# What Qm Might Say About Sr

### #86

Posted 27 January 2018 - 04:15 PM

Thank you for allowing me to follow this line of reasoning.

In my consideration of this I next populate the train with a large number of passengers, or Windows works too, and find that each one of them is a little closer than expected in the segment coming towards me, and the opposite in the segment moving away.

This makes a kind of analogy to red and blue shift doppler effects if we think of a wave form drawn over their heads.

The next step in thinking about this is that I can be fooled into thinking that light in the moving object looks like it is travelling faster than c from my reference point, when it isn't, it's speed is still c.

So - when moving to a space-time diagram how do we represent this?

I don't claim to know or to have any new theory, I am just trying to examine this in a broader sense than is traditionally done.

### #87

Posted 29 January 2018 - 03:06 AM

The next step in thinking about this is that I can be fooled into thinking that light in the moving object looks like it is travelling faster than c from my reference point, when it isn't, it's speed is still c.

So - when moving to a space-time diagram how do we represent this?

I don't claim to know or to have any new theory, I am just trying to examine this in a broader sense than is traditionally done.

Representing objects that appear to be moving faster than c on a space-time diagram would either be objects moving backwards in time, in which case they would not be visible, or it would require a 3-D diagram where the moving object appears to rise above the ‘real’ scale and move on to a scale that is expanded in all directions compared to the layers below.

### #88

Posted 30 January 2018 - 03:10 PM

Representing objects that appear to be moving faster than c on a space-time diagram would either be objects moving backwards in time, in which case they would not be visible, or it would require a 3-D diagram where the moving object appears to rise above the ‘real’ scale and move on to a scale that is expanded in all directions compared to the layers below.

Yes, I understand.

What I am trying to visualize is, if we examine events in a space-time diagram then we should presumably relate each cause and effect in it's proper frame of reference.

For example, in the train experiment -

- the original flash and the reflection can both be considered in the train's frame of reference

- experiencing the reflection (illumination) of the rear of the train and the stationary observer should be considered in the frame of reference of the stationary observer and he experiences it at speed = c

In a simple space-time diagram for this we would typically draw it for one frame of reference. This results in the "rays" of light being constructed at a 90deg angle.

I don't think it would come out that way if we essentially overlaid one frame of reference onto the other, and I am not sure if that makes sense.

An example of this would be the stationary observer, knowing the length of the train and being able to calculate how far the "illumination event" was from him calculating that the speed of transmission was something other than c.

Of course this is how we come to know that time and length are dilated but I am trying to visualize how to draw the events.

### #89

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:51 AM

The observer on the platform is inertially at rest and the “known length” of the train is no longer a part of his observation since the length of the train moving at relativistic speeds appears shorter than before as described by the Lorentz transform.

Spacetime diagrams such as Minkowski’s or Epstein’s use c as a dimensional constant rather than as a speed and it would require a separate diagram for every observer and every speed to visualize events as if they were occurring at other than c. Diagrams using c as a variable speed would not depict events as they are observed so I see no purpose in depicting the unobservable.

### #90

Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:58 AM

### #91

Posted 08 February 2018 - 06:06 AM

Which now, I am going to show everyone so they do not get confused. SR on Time-space.

This is how SR and GR handle each-other each one of those little green things that look like hourglasses are reference frames or "Light Cones" movement in (X,Y,Z) which we call 3-D space.

The many Transformations of the Reference Frame " Light Cone"

All of those reference frames are different in shape do to the velocity which can be expressed as Energy and Momentum their shape being transformed by the Movement due to increased energy-mass due to the movement in the location.

There is no location more or less valid, they are all valid in their own "Point of View" of the events, even though their view of it is warped by their movement like a hall of differently shaped mirrors viewing a person standing in a location.

as time progresses the +1 Dimension the values of these points of space may change if Energy-mass changes locations in 3-D space effecting the shape of these "Mirrors" . "Light Cones" or Reference frames.

These changes build and ripple out over space and time as movement happens and energy changes location over time and space.

Energy-mass has a secondary effect Gravity which causes curvature of the space-time the light cones sit in further altering their shape via length contraction and time dilation which are the same effect on two different dimensional elements of the universe which are connected time and space. making the lines between the points of space which connect the "light cones" shorter in the case of "Energy-Mass" Toward the "Energy-Mass's" Location or longer in the case of "Dark Energy or Negative Mass" away from the location.

Which I tried to explain around post 20.

End of Discussion.

**Edited by Vmedvil, 08 February 2018 - 06:42 AM.**

### #92

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:19 AM

Which now, I am going to show everyone so they do not get confused. SR on Time-space.

This is how SR and GR handle each-other each one of those little green things that look like hourglasses are reference frames or "Light Cones" movement in (X,Y,Z) which we call 3-D space.

The many Transformations of the Reference Frame " Light Cone"

All of those reference frames are different in shape do to the velocity which can be expressed as Energy and Momentum their shape being transformed by the Movement due to increased energy-mass due to the movement in the location.

There is no location more or less valid, they are all valid in their own "Point of View" of the events, even though their view of it is warped by their movement like a hall of differently shaped mirrors viewing a person standing in a location.

as time progresses the +1 Dimension the values of these points of space may change if Energy-mass changes locations in 3-D space effecting the shape of these "Mirrors" . "Light Cones" or Reference frames.

These changes build and ripple out over space and time as movement happens and energy changes location over time and space.

Energy-mass has a secondary effect Gravity which causes curvature of the space-time the light cones sit in further altering their shape via length contraction and time dilation which are the same effect on two different dimensional elements of the universe which are connected time and space. making the lines between the points of space which connect the "light cones" shorter in the case of "Energy-Mass" Toward the "Energy-Mass's" Location or longer in the case of "Dark Energy or Negative Mass" away from the location.

Which I tried to explain around post 20.

End of Discussion.

You still believe in quantum mechanics don't you?

Well, according to the false theory you adhere, the most ridiculous assumption holds that photons have no mass. Meaning the gravity of a black cannot effect them. A paradox the standard model doesn't even address.

### #93

Posted 08 February 2018 - 05:43 PM

You still believe in quantum mechanics don't you?

Well, according to the false theory you adhere, the most ridiculous assumption holds that photons have no mass. Meaning the gravity of a black cannot effect them. A paradox the standard model doesn't even address.

It doesn't matter if they have Mass or not it is whether they have Energy/Momentum or not. If it has Energy/Momentum then it is effected by gravity being the same thing in two different forms.

E_{rest}= M_{rest}C^{2}

^{}

**Edited by Vmedvil, 08 February 2018 - 05:51 PM.**

### #94

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:17 PM

It doesn't matter if they have Mass or not it is whether they have Energy/Momentum or not. If it has Energy/Momentum then it is effected by gravity being the same thing in two different forms.

E

_{rest}= M_{rest}C^{2}

^{}

It does have mass or it couldn't possible have kinetic energy any of kind

### #95

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:35 AM

It does have mass or it couldn't possible have kinetic energy any of kind

This is just wrong and, for the sake of other readers, I feel I have to correct it.

E² = (mc²)² + p²c², where m is rest mass and p is momentum. This is the full form of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation (which famously reduces to E=mc² if p=0, i.e. for a body with no momentum.).

Hence, if m=0, **E=pc. **

Applying de Broglie's relation for the wavelength (λ) associated with momentum, viz. p= h/λ, and also bearing in mind that, as for any wave, c=νλ,

E=pc becomes: E=h/λ . νλ = hν, which is just Planck's relation.

The finding that QM entities of zero rest mass can nevertheless possess momentum and energy is fairly fundamental and one of the instances where we have to leave Newton behind.

**Edited by exchemist, 09 February 2018 - 02:40 AM.**

### #96

Posted 09 February 2018 - 08:41 AM

### #97

Posted 09 February 2018 - 09:47 AM

This is just wrong and, for the sake of other readers, I feel I have to correct it.

E² = (mc²)² + p²c², where m is rest mass and p is momentum. This is the full form of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation (which famously reduces to E=mc² if p=0, i.e. for a body with no momentum.).

Hence, if m=0,

E=pc.

Applying de Broglie's relation for the wavelength (λ) associated with momentum, viz. p= h/λ, and also bearing in mind that, as for any wave, c=νλ,

E=pc becomes: E=h/λ . νλ = hν, which is just Planck's relation.

The finding that QM entities of zero rest mass can nevertheless possess momentum and energy is fairly fundamental and one of the instances where we have to leave Newton behind.

Math is not experimental evidence because it can either be evidence of kinetic energy from zero mass which goes against first principles of physics or it can be mathematical evidence that a photon actually does have mass, the latter being more likely because it causes less problems.

**Edited by Super Polymath, 09 February 2018 - 09:55 AM.**

### #98

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:10 AM

Math is not experimental evidence because it can either be evidence of kinetic energy from zero mass which goes against first principles of physics or it can be mathematical evidence that a photon actually does have mass, the latter being more likely because it causes less problems.

I don't disagree with this statement, and math is only useful when based on correct assumptions, but it is necessary to go beyond "more likely".

This is off The original topic, but if you have something more than "it could be either" then I am happy to listen.

### #99

Posted 10 February 2018 - 04:54 AM

I don't disagree with this statement, and math is only useful when based on correct assumptions, but it is necessary to go beyond "more likely".

This is off The original topic, but if you have something more than "it could be either" then I am happy to listen.

The formula I quoted has been found experimentally to work. I have shown how the limiting case for zero mass results in Planck's relation, which is verified every day in countless experiments. And the same goes for the zero momentum case.

So this not just a mathematical argument. It is (mathematical) statement of a scientific theory, i.e. a theory that successfully predicts how the world behaves.

### #100

Posted 10 February 2018 - 10:30 AM

The formula I quoted has been found experimentally to work. I have shown how the limiting case for zero mass results in Planck's relation, which is verified every day in countless experiments. And the same goes for the zero momentum case.

So this not just a mathematical argument. It is (mathematical) statement of a scientific theory, i.e. a theory that successfully predicts how the world behaves.

Yes, I agree. I was really just asking Super Polymath to elaborate on what he is trying to say.

### #101

Posted 10 February 2018 - 11:15 AM

Yes, I agree. I was really just asking Super Polymath to elaborate on what he is trying to say.

I'm saying it's not something like magnetism or reflective thermal heating resulting in the energy production, it can't be if the gravity of a black hole effects it. Unlike other stellar objects black holes don't have any notable magnetic forces around them, in fact you only hear people say the **gravity** is so strong nothing can escape it. That's the key word here. We know light slows down as it passes through a dense interatomic medium like water or even air, or even the electromagnetic field of the earth, but that can be explained by other forces perplexing it's trajectory most notably how charge forces influence the wave function, it doesn't have anything to do with the photon's mass being effected by the gravity of atomic objects. But in the case of a black hole it does.

This literally shows why it's more likely that the equation Exchemist showed should be evidence that photons actually do have mass, as opposed to evidence that they can produce kinetic energy without mass as Exchemist interprets.

**Edited by Super Polymath, 10 February 2018 - 11:18 AM.**

### #102

Posted 10 February 2018 - 12:08 PM

The idea that something can have zero mass is just like the idea that there exists a perfect vacuum somewhere, that space-time is irreducible from a planck length, that time has a beginning, or that there can momentarily exist at ever-changing total lagrange points perfectly between every moving mass in the universe as I argued at one point. It's just a theory, we've yet to prove any of these absolute zeroes even exist or are possible My theory says they aren't possible, such a zero would be like a focal point of oblivion, a point where reality ceases to exist anywhere, & in my theory this doesn't even happen with the quantum eraser, instead space-time just temporarily goes into ADS via volumetric flow it doesn't ever really cease to exist.

It's illogical to fathom that somethingness & nothingness can co-exist, reality either is or it isn't.

**Edited by Super Polymath, 10 February 2018 - 12:11 PM.**