conceptually unhelpful stuff 'explained' here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...iv/tdil.html#c2
2/ T = T0/ sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
From consideration of equation 1/ it easy to see that trains do not get shorter when they move and clocks do not really run slow .. equation 2/ and it's friends are just vacuous attempts to model equation 1/ without the intervention of sense or understanding. These vacuous attempts are fine in a school environment but on leaving school one is entitled to look a bit deeper .. which (in fairness) is exactly what you are doing
.
-C2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
There is a discussion of space-time intervals
1/ s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2
IMHO this is really the source of all the conceptually unhelpful stuff 'explained' here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...iv/tdil.html#c2
2/ T = T0/ sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
From consideration of equation 1/ it easy to see that trains do not get shorter when they move and clocks do not really run slow .. equation 2/ and it's friends are just vacuous attempts to model equation 1/ without the intervention of sense or understanding. These vacuous attempts are fine in a school environment but on leaving school one is entitled to look a bit deeper .. which (in fairness) is exactly what you are doing
. -C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 22 2006, 11:24 AM)
In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
There is a discussion of space-time intervals
1/ s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2
IMHO this is really the source of all the conceptually unhelpful stuff 'explained' here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...iv/tdil.html#c2
2/ T = T0/ sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
From consideration of equation 1/ it easy to see that trains do not get shorter when they move and clocks do not really run slow .. equation 2/ and it's friends are just vacuous attempts to model equation 1/ without the intervention of sense or understanding. These vacuous attempts are fine in a school environment but on leaving school one is entitled to look a bit deeper .. which (in fairness) is exactly what you are doing .
-C2.
Why label it "unhelpful"? Simply because you don't understand it?
If you buy a copy of RC Tolman "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology" (about 12$ on Amazon), you can find excellent explanations by someone who was Feynman's mentor at Caltech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
There is a discussion of space-time intervals
1/ s^2 = r^2 - c^2t^2
IMHO this is really the source of all the conceptually unhelpful stuff 'explained' here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...iv/tdil.html#c2
2/ T = T0/ sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
From consideration of equation 1/ it easy to see that trains do not get shorter when they move and clocks do not really run slow .. equation 2/ and it's friends are just vacuous attempts to model equation 1/ without the intervention of sense or understanding. These vacuous attempts are fine in a school environment but on leaving school one is entitled to look a bit deeper .. which (in fairness) is exactly what you are doing
. -C2.
Why label it "unhelpful"? Simply because you don't understand it?
If you buy a copy of RC Tolman "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology" (about 12$ on Amazon), you can find excellent explanations by someone who was Feynman's mentor at Caltech.
Do you want your arguments to carry any weight?
Give up the authoritive tone Pupamancur.
Give up the authoritive tone Pupamancur.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 22 2006, 09:42 AM)
You could argue that there is always matter somewhere and a photon will interact with anything and everything so it is never truly 'free' .. is this the point you wish to establish?
I am pointing at the fact that for something to change, Time is a required ingredient. If Time is taken out of the equation, such as the Photon's CLK being at a stand still, then there is NO opportunity for the beginning of any change at all.
Yet the polarized light filter experiments produce changes of the Photon's properties !
The fact that it may be the external object that has Time within its equation that attempts to interact with the Photon, in no way what so ever does this mean that photon can change, unless the Photon as well has Time within its equation.
Therefore, logic says that a Photon's CLK is ticking, and with this being the case, it must also be in motion across the dimension of Time, as well as across the dimension of Space.
I am pointing at the fact that for something to change, Time is a required ingredient. If Time is taken out of the equation, such as the Photon's CLK being at a stand still, then there is NO opportunity for the beginning of any change at all.
Yet the polarized light filter experiments produce changes of the Photon's properties !
The fact that it may be the external object that has Time within its equation that attempts to interact with the Photon, in no way what so ever does this mean that photon can change, unless the Photon as well has Time within its equation.
Therefore, logic says that a Photon's CLK is ticking, and with this being the case, it must also be in motion across the dimension of Time, as well as across the dimension of Space.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 22 2006, 09:42 AM)
Momentum was defined by Newton in the 17th century. p = m v . It is a definition therefore not open to modification.
The definition is as useful as it ever was .. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1 E = sqrt( (pc)^2 + (m0c^2)^2) where m0 is the rest mass. Note this is precisely the same as the apparently simpler E = m c^2 but uses only rest mass instead of the (nightmare) 'relativistic mass'.
By using momentum in the 'wrong' way it just seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
The " EARTH " was once flat in the minds of many, but then later on " EARTH " was redefined as a sphere.
Concerning momentum, I am exposing the Momentum of objects, but in this case by adding one additional dimension to the view.
If you choose to remain on the " FLAT " world, so bit it. But as for myself, I choose to expand my awareness, and not let yesterdays understandings hold me back.
The definition is as useful as it ever was .. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1 E = sqrt( (pc)^2 + (m0c^2)^2) where m0 is the rest mass. Note this is precisely the same as the apparently simpler E = m c^2 but uses only rest mass instead of the (nightmare) 'relativistic mass'.
By using momentum in the 'wrong' way it just seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word.
The " EARTH " was once flat in the minds of many, but then later on " EARTH " was redefined as a sphere.
Concerning momentum, I am exposing the Momentum of objects, but in this case by adding one additional dimension to the view.
If you choose to remain on the " FLAT " world, so bit it. But as for myself, I choose to expand my awareness, and not let yesterdays understandings hold me back.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 22 2006, 09:42 AM)
You could invent a new word (say) 'flop' and say that flop (by definition) = c^2 . I don't think this would get either of us any further forward. The current understanding of spacetime is explained (a bit) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Again, I rest my case !
You say " The current understanding of spacetime.. ", and so in short you are saying that there is a chance that in some tomorrow, more will be learnt about that " spacetime ".
What about the Current understanding of " Momentum ", does it not have the same rights ?
Again, I rest my case !
You say " The current understanding of spacetime.. ", and so in short you are saying that there is a chance that in some tomorrow, more will be learnt about that " spacetime ".
What about the Current understanding of " Momentum ", does it not have the same rights ?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.