General Relativity.

quote:

---

yeah i've read a little bit about planck's constant. its just hard to remember so much, especially when i've learned most of it in the last few days. the two slits experiments is a pretty easy way to show wave-particle duality, but it seemed more and more clear to me as i studied this how wave-particle duality worked. i don't know if thats from naivete of the subject or what. early in my investigations i saw how frequency was the amount of oscillations, or number of crests in the wave, per second. then what 1.61803 said made me realize that these oscillations are the movement of a photon and some other particle

---

This is where you are going wrong. An electromagnetic wave is not a photon travelling up and down as it traverses as distance. In the wave model, light is a distrubance in an electromagnetic field. The field is the medium and it self propogates (i.e., the electric part of the field induces the magnetic part which induces the electric, ad infinitum). Remember, a wave is energy. No "thing" actually traverses the distance the wave is travelling, only the energy. Think of a water wave, the peaks and troughs travel the distance, the water only travles perpindicular to the distance and eventually rest back to where they started (ideally). For light, you can think of the electromagnetic field as the medium through which the wave travels (i'm not too sure how accurate this analogy is, but I've heard it before). Waves can have different frequencies. When different light was projected on the two slits experiment, different slits formed. This was interpreted as different frequencies. This is also true of many other experiments.The particle model describes light as packets of energy, photons.Photons are not mentioned in the wave model and waves are not mentioned in the particle model. You can't think of a photon travelling up and down like a wave.These two models were combined in quantum electrodynamics. Synopsis: Light is particles. In some instances when you calculate the probability of events, it produces interference patterns, in others it produces no interference. It acts like waves and particles. The same goes for all subatomic particles.Now a key point is that QED doesn't provide any sort of mechanism for picturing this. It isn't a mechanistic theory. The core is that only probabilities of events can be calculated. Why? No one knows. No one understands it.This message has been edited by JustinC, 09-30-2005 06:02 PM

quote:

---

your second paragraph seems to further my premise that amplitude is the energy carried by individual photons, or packets as you put it, and not the entire group.

---

Amplitude has no meaning in terms of photons, seeing as they are particles. Niether does frequency for that matter. But for practicle matters, one can think of light of light as different frequencies and this gives good results with experiments.

quote:

---

Why would faster spinning of that little vector mean higher energy?

---

Keep in mind i'm a layman.It seems you are trying to think of QED as a mechanistic theory. The spinning vector has no physical analog. It is a device used to calculate the probability of events.Maybe a better question would be "why do higher energy photons have faster spinning vectors in QED." This probably has to do with the deeper math of QED, which Feynman greatly simplified for us mortals with his notation of spinning vectors. I think it's more of a mathematical notation question than a physics question, since there is no physical analog of a spinning vector.That's my two cents.

JustinC, can you look back at message 37 posted by 1.61803 and how that corresponds to your post about how the properties of light cannot be described as both wave and particle?

What he's talking about is slightly different. According to quantum mechanics, light is a particle, like electrons, quarks, etc. These have properties which we would normally associate with waves.But what is a particle? That's what that quote is talking about. I'm pretty sure the implications for that apply to all particles. Cavediver talked about this a couple time (i think), but it is way beyond me.I'm just talking about QED, which is probably the most verified theory in existance. I'm not sure the coupled oscillator interpretation deduces to QED and whether it is a highly accepted interpretation. Either way, it is beyond me.Even if that is the correct interpretation, you should definately learn QED first then move onto stuff like that if you wanna get a deep understanding. Going straight into that stuff would be like learning General Relativity your first day of physics. You need to appreciate Newtonian Mechanics and then Special Relativity and then General Relativity.It's seems the analog with light would be: wave properties, particle properties, QED, then phyics which will make the feeble mans mind explode.This message has been edited by JustinC, 10-01-2005 01:42 AM

quote:

---

First off no one knows what energy is.

---

Interesting. No one knows what gravity really is, it seems, and no one really knows what energy is.

simpleEnergy is an abstract thing that is related to the notion that if you have an event in nature in which a change occurs and you add up all the different phenomena produced by that change it is found to be the same value as before the event. This is the reason for the principle of conservation of energy.

So now we do know what energy is? Where does nature end, if some energy originated from a spiritual universe, how would we know where it came from? Was no energy required to produce the universe to begin with? If it all comes from inside the universe from various changes occurring, does this actually explain what it is? Or does this just attempt to describe more how it works?
Nevertheless, you admit it is an abstract thing here. That seems to indicate the first guy was right, and we really don't understand it?
Taking this to an extreme, a side note to this thought may be e=mc2. If mass could move at light speed, the speed limit for the phyical universe, it would become energy. If it moved any faster, it would then, I suppose cease to be physical matter, or physical universe energy, and enter into the universe of the spiritual? (If you don't believe in this then, I guess you'd have to go with unknown)Theoretical, of course. Now if the spiritual, on the other hand came this way, (since we, the physical universe really, can't go that way), and joined the physical universe, what effect would this have on matter? Someone indicated, I think, it isn't 'solid' now? Imagine if it was merged! There still would be real and solid things, but things like being able to pass through a wall would perhaps be possible as well. Just as energy can pass through things, no? If the spiritual was coming this way, we wouldn't have to do anything wild like speed up, etc.This message has been edited by simple, 10-10-2005 11:43 PM

You keep mentioning "the spiritual" in your posts. Explain what you mean by the term and why we should believe that such things as "spiritual universes" exist.

No one says you should. But, of course billions do now, and have since time began. They feel they have reasons, ranging fom miracles, to healings, ghosts, experiences of some kind, etc. Various evidences, not of the physical kind, but real nevertheless enough that the majority of men have always, and always will acknowledge there is something more.
I mention this universe, because I believe that it both exists, and that it bears on all facets of what we see around us, even though what we see is physical now. It bears, because I see it as once being merged together, and again one day, will be merged.
At present, I see it as it is, a physical only universe. I could not prove to you that it was merged, and you could not prove to me it was not using things science now has the ability to work with. (or anything else)
This leaves only belief. Your belief,(if you held one) for example, that there was no spiritual, therefore no merged past or future. Not a belief you could prove.
Rather than explore the spiritual universe here, which isn't appropriate, all we can do is leave it as something that may exist, and that cannot be disproved.
It is in the times when the limits of our knowledge are reached on this physical universe, and we say, "I don't know" that the spiritual must enter in as a contender. So I find it interesting when people say they really just do not really know on key issues, like energy, time, gravity, Is the universe finite, or infinite? Straight, or curved, etc.

Since no one seemed to reply to my prior messages regarding this I must have not explained myself very well. I will try to restate my (mis)understandings of GR, and if no reply, I'll drop it and try to figure it our for myself.Let’s say there is I, who is in an area of space that I will initially assume is removed from any significant curvature, meaning that the space around me is of uniform density. I walk thirty feet in the y direction and place a dog (point A) that stays stationary. I then return to my original position and walk 40 feet into the x direction and place a bone (point B). If I then return again to my original position and view both the dog and that bone at the same time there are a few things I can assume to be true.Firstly I can rightfully assume that the distance between the two, from point A to point B is 50 feet, simply from PT. I can also assume that if the dog traveled at a constant velocity with respect to point A from point A to point B I would see it move at a constant velocity as well. I can finally assume that the time I would measure as the dog moves from point A to point B would be slightly more than the time measured by the dog (if it had a clock) according to the Lorentz transformation, and along with this, a calculation that would result in a slightly greater distance. Since I know this I can account for it and come to the conclusion that the 50 feet is correct.I now watch the dog travel to the bone along a straight line at a constant velocity, say 5 feet per second, and admire its behavior. Unbeknownst to me there is an enormously massive object lying slightly off of the course that the dog must take to get to the bone. Because of this the space right in the middle of the path has severe curvature. This curvature will cause two things to occur.1) The velocity of the dog will not appear to be uniform from my perspective.2) The time I measure for the dog’s journey will be even greater than the time allotted for the Lorentz transformation.This begins to trouble me and I begin to think that the dog didn’t go in a straight line at a constant velocity. I decide to take the trip myself by walking out to point A and traveling to point B. I will measure the distance I cover in space by using my constant velocity (still 5 feet per second) times the time I record.I realize that what would actually be experienced is I would measure 10 seconds and assume 50 feet. In fact, I would actually travel more space per unit time in the severely increasingly curved volume and less space per unit time in the severely decreasingly curved volume. I wouldn’t “feel” any of this so I would still be justified in saying that I was in uniform motion. I will be surprised however, when I measure this distance using the same yardstick as before to be 60 feet instead of 50 since my motion was uniform (5 feet per second) initially with respect to point A.This is where I am confused. Can I look from point A to point B and "see" 50 feet, but measure 60 feet? Am I justified when looking from the origin to assume 50 feet? I would assume not considering the true distance is 60 feet. Would it actually appear this way or am I confusing two issues here?According to the dog that has gone to my original location (origin), my motion wasn’t uniform and the time it took me to traverse this space is longer on its clock (assuming it is wearing one) than on mine. Using this model though, how is it that the time measurements will differ? I understand that my motion through time will decrease while the dog’s remains the same (all motion is through time), but where is the physical representation of this occurrence? How is it that uniform motion through curved space actually increases, or decreases, your actual velocity with respect to another body? What is the element responsible for this? Do I even have an accurate understanding of this situation?

Hi, sorry to not get back to your previous message(s). I don't get a lot of time to post... mostly I just read when I can.There are a number of problems here as you can imagine:Don't forget that your dog cannot make his path from A to B in the presence of the mass without accelerating: A to B is no longer a geodesic. You would be able to detect the acceleration/force applied. Similarly when you attempt to walk the path.You won't ever see 50 feet and measure 60 feet. It's the other way round. Your movement will shrink the distance and the time, so that your distance will measure as shorter.

Hello Simple, Why? I find it interesting when people would rather say..."here be dragons." when the limits of they're knowlege is reached.
And to answer your questions. The universe is infinite according to recent obervations made by NASA.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Simple, do you have objective evidence to put forth for your ideas? If not they do not belong in a science thread.Please offer up your evidence or drop this train of thought.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I already said somewhere today that we can't bring the spiritual into the discussion here. I, of course have lots of evidences for this type of thing, the world is full of them, in fact, always has been. But, realizing that on this forum, physical only evidence is required, I don't intend on going there, to the beyond. Just as far toward there as men can go with what they know, exploring the limits of our knowledge.