"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Erik Max Francis on 5 Mar 2010 17:31 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 5 Mar., 23:14, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen wrote: >>> But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, >>> isn't there? >> No, of course there isn't one. > > Didn't Wayne just say that there is? Where? -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day. -- Louis Wu
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 17:27 : Erik Max Francis <max(a)alcyone.com> : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. Yes, though it's always best to keep in mind that the *amount* of energy "contained" in a particle is observer (that is, coordinate system) dependent, not invariant. Which always makes me less than sanguine to say that particles "contain" energy. But maybe that's just me. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Mar 2010 17:34 ::: But presumably there is still a single universal frame of reference, :: No, of course there isn't one. : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Didn't Wayne just say that there is? Not that I'm aware of. A reference to a specific post might help. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Erik Max Francis on 5 Mar 2010 17:35 Tue Sorensen wrote: > Isn't that exactly what EMR is, though? Superpositional lightspeed > waves that only rarely, under certain circumstances, act as particles? Um, no. Presuming by "EMR" you mean electromagnetic radiation, it just consists of photons, which are elementary particles which always travel at c. > I think EMR qualifies as "energy" too. I know it's difficult to put > into equations, but essentially I think we have to operate with such a > thing as free-floating energy, and electromagnetic radiation is the > main form of it. After all, perhaps the most cental process in all the > universe - stellar fusion - concerns vast quantities of matter being > transformed into energy (and hence comprises a major illustration of E > = mc2). I think the proper way of comprehending the universe is to > understand how matter and energy behave in relation to each other, not > just in Einstein's equation but concretely in the physical universe. It's not clear what you're confused about here, but it's clearly something. Photons contain energy, yes. (They're very simple particles; they don't contain much else.) Other particles also contain energy, and arrangements of particles, given certain fields, can also contain energy within them. This is all well-known; you're acting like we don't understand how fusion works. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day. -- Louis Wu
From: Erik Max Francis on 5 Mar 2010 17:37
Wayne Throop wrote: > : Erik Max Francis <max(a)alcyone.com> > : A better way to say it is: All particles contain energy. Photons are a > : particular type of particle that really isn't much more than energy itself. > > Yes, though it's always best to keep in mind that the *amount* of energy > "contained" in a particle is observer (that is, coordinate system) > dependent, not invariant. Which always makes me less than sanguine to > say that particles "contain" energy. But maybe that's just me. True, but there's no valid inertial frame where a photon will have zero energy, so at least there's something meaningful to talk about there. One assumes that if you're talking about the behavior and energy of certain particles that you're referring to a particular, though arbitrary, frame of reference. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day. -- Louis Wu |