Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Green Planet

green relativity Earth

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

  • Members
  • 573 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 09:46 AM

The relation between Einstein theory of relativity and photosynthesis

 

E = MC^2

 

The speed of light determines the number of photons incident up on the dorsal surface of a green leaf in unit time.

 

If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value a plant would not get enough sunlight ( i.e. photons per unit time and it would not be able to perform photosynthesis ).

 

So the speed of light is coupled with process of photosynthesis in green plants.

 

agree or disagree ?  :sherlock:



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2342 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 03:28 PM

The relation between Einstein theory of relativity and photosynthesis

 

E = MC^2

 

The speed of light determines the number of photons incident up on the dorsal surface of a green leaf in unit time.

 

If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value a plant would not get enough sunlight ( i.e. photons per unit time and it would not be able to perform photosynthesis ).

 

So the speed of light is coupled with process of photosynthesis in green plants.

 

agree or disagree ?  :sherlock:

This is wrong. 

 

First, E=mc² is irrelevant, as it does not apply to light, for which m = 0 . The full expression is E²= (mc²)² +p²c². For massless photons the first term is zero and we are left with E=pc, which by de Broglie's relation is equivalent to E=hν, Planck's relation between the energy of a photon and its frequency. 

 

Second, the energy per unit time depends on the intensity of the light, i.e. number of photons arriving per unit time. This has nothing to do with their speed, only with the number emitted per unit time in the direction of the object in question. (If light travelled more slowly there would just be more in transit - it would not affect the intensity.) 

 

What you could argue is that if light travelled more slowly the energy per photon would be less and therefore it would not be absorbed by chlorophyll and for that reason would be able to support photosynthesis.   


  • petrushkagoogol likes this

#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1004 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 08:41 PM

This is wrong. 

 

First, E=mc² is irrelevant, as it does not apply to light, for which m = 0 . The full expression is E²= (mc²)² +p²c². For massless photons the first term is zero and we are left with E=pc, which by de Broglie's relation is equivalent to E=hν, Planck's relation between the energy of a photon and its frequency. 

 

Second, the energy per unit time depends on the intensity of the light, i.e. number of photons arriving per unit time. This has nothing to do with their speed, only with the number emitted per unit time in the direction of the object in question. (If light travelled more slowly there would just be more in transit - it would not affect the intensity.) 

 

What you could argue is that if light travelled more slowly the energy per photon would be less and therefore it would not be absorbed by chlorophyll and for that reason would be able to support photosynthesis.   

 

Well, you could also argue that if the speed of light traveled 90% slower the mass fields would also change by that amount and be tuned to that speed of light thus it would be still in perfect sync along with the electron orbitals being a massive particle along with the protons and neutrons, but all of this is mute point as the chlorophyll would have also evolved to accept such photons under natural selection, everything would be balanced out.



#4 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

  • Members
  • 573 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 10:55 PM

This is wrong. 

 

First, E=mc² is irrelevant, as it does not apply to light, for which m = 0 . The full expression is E²= (mc²)² +p²c². For massless photons the first term is zero and we are left with E=pc, which by de Broglie's relation is equivalent to E=hν, Planck's relation between the energy of a photon and its frequency. 

 

Second, the energy per unit time depends on the intensity of the light, i.e. number of photons arriving per unit time. This has nothing to do with their speed, only with the number emitted per unit time in the direction of the object in question. (If light travelled more slowly there would just be more in transit - it would not affect the intensity.) 

 

What you could argue is that if light travelled more slowly the energy per photon would be less and therefore it would not be absorbed by chlorophyll and for that reason would be able to support photosynthesis.   

 

What about the photons lost in transit ? They would be directly proportional to the latency ................ :bow:



#5 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2546 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 01:39 AM

You seem to like to copy-paste "If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value" a lot. What's the root of your obsession with moving a decimal point to the left? AFAICT altering C by any amount wouldn't really change much at all: the relative values would still be relative. EG, the CMB might be  10 times physically closer, but the information speed would be ten times smaller so by ratio nothing changes.
Similarly AFAICT electron shells would have 1/10 the energy, and thus need 1/10 the energy to be disturbed, and so, ratio maintained. Arbitrary number seems arbitrary.



#6 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2342 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 01:47 AM

You seem to like to copy-paste "If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value" a lot. What's the root of your obsession with moving a decimal point to the left? AFAICT altering C by any amount wouldn't really change much at all: the relative values would still be relative. EG, the CMB might be  10 times physically closer, but the information speed would be ten times smaller so by ratio nothing changes.
Similarly AFAICT electron shells would have 1/10 the energy, and thus need 1/10 the energy to be disturbed, and so, ratio maintained. Arbitrary number seems arbitrary.

Interesting. Why would you think the electron orbitals would need a tenth of the energy to make a transition? Do you assume the strength of the electrostatic force would be reduced to a tenth of its actual value as well?

 

(I don't know enough physics to know the relation between c and the strength of the electrostatic and magnetic interactions. I presume it is Maxwell's equations somewhere.)  



#7 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1004 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 07:54 AM

To answer your question Exchemist, the K constant is a function of the speed of light so the K constant would be 90% smaller, thus the Electrostatic dimension would have 90% less of a pull or push. Everything would literally bend around the fact that C is 90% smaller.

 

2j5ylnk.png


  • GAHD and exchemist like this

#8 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2546 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 07:58 AM

Interesting. Why would you think the electron orbitals would need a tenth of the energy to make a transition? Do you assume the strength of the electrostatic force would be reduced to a tenth of its actual value as well?

 

(I don't know enough physics to know the relation between c and the strength of the electrostatic and magnetic interactions. I presume it is Maxwell's equations somewhere.)  

Eh, it's more of an off the top of my head thing. Smaller C means smaller planck, Smaller both should mean a smaller coulomb. Smaller coulomb should mean a smaller energy per shell. This is ASSuming that all of the above are emergent from the information-exchange rate of C, and not just happy-accident lining up with C just happening to be in the equations. All of it's an "inverted tower of cards" balanced on that idea that C is actually as basic a constant as it seems to be. It could totally be that the 10%-theoretical-reality would be even stranger and provide much better data on the underlying mechanisms of existence by being totally out of whack with what i'd expect. Sure be fun to see one :D
Edit, oh I see victor jumped to the rescue too.


Edited by GAHD, 12 August 2018 - 07:59 AM.


#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2342 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 08:26 AM

To answer your question Exchemist, the K constant is a function of the speed of light so the K constant would be 90% smaller, thus the Electrostatic dimension would have 90% less of a pull or push. Everything would literally bend around the fact that C is 90% smaller.

 

2j5ylnk.png

Aha you mean the electrostatic constant, k(e), I see. Thanks very much.

 

So indeed electrostatic force would be only one tenth of the strength and GAHD is quite right. So chlorophyll would carry on absorbing. However since chemical bonding would be weaker, all chemical reactions would run at different rates so it is hard to say whether photosynthesis would work at all in such a scenario.  

 

Excellent. 



#10 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1004 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 08:45 AM

Aha you mean the electrostatic constant, k(e), I see. Thanks very much.

 

So indeed electrostatic force would be only one tenth of the strength and GAHD is quite right. So chlorophyll would carry on absorbing. However since chemical bonding would be weaker, all chemical reactions would run at different rates so it is hard to say whether photosynthesis would work at all in such a scenario.  

 

Excellent. 

 

I would have to do the math but it could be too weak to actually support life  the photosynthesis reaction, but then again all the bonds would indeed would be weaker, so it may just balance out. The Multi-cellular creatures may need to be smaller to exist then in our universe due to the lesser energy release of photosynthesis though the reactions would take less energy to happen thus I dunno there would need to be alot of math done, if you want to find out just take all the physics equations work your way up and see what it would be with a C constant 10% of its natural value, but I don't think much would change just everything would be smaller or larger depending on what is effected.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 12 August 2018 - 08:49 AM.

  • GAHD likes this

#11 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

  • Members
  • 573 posts

Posted 12 August 2018 - 08:17 PM

Aha you mean the electrostatic constant, k(e), I see. Thanks very much.

 

So indeed electrostatic force would be only one tenth of the strength and GAHD is quite right. So chlorophyll would carry on absorbing. However since chemical bonding would be weaker, all chemical reactions would run at different rates so it is hard to say whether photosynthesis would work at all in such a scenario.  

 

Excellent. 

 

Here is my interpretation .......

 

If packets of photons ( using computer networking jargon !! ) are incident upon the dorsal surface of the leaf at 1/10th the original frequency ( due to change in light speed ), it could impact the ability of leaves to perform photosynthesis. :vava: 


Edited by petrushkagoogol, 12 August 2018 - 08:17 PM.


#12 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • 961 posts

Posted 24 March 2019 - 06:11 PM

The relation between Einstein theory of relativity and photosynthesis

 

E = MC^2

 

The speed of light determines the number of photons incident up on the dorsal surface of a green leaf in unit time.

 

If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value a plant would not get enough sunlight ( i.e. photons per unit time and it would not be able to perform photosynthesis ).

 

So the speed of light is coupled with process of photosynthesis in green plants.

 

agree or disagree ?  :sherlock:

 

The speed of light is irrelevant.  Plants on this planet evolved to use the light from our sun to create sugars.  Something resembling plants that served the same function on another planet orbiting another star would have to evolve to utilize whatever frequencies that star emitted.  If you were able to alter one of the immutable laws of the universe then why would you be concerned with lowly little plants anyway?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: green, relativity, Earth