Photons have no time

[Mike C]

Can we liven this up a bit? I'm geting bohred.

 

You could liven things up a bit by answering the questions above rather that criticizing Bohrs physics.

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

Relativity has nothing to do with Quantum physics.

It primarily deals with gravity.

 

There are two theories of relativity. There is the special theory of relativity which is the more famous and provided E=mc^2 among other things. This is a theory of things moving quickly (velocity near c). To understand a photon you need quantum field theory, which is the union of special relativity and quantum physics.

 

General relativity, on the other hand, deals primarily with gravity.

 

What has the 'strong' force got to do with relativity? Or the 'weak' force, for that matter?

 

If you look back at what I quoted, it was in regards to subatomic particles, not relativity. You claimed subatomic research was a waste of money. I point out that without a knowledge of subatomic particles, knowledge of the strong force goes out the window, and you certainly can't understand even heavy hydrogen without some understanding of subatomic particles.

-Will

[Mike C]

If you look back at what I quoted, it was in regards to subatomic particles, not relativity. You claimed subatomic research was a waste of money. I point out that without a knowledge of subatomic particles, knowledge of the strong force goes out the window, and you certainly can't understand even heavy hydrogen without some understanding of subatomic particles.

 

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy do not deal with fragmented particles.

Nuclear research is 'backward science'. I do not understand the 'why' of this research.

Since I consider the BBU to be a 'creation' theory, I wonder if they are trying to find the 'god' particle that started the BB in the first place?

 

The stars fuse the main components of matter (hydrogen) into helium and beyond.

Once matter exceeds the ratio of three neutrons to two protons as the limit to fusion, it automatically decays back into the original components of hydrogen and helium.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

Lemme get this straight:

 

Are you telling me that brain surgeons are wasting their time because you don't understand their work?

 

That's basically what it boils down to, not?

[CraigD]

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy do not deal with fragmented particles.

New Science, are you referring to the “classical”, late 18th century versions of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which state that the total mass of a closed system is constant, as is its total kinetic energy? Or, are you referring to the modern, combined version of these laws, which includes mass-energy equivalence?

 

The old laws are correct only approximately, for systems where particle velocities are small compared to the speed of light, and the number of protons and neutrons in each atomic nuclei does not change. For systems where this is not true, such as the Sun, radioactive elements, and particle accelerators, the old versions fail significantly enough that the modern ones must be used.

 

The stars fuse the main components of matter (hydrogen) into helium and beyond.

Yes. This is the conventional scientific, high-level view of one of the major functions of stars, Stellar nucleosynthesis.

Once matter exceeds the ratio of three neutrons to two protons as the limit to fusion, it automatically decays back into the original components of hydrogen and helium.

I’ve never encountered this claim. Do you have a source for it?

 

The claim doesn’t appear to be correct. To the best of my understanding, although ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis produces very few elements heavier than iron, it produces some, including [math]^{206}[/math]Pb, the most common isotope of lead, which is stable (doesn’t decay), and, with 124 neutrons and 82 protons, has a neutron-to-proton ratio exceeding 3 to 2.

[Mike C]

New Science, are you referring to the “classical”, late 18th century versions of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which state that the total mass of a closed system is constant, as is its total kinetic energy? Or, are you referring to the modern, combined version of these laws, which includes mass-energy equivalence?

 

That 'wiki] stands fo wikipedia? Professionals do not give this encyclopedia total credibility.

I prefer the old experiments based on real measurements.

I do not give the mass/enery formulas any credibility.

 

The claim doesn’t appear to be correct. To the best of my understanding, although ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis produces very few elements heavier than iron, it produces some, including [math]^{206}[/math]Pb, the most common isotope of lead, which is stable (doesn’t decay), and, with 124 neutrons and 82 protons, has a neutron-to-proton ratio exceeding 3 to 2.

 

I just 'rounded the figures off to 3 to 2. The difference is very slight in excess.

 

Incidentally, the heaviest 'stable' element is bismuth, AMN 209

 

NS

[Erasmus00]

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy do not deal with fragmented particles. Nuclear research is 'backward science'.

 

That 'wiki]

I do not give the mass/enery formulas any credibility.

 

Now you are contradicting yourself. You also haven't presented any theory of what holds protons together (i.e.how does the strong nuclear force work) that doesn't rely on the partonic structure of nuclear matter.

 

Edit: and of course conservation of energy/momentum applies to quarks, same as larger particles.

-Will

[CraigD]

New Science, based on your posts at hypography, I believe you have failed to appreciate the importance of providing links and citations to support your claims. This is not merely a recommended practice, but a site rule. Although statements such as

I prefer the old experiments based on real measurements.

I do not give the mass/enery formulas any credibility.

are statements of opinion, similar to “I do not believe atoms exist”, and thus don’t require support (unless you want them to be taken seriously), statements such as

Once matter exceeds the ratio of three neutrons to two protons as the limit to fusion, it automatically decays back into the original components of hydrogen and helium.

is a claim of scientific fact, and does.

 

More importantly, as I attempted to show in my reply, the claim is simply wrong. I showed an element, lead, that exceeds the ratio you stated, but does not decay. For every other element I checked that does decay, the stable end products are not hydrogen or helium. For example, 222Rn decays to 206Pb (source: wikipedia article “decay chain”).

 

New Science, you, or anyone, are welcome to support the claim that “Once matter exceeds about the ratio of about three neutrons to two protons, it automatically decays back into the original components of hydrogen and helium”, by providing links or citations to experimental evidence. Your statement, however, gave me the impression that you were stating an widely accepted scientific position. This is not the case – as far as I have been able to determine, you are the only person who believes this.

That 'wiki] stands fo wikipedia?

Yes. Because it is a widely used and respected reference source for internet forums such as hypography, a markup element is provided to allow any word or phrase in a post to automatically be linked as a lookup term to en.wikipedia.org. The tags may be entered manually, or via the “W” button on the add/edit post page.

 

A similar element, DICTIONARY, may be used to link words to wordseek.info, an online dictionary.

 

These features are provided for our convenience. If you prefer linking to other references, you may use the URL tag, which may be entered manually or via the “insert link” button.

Professionals do not give this encyclopedia total credibility.

This is true. Wikipedia is a collaboratively created and maintained encyclopedia. As such, no individual or corporation can be held accountable for its accuracy. Inaccuracies, due to well-intentioned errors or purposeful vandalism, always exist in it. Although its volunteer editors do an outstanding job, IMHO, of correcting both sorts of errors, locking articles prone to vandalism, and prominently flagging ones with controversial or questionable content, experienced users know to validate any content against its citations, its citations against independent citations, read articles discussion pages, and review their edit histories for changes, particularly recent vandalism.

 

All general reference encyclopedias, and many specialized references, are less that completely accurate. Recent studies conclude that, for science articles, Wikipedia is about as accurate as Encyclopædia Britannica. In a study published in 2005 in Nature, a review of 42 matching articles found 4 serious errors in both (see the wikipedia article “Reliability of Wikipedia”).

 

According to many experts and professionals, including myself, wikipedia references should be considered identifying, not authoritative. They serve to allow readers to agree on what is being referenced, but should not be used as references in authoritative, peer-reviewed articles or academic submissions.

 

That said, the articles I cited, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and mass-energy equivalence, the first two are about old, well-understood principles, and should be considered very reliable. The last, as noted in the article, is “in need of attention by an expert on the subject”, so should be considered incomplete. It remains, however, a valid identifier and summary of the concept of mass-energy equivalence.

[Mike C]

Now you are contradicting yourself. You also haven't presented any theory of what holds protons together (i.e.how does the strong nuclear force work) that doesn't rely on the partonic structure of nuclear matter.

 

Edit: and of course conservation of energy/momentum applies to quarks, same as larger particles.

-Will

 

Will answer you tomorrow with a new article.

 

NS

[Mike C]

New Science, based on your posts at hypography, I believe you have failed to appreciate the importance of providing links and citations to support your claims. This is not merely a recommended practice, but a site rule <http://hypography.com/forums/?page=rules

 

I have a library of about 70 reference books on cosmolgy, astronomy and physics. Even though I am an amateur astronomer and cosmologist, I have studied these subjects for about 20 yesrs and have discussed these subjects on various forums for more than 10 yesrs that gave me added information on the current nature of the subjects.

Various NASA observations and other observatories have also been used as sources for my articles.

Popular astronomy magazines also keep me updated about current research about the subjects I am interested in. So I feel I am qualified to post what I think is 'true' science.

 

Regarding your criticism of the ratio of the stability rate of the heaviest elements such as AMN 208 (lead), its neutron to proton ratio is 3.073 to 2. This is hardly a big departure from my quoted ratio of 3/2.

The heaviest stable element is bismuth with AMN 209. Its ratio of neutron to proton is 3.036 to 2.

Hardly a big departure from the 3/2 ratio.

(source, The Elements by John Emsley)

 

NS

 

.

[Mike C]

Will, see my new post on "Grand Unified Theory'.

[Qfwfq]

I kimd of ignored this post because it sounds ludicrous. Does QM promote the idea that photons are 'timeless'? This is nonsense.

This is not the way to discuss somebody's post. It is against our rules, please avoid describing people's posts as ludicrous and nonsense. What you follow with shows that you have your own shortcomings, yet you assume authoritative attitudes.

[Mike C]

This is not the way to discuss somebody's post. It is against our rules, please avoid describing people's posts as ludicrous and nonsense. What you follow with shows that you have your own shortcomings, yet you assume authoritative attitudes.

 

OK, thank you. I will cease to be overly critical.

 

NS

[Peter Parker]

Okay...umm I have a question.

Doesn't einstein say E = mc^2

And light is a source of energy, so how does this equation apply if photons are massless?

[kailas_knight]

I've been trying to read more and more about QM. Last night, I read that photons do not experience time. That a photon travelling through time (relative to an observer in inertial frame) is indistinguishable from an anti-photon travelling backward in time. Strangely, I'm okay with that.

 

However, I'm struggling to understand that a photon released from a star 10 million light years away, from the perspective of something else, will take 10 million light years to arrive, but in it's own frame of reference arrives immediately to all places.

 

Can someone help shed some light ( :evil: ), and potentially assist me in clearing up mistakes in the above description? It sounds a lot like a photon is InfiniteNow, but I am trying to be objective.

 

hello InfiniteNow,

 

Remember me ?. i have been away for a while .i had some exams(since i'm a degree student)...

 

Time slows down as speed increases...When you are travelling at the velocity of light ie 3*10 ^ 8 m/s , time stops and hence light (a stream of photons) ,has no time ,ie it doesn't expierience time... since , according to GR , no matter can attain the speed of light , matter expieriences time , but photon doesn't ....

[Mike C]

Okay...umm I have a question.

Doesn't einstein say E = mc^2

And light is a source of energy, so how does this equation apply if photons are massless?

 

I posted an article on 'the Creation of Photons'.

 

I do not accept Einsteins math because his mass/energy formula does not include the sources of photon creations that are the forces and most notably, the 'magnetic' component of the EM forces.

I defined the photons as 'compressed congregates' of the 'electric field particles (EFP)' that surround the charged particles like the electrons. Their momentum is than transferred through this electric field.

Technically, they have no mass since these EFP are so miniscule that they are referred to as 'virtual' particles, but since these fields are REAL, than these particles are real.

Since these tiny field particles also have tiny charges to be able to perform their 'actions at a distance', then I consider the compressed congregate' of these photons to have an elevated field charge.

Otherwise, how could they then 'bump' an electron?

 

So IMO, these photons may be massless but contain an elevated field charge that allows them to tranfer their momentum through the fields.

 

NS

[kailas_knight]

Photons are not completely massless... They do have mass , but it's negligibly small... Every object in this universe has mass , how much small it might be.... I do believe that gravity can't attract anything that doesn't have mass...

since the gravitational pull of a black hole bends light(stream of photons) , photons must have some mass .