< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 169 OF 231 ·
|Nov-30-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: One of the things I could never get a handle on regarding light and lightspeed is how would a photon (light particle) traveling at lightspeed (c) view time and distances. As you approach c, time slows and distances shorten from your point of view. That would mean that at lightspeed itself, a photon would view the time taken to travel anywhere along its path as zero, and the distances involved as zero. A photon may have been traveling 12 billion light years from the viewpoint of a human observer on Earth, from a quasar at one extreme end of the universe to Earth; but from the point of view of the photon, it has traveled instantaneously from the quasar to Earth, and the distance from the quasar to Earth would be zero.|
|Dec-01-11|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor> <I do know that the Burbridges (of the famed Burbridge, Burbridge, Fowler, and Hoyle paper (which every one in the know unanimously says is one of the most important scientific work of the 20th century as it basically explains the origin of nearly every element that makes up the universe) ascribe to the steady state Universe theory.>|
Interesting you should mention the Burbridges. Their observatory in France is the preferred shelter from the storm for Professor Halton Arp, who worked with Edwin Hubble, and one of the world's top spectroscopists, who was thrown off the Palomar observatory and ultimately ostracised for his observations of discordant redshift associations. To cut a long story short, he essentially found many neighbouring extra-dalactic objects, eg: galaxies and one object which turns out to be a qasar (known to be linked by a physical filament), with redshifts that were radically different from each other, with obvious implications for the BBT.
<There are also scientists that say that there is a preferred framework for the universe, and even an ether, which would fundamentally reject Einstein's relativity theory.>
Putting it another way, Einstein himself conceded that relativity is only valid in the absence of ether, which was purportedly judged to be the result of the Michelson-Morley experiments. However, not everyone is satisfied that the MME showed a null result for anything except a <stationary> ether. Dayton Miller conducted later experiments which indicated that ether might be a goer, and there are still lots of people that argue the existence of ether.
It makes sense to me. Even the notion of an expanding universe has the problem that galaxies are moving apart not like particles blown apart by an explosion, but <by an expansion of space itself> between the galaxies, a process that is presumably short circuited near gravity wells like galaxies.
If space is expanding, then it must be some <thing>, and there must be a causal process making that <thing> expand, creating more space where previously there was <none>. Also maybe there's a basic question of what space is expanding <into>.
In any event, there is a considerable amount of energy bound up in vacuum, which is constantly allowing virtual particles to flash into and out of existence, which means that if it is neither void (there can be none...) nor baryonic matter, could well be a fluid medium, a medium for em waves. After what exactly is being displaced by photons when they're acting as waves?
I'll put the question you posed in your last post to the physics forum and see what responses we get.
|Dec-01-11|| ||OhioChessFan: London Chess Classic 2011 Moves Prediction Contest, sponsored by the legendary <chessmoron> and hosted in my forum, is now open. First round begins December 3. Click on Elvis for details.|
|Dec-01-11|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
The first response to your scenario has arrived.
Here is what I posted on your behalf:
<I've been following this forum for years without participating much, but I had an interesting problem posed to me which is relevant to much of the contemporary discussion. It goes like this:
"[R]egarding light and lightspeed [...] how would a photon (light particle) traveling at lightspeed (c) view time and distances? As you approach c, time slows and distances shorten from your point of view. That would mean that at lightspeed itself, a photon would view the time taken to travel anywhere along its path as zero, and the distances involved as zero. A photon may have been traveling 12 billion light years from the viewpoint of a human observer on Earth, from a quasar at one extreme end of the universe to Earth; but from the point of view of the photon, it has traveled instantaneously from the quasar to Earth, and the distance from the quasar to Earth would be zero."
This obvious conundrum is that light speed is for all intents and purposes instantaneous between destinations for the observer traveling at light speed. Is this right or wrong, and in either case, why?>
Here is the response:
<You have stated the conundrum exactly. A "photon" can travel to any point in the universe instantly by its own clock. The emission and absorption of light are simultaneous events to a photon and one could say a photon has no time in which to exist. SR tells us that any two simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by a time interval of one second for every 300,000 km of space so SR gives us an accurate description of events as we see them. One can go crazy trying to reconcile SR with with the speed of the photon because it places one source of an observable delay (the speed of the photon) on top of a model that already includes the delay.
This conundrum is addressed in the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory by explaining that the photon takes every possible pathway between a signal source and receiver and these pathways are going both forward and backward in time. But, in our reference frame, we only see the one pathway that is consistent with SR. An observer in another reference frame would see light following another path. This eliminates the problem with SR and it explains how a single photon passing through a double slit can produce an interference pattern. The photon doesn't interfere with itself but it interferes with other photons that passed through the other slit in the past or will pass through some time in the future. Feynman's photon travels at every possible speed including reverse. The W-F theory is a practical description of light as we see it but makes no attempt to appear logical.
Einstein attended one of Wheeler and Feynman's lectures and he told them that one of his former associates, Hugo Tetrode had a similar theory except that it involved remote charged particles sharing a common wave function across both space and time and swapping energy levels. Tetrode's theory explained light in a way that is consistent with SR but it was without photon particles and without the notion of light having a finite speed. Some current theories of light, such as John Cramer's 'Quantum Mechanical Transactional Interpretation' QMTI are adaptations of Tetrode's earlier ideas and they are supported by experimental observations, rather than math alone, but they require an understanding of time that is non-Newtonian.
Tetrode's paper cited by Einstein has recently been translated into English. The translator of this paper, "afkracklauer" is a member of this Yahoo Group but I think he has moved on to other things.
Einstein later expressed the non-Newtonian understanding of time such as that found in Tetrode's theory or the W-F Absorber theory but he never accepted either of these as valid because they involved "spooky action at a distance".
|Dec-01-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: I am vaguely familiar with Feynman's idea of a photon, but I can't say that comprehend it as it's so counter-intuitive. It seems that he thought that when a photon is emitted by a transmitter in the past, it is also being sent backward in time from the receiver in the future; and through every possible path. After cancellation of all the probable histories of the paths, the final path we as observers determine is one photon going from a specific transmitter in the past to a specific receiver in the future.|
What surprises me from my viewpoint of a layman is that from the 'eyes' of a photon, past and future are 'simultaneously occurring', if that makes sense. The future and past look the same to a photon; time does not exist as we perceive it.
Going back to consciousness, a question this leads to is why does time seem to flow for our consciousness; but apparently does not exist for a photon? Is time merely an artifact of our consciousness?
Sometimes I also wonder if our consciousness has an extension into time; so that it is already in the 'future' as it was in the 'past'. It seems to me that if this is true, then people who strongly feel fate or destiny calling to them might in fact be having glimpses of the future; or might be thinking that way because they already are vaguely conscious of what happens to them in the future.
|Dec-02-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: From http://news.yahoo.com/arctic-changi...|
'An international team of 121 scientists has found "record-setting" change in the Arctic linked to global warming, including melting ice, warming waters and changing wind patterns.
The 2011 Arctic Report Card, compiled by scientists from 14 countries, "shows that record-setting changes are occurring throughout the Arctic environmental system.
"Given the projection of continued global warming, it is very likely that major Arctic changes will continue in years to come, with increasing climatic, biological and social impacts," the report said.
The authors of the annual report -- first released in 2006 -- said there is now sufficient data to indicate a "persistent decline in the thickness and summer extent of the sea ice cover, and a warmer, fresher upper ocean."
Average temperatures over much of the Arctic have risen some 2.5 degrees F (1.5 degrees C) from a 1981-2010 baseline, and the minimum area of sea ice recorded this year, in September 2011, was the second lowest since 1979.
The "profound and continuing" changes have had an uneven impact on Arctic wildlife, threatening the icy habitats of polar bears and walruses but giving whales greater access to northern feeding areas, the report said.
The warming has also caused new vegetation to sprout in many areas, and has led to a 20 percent increase in phytoplankton, microscopic organisms that are the basis of the oceanic food chain.
The report also found that changes in Arctic winter wind patterns first detected in 2010 have continued.
"The Arctic region continues to warm, with less sea ice and greater green vegetation," said Monica Medina, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
"Reports like this one help us to prepare for increasing demands on Arctic resources so that better decisions can be made about how to manage and protect these more valuable and increasingly available resources." '
Notice the following:
<The warming has also caused new vegetation to sprout in many areas, and has led to a 20 percent increase in phytoplankton, microscopic organisms that are the basis of the oceanic food chain.>
If the whole Arctic ocean defreezes and consequently allows a 20% increase in photosynthesis in its whole area, that is not an insignificant figure given the size of the Arctic ocean. It's going to act as another major CO2 sink.
Pre-industrial CO2 level was about 270 parts per million according to internet sources, and now has risen to 392 ppm. However, during the last glacial period CO2 levels in the atmosphere may likely have been even lower than 270 ppm. Thus during ice ages, CO2 levels tend to increase; which might be one of the causes why an ice age ends, as CO2 promotes global warming.
Why does the CO2 atmospheric level tend to increase during times when the Earth is mostly frozen? One of the most logical answers is that most plants cannot photosynthesize or even live on frozen sea or ground. It's the same reason why abundant vegetation becomes scarcer as one goes to the extreme north or south. Less photosynthesis means lesser CO2 can be taken and fixed by plants out of the atmosphere.
Logically, whenever a global warming in Earth's history has unfrozen the extreme northern and southern latitudes, more land and sea areas are freed for photosynthetic plant life to exist. The absolute increase in global photosynthesis should tend to decrease CO2 levels- a kind of negative feedback. (I am neutral on the Gaia theory btw.) Yet most ecology news and papers that I have seen do not seem to take this into account. There does not seem to be any well-known study that models CO2 levels if a sudden increase in photosynthesis is triggered by a defreezing Arctic.
|Dec-02-11|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
That is interesting. The question is how much CO2 this process could scrub from the atmosphere, especially given the amount of CO2 will be released from the peat bogs in the tundra once they thaw.
There was a second response on your "frozen time" query, responding to the first:
<This is a long debated paradox.
For what it's worth; In the ontological framework of the Discrete Field Model (DFM) it is the initial assumptions that are the problem, and do not allow a resolution, to that or to the rest of the paradoxes.
We're only stuck with conserved photon particles due to the error of Lodge in 1893, using the wrong inertial frame to represent Earth in his spinning disc experiments (he should have used the disc frame), so wrongly interpreting that stellar aberration would be in the wrong direction for light as waves. I did write a paper on this but physics is still blind to it!
One we remove conserved photons we can achieve the holy grail of uniting QM and SR. (short range photons as corpuscles blending back to waves in the quantum vacuum are just fine).
Everything then falls into place ontologically without paradox. A light signal leaving an emitter beside a clock travels alongside the emissions from the clock face. If the signal could read the emissions from the clock it would find the time on the clock unchanging! This reverts straight back to the simple 'light cone' interpretation.
What is more the whole of the rest of the pile of jigsaw puzzle pieces making up physics also all fall into place.
A 'photon' would be a measurable quanta of the energy of motion (there being no other) in oscillatory mode. The disturbance ('signal') propagates at c, but interacts ('couples') when it encounters matter and is re-emitted ('atomic scattering'), equivalent to QED absoption and re-emission of a photon. Effectively, it is not EXACTLY the same photon, and will have a slightly modulated frequency, speed (PMD) and optical axis (what we term as observed vector).>
to which the original responder tartly claims that photons don't exist:
<Photons are never observed. We only observe charged particles, usually electrons, gaining and losing energy in wavelike patterns when we observe light related events. We need to remove photons and their speed entirely from our considerations. Put them in a lead lined box and bury them at the bottom of the ocean and forget they ever existed. Light is a matter of entangled electrons swapping energy levels non-locally and it is electrons all the way.
The probability of any outcome in light related experiments can be determined by measuring the physical dimensions of the experimental setup and nothing else matters. We can ignore motions of any kind and that includes the motion of the apparatus as with Lodge's spinning disk, motion of the Earth, motion of the surrounding medium, motion of the spacetime vacuum or aether, motion of photons, or any changes within the setup made during the 'transit time' of the light signal as in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The 'transit time' between a signal source and sink is essentially instant. The times we observe are relativistic where we observe a delay of one second for every 300,000 km of space. Nature adds space and time to our observations otherwise all events would happen at once and in the same place. Instantaneity is lost whenever space becomes a part of our observations. Speculating about light speed or photons traveling through space only makes things complicated and ultimately paradoxical without some elaborate and unnecessary hypothetical adjustments. The only time 'transit time' matters is when light travels through a physical medium and there is a delay in the exchange of energy from one electron to the other. In a vacuum, light has no transit time.>
|Dec-03-11|| ||twinlark: <visyanbraindoctor>|
Here's another response from someone working the same paradox in a French forum:
<The very same photon paradox is presently being discussed in a French Forum. There is an even more paradoxical objection.
Seen from a photon, all objects are hurry away at the speed of light, so that, for those tiny corpuscles, all objects have an infinite mass.
Of course this is answered by relativists as reported by Peter. Paradoxes are not against their theory. They are only seeking for a mathematical representation of universe. They don't care about paradoxical consequences. The summit, you know, is certainly the quantum mechanics concepts such as non-localization or intrication. Without these postulates, Aspect's experiment would require superluminal information transfer.
The relativists will always find tricky ways to explain failing experiments. It was mainly the case with Sagnac experiment. The demonstration of Pr Selleri will probably be answered as well.
They found a tricky explanation to the Wang experiment performed in 2004. It is very similar to Sagnac experiment, but the authors have introduced a linear path with a variable length.
Ph. Dr. C. and Ph. Dr. P. Leruste gave, very recently, an explanation to Wang experiment by assimilating the rectilinear path to a cylinder, so that they explain the results in the same way as Sagnac experiment. But, Wang and his colleagues have used various configurations that cannot be taken for cylinders, mainly the configuration using crossing paths of bearing bands is certainly not a cylinder.
Additionnally, the Leruste brothers doctoral explanation is not the same as the Langevinís explanation. They propose a new explanation. This is a confirmation of the deep doubts of Pr. Selleri on the validity of the relativistic approach presently available. He reports in his book that Hasselbach and Nicklaus (1993) list 20 different "explanations". There is even an explanation by quantum mechanics, but I have not yet found it in the Internet. I know that it is, of course, based upon the corpuscular nature of light and not on the wave nature. This is one more explanation completely different from previous ones, if not fully contradictory.
The very same comments apply to the Miller MMI measurements showing clearly and statistically that an optical experiment is able to show the galilean relative motion of the Earth around the Sun. It is galilean within a short duration allowing to consider the motion within an euclidian reference frame.
As a result, my feeling today is that relativity is no more a question of science, but a question of faith. Relativists are presently very nervous and cannot participate to a forum without treating opponents as cranks, wretches and other similar bird names. We, poor guys, would be unable to understand the huge deepness of their concepts and calculations.
In order to solve all their problems, they are now seeking for a new qualitative jump, a great leap forward. But look behind their feet: the naught, a yawning chasm, an abyssal hole.
Go, jump now relativists!
Would the aether break their fall? >
|Dec-04-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> I must admit I am not familiar with the experiments and names mentioned by the Frenchman above.("_)|
|Dec-04-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: That is interesting. The question is how much CO2 this process could scrub from the atmosphere, especially given the amount of CO2 will be released from the peat bogs in the tundra once they thaw.>|
The more pressing theoretical problem is the massive amount of methane clathrate in the frozen tundra and arctic circle sea bottoms that would decompose into methane gas (CH4), which is several times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
In a relatively short geological time period, eventually CH4 and CO2 sources from the defreezing north would get used up. CH4 eventually gets oxidized into CO2 in the atmosphere. While all these are happening, the now liquid Arctic Ocean would continue to host photosynthetic phytoplankton. A huge area of the north would experience increased photosynthetic activity - a carbon sink.
There are many internet news and articles that seem to attempt to model what happens when CH4 and CO2 emissions rise from a melting Arctic; however to be more realistic, these models should also take into account the rising photosynthetic activity triggered by the same Arctic melt-down.
|Dec-05-11|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Do you have a guesstimate of the extent of CO2 scrubbing that could occur?
|Dec-05-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: According to internet sources, world photosynthesis fixes about 110 x 10 to the 12 grams (110,000,000,000,000 grams) of carbon into biomass per year. |
The Arctic Ocean covers an area of about 14,056,000 square kilometers.
The world ocean covers an area of about 361,800,000 square kilometers.
The presently inactive Arctic Ocean therefore constitutes 14,056,000/ 361,800,000 of the world ocean = 0.03885 of the world ocean.
Around 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean. Let's assume that roughly 0.50 to 0.70 of the Earth's photosynthesis occurs in the world ocean.
lower range, that's 0.5 x 110,000,000,000,000 grams = 55,000,000,000,000 grams
and at the
higher range, that's 0.7 x 110,000,000,000,000 grams = 77,000,000,000,000 grams
of carbon fixed in the world ocean.
Multiply the above values by 0.03885 (the proportion of the world ocean that is part of the Arctic ocean), that gives a range of
(55,000,000,000,000 x 0.03885)
2,136,750,000,000 grams (2,136,750,000 kilograms or 2,136,750 tonnes) to
(77,000,000,000,000 x 0.03885)
2,991,450,000,000 grams (2,991,450,000 kilograms or 2,991,450 tonnes)
of carbon per year that would be fixed in the Arctic Ocean should it become filled with photosynthetic phytoplankton.
CO2 to C mass ratio is (12 + 16 + 16)/12 = 3.67. The above figures for carbon fixed in the Arctic sea would roughly correspond to
2,136,750 tonnes x 3.67 = 7,841,873 tonnes
2,991,450 tonnes x 3.67 = 10,978,622 tonnes
of CO2 fixed per year in a totally liquid Arctic ocean filled with photosynthetic phytoplankton.
This is a very rough and probably error-filled calculation, with lots of assumptions that probably are inaccurate. Corrections are welcome.
|Dec-05-11|| ||dakgootje: I have a feeling I should take a week off and read the last 30 pages or something of this forum.|
Are the various theories of relativity currently under fire? Would spacetime then not exist either? It'd better still do - I like that idea :/
|Dec-07-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <dakgootje: Are the various theories of relativity currently under fire?>|
"Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? New Test Confirms Accuracy of Experiment's Initial Measurement in Flight Time of Neutrinos"
|Dec-08-11|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Merry Christmas <doggimus>!|
Here are playlists not currently in profile bios:
Vera Menchik (one video)
And that's all. Eventually we should replace <Alekhine> and <Fischer> with the future "talkies" I'll make about them, since they are actually on the to-do list. Along with Tal, Sultan Khan, Klaus Junge, Philidor, Pillsbury, Spielmann, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Lasker, and the History of the World Championship from AVRO 1938 to HAGUE-MOSCOW 1948.
Those are the projects I'm currently collecting serious amounts of research resources on, including a Queen's Ransom in somewhat pricey chess history books I haven't received yet. Dozens of them in fact.
Given that I'd like to actually know what I'm talking about next go-round, it might be a long time till the next project actually becomes a film.
|Dec-09-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Opinion from the physics forum:
"Photons are never observed. We only observe charged particles, usually electrons, gaining and losing energy in wavelike patterns when we observe light related events. We need to remove photons and their speed entirely from our considerations. Put them in a lead lined box and bury them at the bottom of the ocean and forget they ever existed. Light is a matter of entangled electrons swapping energy levels non-locally and is electrons all the way."
Another opinion states that the nature of photons might be linked to the Copenhagen interpretation: Photons only exist when they are observed.
A link to Nobel prize winner W. Lamb's paper advocating the non-existence of the photon.
|Dec-10-11|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I saw that and had a lengthy discussion with a friend over that. I like the idea of energy transmission by entanglement, but why do entangled electrons radiate in spokes? If they don't, then why can't I see the back of my head, as I can't think why entangled electrons wouldn't be distributed everywhere.
|Dec-10-11|| ||twinlark: The Copenhagen interpretation makes me scratch my head sometimes. It's too much like some of the New Age stuff that scientists like to rubbish about cosmic consciousness.|
|Dec-10-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: I like the idea of energy transmission by entanglement, but why do entangled electrons radiate in spokes? If they don't, then why can't I see the back of my head, as I can't think why entangled electrons wouldn't be distributed everywhere.>|
Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, and I have to admit I cannot get a good handle on their discussions, unlike discussions in Biology or Medicine which I can reasonably comprehend well, being 'familiar with the language.'
The Copenhagen interpretation is still the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, even though it's intuitively impossible. It's amazing that it is the interpretation assumed or taught outright in Physics school textbooks. Probability waves of all quantum objects (which would include every atom in the Universe) 'collapse' into reality once you make an objective observation. It's like - abracadabra, puff! and you exist.
I believe that this is so because the Copenhagen interpretation is the simplest with virtually no mathematics involved, except solving the Shrodinger equation, and it assumes only one thing - that observing or measuring a quantum object makes it real. Occam's razor works to protect it in Physics textbooks.
Naturally the founders of quantum physics almost unanimously tried to reject it, except for Niels Bohr. They did not try hard enough, mostly just making statements in effect that it was absurd, and Bohr eventually got his way almost by default.
De Broglie (whose wave-particle dualism is one of the manifestations of this central quantum mechanical mystery) tried a formal attack on it, when he put forth his hidden variables theory; but it seems he was a peaceful guy and did not particularly go out of his way to refute Bohr; and his theory carried loads of math which would not sit well in a high school Physics textbook. Later Feynman and Everett put forth their sum of histories and alternate universes interpretations, which could be seen as variations of the same thing.
Feynman seems to have given up eventually, simply saying in effect there is no way to comprehend the central mystery of quantum mechanics; and it's best to just accept it and devote yourself to other research rather than lose your way inside the darkness of an impossible alley. Ironic because his Feynman diagrams and sum of histories are favorite tools among physicists working on quantum mechanics.
After nearly a century of the formal birth of quantum mechanics in 1927, its central mystery is as mysterious as ever.
|Dec-13-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol (an anti-CO2 emission protocol).|
It seems the reasoning is: USA and China do not follow the Kyoto protocol and continue to use cheap fossil fuels. We want to use cheap fossil fuels too!
Canada does have a point. On the other hand, I do not see the US or China abandoning fossil fuels until a cheaper alternative source of power is found. China however has a comprehensive government-funded program to develop 4th generation nuclear plants. If such plants prove as safe as they are in past pilot projects and produces cheaper-than-coal power, then countries will begin abandoning fossil fuel burning by their own, without any international protocol.
|Dec-15-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: News on the Arctic melt-down, and possible increase of methane from sea bottom clathrates.|
'Giant plumes of methane bubbling to surface of Arctic Ocean'
|Dec-15-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The US-China trade war seems to be affecting solar panels, one of the promising options for alternatives to fossil fuels.|
<the U.S is also investigating whether Chinese exports of solar panels might have received illegal subsidies or have been dumped in the American market at prices below the cost of manufacturing them. This is a major sore spot for China because it views green tech as one of its core and most innovative developing markets. If the WTO punished China, it would have ramifications across the solar power industry the country does not want to deal with, especially in a slow growth environment. China is the world's leading producer of solar panels, so an attack on them by Washington raises red flags. >
|Dec-22-11|| ||matebay: Hey <twinlark> my man.|
Intercession strongly needed in the CG Member Support Forum. Please come and visit. Thanks.
|Dec-23-11|| ||brankat: Merry Christmas my friend!|
|Dec-23-11|| ||ketchuplover: Happy Holidays :)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 169 OF 231 ·
Take the Premium Membership Tour