Light Compression Experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: The detectionof motion by weight)
Next: Quantum Entanglement
From: eon on 13 May 2010 06:37 simple question why only space and time may appear compressed / dilated and light may not ??? what is 1. space? 2. time? 3. light?
From: dlzc on 13 May 2010 10:55 Dear eon: On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > simple question > > why only space and time may appear > compressed / dilated and light may not ??? wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated. Photons are already "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor times zero is still zero. > what is > > 1. space? evolved from time via "conservation of momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple bodies (3D). (IMO) > 2. time? evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO) > 3. light? either a discrete particle or continuous wave, depending on the experiment you set up. We don't have access to underlying Reality. All we will ever have is the result of observation, and from that we "extrapolate"... David A. Smith
From: eon on 13 May 2010 13:46 On May 13, 4:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear eon: > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > simple question > > > why only space and time may appear > > compressed / dilated and light may not ??? > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated. how would you know that is not the same wavelength light coming faster? Photons are already > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor times zero is still zero. how can it be zero when they have momentum attached to it > > > what is > > > 1. space? > > evolved from time via "conservation of momementum" (at least 2D) given > multiple bodies (3D). (IMO) i did not knew that it was that simple, i quess but i dont understand even more space can be just there without any moment in it, are you saying vacuum has moment? space is not ether, i guess > > > 2. time? > > evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO) but space may exists without any time flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no need for time > > > 3. light? > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave, depending on the > experiment you set up. my experiment determines the outcome of a very constant of nature i may use as input ??? impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be ! > > We don't have access to underlying Reality. All we will ever have is > the result of observation, what exactly is an observation, an adaptive detector? > and from that we "extrapolate"... > > David A. Smith thanks and good bye
From: dlzc on 13 May 2010 22:55 Dear eon: On May 13, 10:46 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 4:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > simple question > > > > why only space and time may appear > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ??? > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated. > > how would you know that is not > the same wavelength light coming faster? Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't. Maxwell's equations say it is only ever one speed. > > Photons are already > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor > > times zero is still zero. > > how can it be zero when they have > momentum attached to it Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too. They only ever interact via their electric field. > > > what is > > > > 1. space? > > > evolved from time via "conservation of > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple > > bodies (3D). (IMO) > > i did not knew that it was that > simple, i quess > > but i dont understand even more > > space can be just there without any moment > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment? > > space is not ether, i guess Space is not anything. You can't point to any place and say that there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else. > > > 2. time? > > > evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO) > > but space may exists without any time > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no > need for time How can we disprove your supposition? Is there not vast quantities of light passing through any region of space, on its way from past to future? > > > 3. light? > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave, > > depending on the experiment you set up. > > my experiment determines the outcome > of a very constant of nature i may use > as input ??? > > impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be ! Nature is what Nature is, but if you seek to measure the number of turtles around the pond, you don't get the tidal action that they represent. The tools you apply are specific to one measurement, and ignore (or gloss over) other possible measurements. No choices. And when you get to individual photons, Heisenberg starts being a large factor to deal with. > > We don't have access to underlying Reality. > > All we will ever have is the result of > > observation, > > what exactly is an observation, an > adaptive detector? It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question. > > and from that we "extrapolate"... > > thanks and good bye David A. Smith
From: BURT on 13 May 2010 23:53
On May 13, 7:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear eon: > > On May 13, 10:46 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 4:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > simple question > > > > > why only space and time may appear > > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ??? > > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated. > > > how would you know that is not > > the same wavelength light coming faster? > > Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't. Maxwell's > equations say it is only ever one speed. > > > > Photons are already > > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor > > > times zero is still zero. > > > how can it be zero when they have > > momentum attached to it > > Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too. They only ever > interact via their electric field. > > > > > > > > > what is > > > > > 1. space? > > > > evolved from time via "conservation of > > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple > > > bodies (3D). (IMO) > > > i did not knew that it was that > > simple, i quess > > > but i dont understand even more > > > space can be just there without any moment > > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment? > > > space is not ether, i guess > > Space is not anything. You can't point to any place and say that > there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else. > > > > > 2. time? > > > > evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO) > > > but space may exists without any time > > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no > > need for time > > How can we disprove your supposition? Is there not vast quantities of > light passing through any region of space, on its way from past to > future? > > > > > 3. light? > > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave, > > > depending on the experiment you set up. > > > my experiment determines the outcome > > of a very constant of nature i may use > > as input ??? > > > impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be ! > > Nature is what Nature is, but if you seek to measure the number of > turtles around the pond, you don't get the tidal action that they > represent. The tools you apply are specific to one measurement, and > ignore (or gloss over) other possible measurements. No choices. And > when you get to individual photons, Heisenberg starts being a large > factor to deal with. > > > > We don't have access to underlying Reality. > > > All we will ever have is the result of > > > observation, > > > what exactly is an observation, an > > adaptive detector? > > It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question. > > > > and from that we "extrapolate"... > > > thanks and good bye > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What size is light at emission? What if EM is a very low energy wave? Does it appear all at once in space as in a nonlocal phenomenon? Or does all light grow? Mitch Raemsch |