'c' in a vacuum? And momentum too?

[LaurieAG]

Hi A23 and Yoron,

 

Not about the nature of the photon itself, but it's movement, which induced the Minkowski spacetime.

 

Then, If we study a particle able to move in 2 dimension, a plane, found formulas give :

the velocity of particle A seen from obs.1 as relativistic sum of velocity of obs. 2 towards obs. 1 with velocity of part. A seen from obs. 2 :

 

Consider a discrete situation where we have a stationary observer at point A, a photon that will pass through point A at point B and a second moving observer at point C who will also pass through point A when the photon passes through point A, all in a vacuum.

 

In pure calculus proofs from first principles we have limits where delta x approaches zero.

 

In the case of the stationary observer there is no momentum or velocity and the observer sees the photon at B approaching at the speed of light regardless of whether the photon is delta x away from point A or much much further.

 

The case of the moving observer will be different if the moving observer is not travelling at the speed of light.

 

Why?. Because if the moving observers velocity is 5 x c then it will be delta x/5 away from point A when the photon is delta x away from point A and if its velocity is c/5 then it will be 5 x delta x away from point A. If the observer is moving at the speed of light it will be delta x away from point A when the photon is delta x away from point A.

 

It's similar to the paradox of Achillies and the tortise (and an observer at the finish line) in that they both follow discrete straight line paths and both cross the finish line and the observer there at identical times.

 

The relative paradox is produced in the structure of the solution used because, at the limits of pure calculus proofs, delta x is the smallest segment size that a line can be broken down into, it is an infinitessimal amount where 5/delta x and especially delta x/5 are meaningless with regards to geometry and physical distance.

 

Here's a quote from the Economics forum, same relative structural problem.

 

I don't know how 'natural', the 'natural' systems are but I can say that both 'systems' give you the same results when you have both observation errors and heaps of spin involved.

 

I have discussed on these forums, many times, that the only way ahead to a clear view of our place in the universe is that we must reduce our observation errors and remove spin entirely from the equation. The same stands for our global system of laissez faire, non accountable, even in their own backyards, government.

 

The really funny thing is that both problems revolve around a point, a discrete observation point to be precise. At an infinitessimal scale the observation errors between an observer making an observation at a point, and another observer travelling at a relative velocity through that same observation point at the same time reduces to delta x and to zero as delta x approaches zero. That's the difference between spun perception and reality.

[A23]

A23,

We "experience" a spectrum of colors, because each color in that spectrum (which spans only one optical octave) can be represented by a unique combination of Red, Green and Blue.

 

You mean it makes "no sense", cause I go back in time ?

 

I forgot about this "observer filter". So in fact for photons, we really need an infinite basis of colors (frequencies) to represent the whole spectrum ? (IR,UV,...)

[Qfwfq]

Doesn't relativity build around our ideas of the photon?

No.

 

For one thing, in 1905 the photon wasn't quite established yet, though a main step toward it came in that same year and by that same dude. Historically, SR sprouted from the paradox that arose from electromagnetism, seemingly in conflict with the principle of relativity. This is the sole reason we call c "the speed of light" and I consider this misleading; it gets in the way of people understanding things properly. It isn't a property of the photon but rather of space-time.