Accelaration of a photon...

[rudeonline]

Hello, I would like to open this discusion here asswel. I will show you 2 differnt quotes from another forum to start a very intresting disccusion witch could explain the reason why light does not have an acceleration curve..

 

Ruud has a basic principle of light, matter, time and the Universe. I happen to agree that he may indeed have hit upon something. If the other members of the forum don't agree with his basic principle then they can comment and disprove it through the use of their knowledge. Like Joe says - if no one was allowed to put forward a theory then where does that leave us as a human race?

I have discussed applications in which Ruud's basic principled may work, it is up to forum members to disprove those applications and all I've heard so far is insult from certain members.

Therefore, using scientific evidence prove to me that this whole thing is wrong - cause I'm interested to hear this.

 

 

And my first responce on it..

 

The basic idea I have is that the speed of light is not a velocity at all. I think that the lightspeed is the absolute minumum speed.

 

You can see that as the absolute point zero of space and time.

 

One argument for this is that the lightspeed does not have an acceleration.

 

If we measure the lightspeed, it has instantly the velocity of 300.000km/sec.

 

That's allready kind of weird, where does the light gets his speed from?

 

A second point I like to make is that there seem to be no time for a photon.

 

A photon leaves and arives at the same time.

 

How can something move without time?

 

In my opinion is light just a trail wich leaves his source in all directions of past time.

 

The source ( matter) is the thing what moves forward trough time.

 

When we measure the speed of light, we actuaaly measure the speed of mass trough time. It's like standing in a train and measure the speed of the tracks.

 

How you find out what is moving,

 

Is it the tracks our is it the train?

 

 

 

So far.. hoppefully we can have a good discussion about this treat..

 

And since I'm Dutch, I hope you forgive me my poor Englisch..

[Moontanman]

It's an odd premise, I look forward to brains better programed than mine hashing this out.

[InfiniteNow]

How can an object which, by definition, has constant speed be accelerated? The question doesn't make sense.

[CHADS]

If a Photon is massless .. couldnt you just look straight through it?

 

I think its purely dimensional ... C its self is one dimensional .

 

Energy can go places at different speeds measured at points through time.

 

Mass has 3 dimensions and a time component .... A wave has An X and Y ... 2d

 

Which moves in our 3d space in a direction.

 

So a photon is a 2d representation in 3d space of an Energy moving on a 1d Absolute "C".

[jedaisoul]

The basic idea I have is that the speed of light is not a velocity at all.

I agree...

A Conceptual Alternative to Spacetime – Part 3

 

...It follows that, rather than being a velocity, c is an universal constant that links a difference in simultaneity between two macro objects to the physical distance between them. This might explain why the velocity of light and the velocities of the source and receiver do not add; they are conceptually different entities.

[rudeonline]

I agree...

 

Nice.. ;)

 

Now there are a allready a few people who accept the idea of the velocity of light as zero while mass travels into the future with 300.000km/sec.

 

Maybe you would like to share your idea's also on the differen't forum?

 

Link to other science discussion website removed

[jedaisoul]

Now there are a allready a few people who accept the idea of the velocity of light as zero while mass travels into the future with 300.000km/sec.

 

Maybe you would like to share your idea's also on the differen't forum?

Hi, I've had a look at the other forum, and you seem to have stirred up enough people there without needing my assistance. I think I'll lurk there a while before posting.

 

Also, one advantage of this site is that there is an area specifically for alternative theories. So no one can complain about wacky ideas being expressed there, that's what it is for.

 

PS. I'm not too impressed by your idea that mass travels into the future at the velocity c. The simple question occurs to me: Why?

 

It isn't sufficient that your idea solves one issue. It has to be meaningful in itself. So I don't agree that matter travels "into the future" at all. The future does not exist, so how could matter go there? Matter stays resolutely in the present. Similarly, the past is not somewhere you could go to if you stopped travelling at c. The past does not exist either.

 

Basically, you need a fuller idea of the cosmology you are proposing, not just one bright idea.

 

PPS. I think this thread should be moved to "Alternative theories" (if it hasn't already).

[rudeonline]

Hi, I've had a look at the other forum, and you seem to have stirred up enough people there without needing my assistance. I think I'll lurk there a while before posting.

 

Also, one advantage of this site is that there is an area specifically for alternative theories. So no one can complain about wacky ideas being expressed there, that's what it is for.

 

PS. I'm not too impressed by your idea that mass travels into the future at the velocity c. The simple question occurs to me: Why?

 

It isn't sufficient that your idea solves one issue. It has to be meaningful in itself. So I don't agree that matter travels "into the future" at all. The future does not exist, so how could matter go there? Matter stays resolutely in the present. Similarly, the past is not somewhere you could go to if you stopped travelling at c. The past does not exist either.

 

Basically, you need a fuller idea of the cosmology you are proposing, not just one bright idea.

 

PPS. I think this thread should be moved to "Alternative theories" (if it hasn't already).

 

 

 

I think if we like to argue science this treat is in the right place here.

 

The question is, how does a photon accelerate?

 

This is a fundmental science question. If you have an scientific argument about this. I would love to hear it.. and many more with you..

[jedaisoul]

I think if we like to argue science this treat is in the right place here.

 

The question is, how does a photon accelerate?

 

This is a fundmental science question. If you have an scientific argument about this. I would love to hear it.. and many more with you..

The right place depends upon the site. On this site, the Physical Sciences Forums are for mainstream science only. So if you want to ask a question about mainstream science, you can do it here. But, in mainstream physics, photons do not accelerate. So your question is meaningless in mainstream physics. Hence it does not belong here.

 

Also, you have proposed your own solution. There are two places on this site for non-mainstream ideas, Alternative Theories and Strange Claims:

 

* Alternative Theories is for theories that you are pepared to defend. To do that you need to have thought them through, and have some science to back it up.

 

* Strange Claims is for weird and wonderful ideas that may make sense to the proposer, but for which they have no science to back it up.

 

So I was being polite when I suggested this belongs in Alternative Theories. Without any science to back your idea up (and I can't see that you have any), this could end up in Strange Claims.

[modest]

The basic idea I have is that the speed of light is not a velocity at all.

 

The speed of light © is a speed. It is, of course, the speed which electromagnetic radiation propagates in a vacuum from any inertial reference frame. As such, it is a constant of the universe.

 

As a constant of the universe there are many equations of physics that contain c. A well known example is:

[math]E=mc^2[/math]

In SI units c is m/s (meters per second). Plug the units into the equation above. Energy is kg times m^2 / s^2 while mass is kg and c is m/s. Do the units cancel? Yes. Would they if c were not a speed? No.

 

The point is, if light is not a speed then Energy will have to be redefined - as will most other equations and definitions in physics. Are you prepared to do this?

 

I think that the lightspeed is the absolute minumum speed.

 

To simplify things, the speed of light is often considered to be one. This is helpful, for example:

[math]\gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}[/math]

is the gamma factor, which is often written:

[math]\gamma = (1-v^2)^{-1/2}[/math]

This is accompanied with the statement that velocity is considered relative to the speed of light. This, however, is different from what you are describing where the velocity of light is zero and all other velocity is negative. Trying to rewrite the equation above where c=0 won't work. You can't divide by zero. A meaningful constant of the universe cannot be zero.

 

You can see that as the absolute point zero of space and time.

 

One argument for this is that the lightspeed does not have an acceleration.

 

If we measure the lightspeed, it has instantly the velocity of 300.000km/sec.

 

But, if we consider light to be 'still' and ourselves to move relative to it, we wouldn't have any acceleration either. So, what you're saying is simply a physical fact - not a problem with how we look at things.

 

That's allready kind of weird, where does the light gets his speed from?

 

The simplest explanation is that light has zero rest mass. It therefore must always travel at the maximum speed c. It is not an inertial frame of reference. It does not require time or force to accelerate something of zero rest mass. This is not a complete explanation, but hopefully will give you something to think on using classical reasoning.

 

The source ( matter) is the thing what moves forward trough time.

 

When we measure the speed of light, we actuaaly measure the speed of mass trough time. It's like standing in a train and measure the speed of the tracks.

 

How you find out what is moving,

 

Is it the tracks our is it the train?

 

Light travels on a light-like curve through spacetime while matter travels on a time-like curve. This is similar to what you're saying and I think you'd get a kick out of reading about it, but I can't find a good source to offer. You can try this:

 

World line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Hopefully that will point you in a good direction.

 

~modest

[CHADS]

I suppose its relative ... if your a photon and your friends a photon moving parrallel then you would think your going no speed at all ... Easy but The only Way i can See C as not being a velocity is with it being an upper extreme for which mass cant exceed .... Thefore you could class it as zero or a 1 dimensional reference point and deam the velocities of mass as distance to this C reference ..... So When mass reaches C its velocity is Zero .... Thats an unconventianal Interepertation ...

 

But Einstein said "If the Facts Dont Fit the theory then Change the Facts"....

[rudeonline]

If I understand well about the reaction on my question I like to continue with the next question.. :hihi:

 

All mass move's from sopace/time frame to the next time/space frame. I would say that the speed of following up the frame's ( as a mass) doeld been seen as the speed of mass trough space/time.

 

My idea is that light can not travel from one to the next time frame, it is locked in it's time frame when it start to exist.

 

I'm sure that the lightspeed is a natural constant, but how we can put it in a frame as a speed if it is in all frame's igual?

[modest]

If time is orthogonal to the spatial dimensions (it is at right angles), like this:

 

 

Then light moves at 45 degrees to either axis and mass will be confined to moving slower than that. Like this:

 

 

This is independent of any reference frame. I'm confused about what you're proposing, would it fit into this kind of spacetime?

 

~modest

[rudeonline]

Thanx for your example. In this model it looks like mass is always moving between the time axe and the velocity of light axe.

 

Then it looks like mass is not moving between light and the space axe, it only move's between time and light. Is this what they mean with the "anti matter" our empty space?

 

In my opinion matter move's trough space and time. I made a differen't model, where I suggest that all matter travels trough space/time, but light can't.

 

It's something that matter travels trough the 4th dimension while light is left behind in the 3th dimenion.

 

Hope you will understand this model.

 

 

 

This is the first exapmple where scientist show's us how space in bended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, if we add time in the same model, you can see that spece/time is bended into all direction's.

 

 

Do you have a little bit in mind how my model would work?

[modest]

Thanx for your example. In this model it looks like mass is always moving between the time axe and the velocity of light axe.

 

The speed of light in m/s is always more than the speed of mass in m/s from any reference frame. So, mass will make a more vertical line in that drawing than light. It will have less space per time - less meters per second, less speed.

 

Then it looks like mass is not moving between light and the space axe, it only move's between time and light.

 

The point is both light and mass move between time and space. Light isn't an axis - it is a line. Mass would make a line on that drawing as well. It would be called a "time like line" and it would be between the light-line or "light-like line" and the time axis. This is the normal way to draw a spacetime diagram. See:

 

Minkowski diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Is this what they mean with the "anti matter" our empty space?

 

No. The idea is that mass does not move from one side of such a light-line to the other.

 

EDIT: To avoid confustion, I should say: Mass doesn't move from the left side to the right side as depicted above.

 

Such a thing is not possible. It’s the appropriate way to draw a spacetime diagram such that mass cannot outrun the light it emits (as seen from any reference frame). That is not to say matter doesn’t exist there. It surely does. Such matter would be spatially separated and inaccessible. Not antimatter.

 

In my opinion matter move's trough space and time. I made a differen't model, where I suggest that all matter travels trough space/time, but light can't.

 

But light moves from place to place in our three dimensions. Imagine the monitor in front of you right now. Unless you’re doing some sort of anaerobic exercises at the moment, you and that monitor are not moving relative to one another. Yet light must. In other words: you and that monitor are motionless in three of the four dimensions. In order for light to start at the monitor and slap into your face, it has necessarily moved through those three dimensions. Now then... this is where you say something along the lines of:

But what if the light doesn’t move, but me and the monitor move.

The problem remains. While light moves from the monitor to your face, other, different light moves from your face to the monitor. It goes both ways. It can do this because it is different light. Some photons can go this way while other photons go that way. It’s not a problem unless all photons are supposed to be motionless while matter moves around. You and the monitor can’t very well move both directions at the same time to accommodate the motion of two photons. So, again, nonsensical.

 

It's something that matter travels trough the 4th dimension while light is left behind in the 3th dimenion.

 

The only thing that I’ve seen make sense is normal Euclidian or Minkowski spacetime. Normal geometry where both light and matter move in all four dimensions (as I depicted above).

 

Hope you will understand this model.

 

I’m sorry, I do not.

[jedaisoul]

I agree with all that Modest has said, but perhaps I can make it clearer by pointing out just one error in your interpretation...

It's something that matter travels trough the 4th dimension while light is left behind in the 3th dimenion.

If light were left behind in the past, it would never arrive. There is always a delay between the emission and reception of light. Light is always received in the future (compared with when it is emitted). But that's potentially misleading. It is more accurate to say that light is emitted and received in the present. It's just received at a later instance of the present.

[CHADS]

I sought of understand what rude is saying .... Why would light have to move in 2 directions to and from the monitor ...... Becuase our mass /energy creates the

distance it has to travel or can travel ....

 

The light frequencies can just move up and down relative to each other on a 1d line while our observation has to traverse 3d space.

 

This would mean that the light from the moniter and coming from our face is in the same place ... our face is in the moniter :rolleyes:

 

It could work but would give you a head ache trying to picture how our body is not litrally in the moniter just the Light.... purely dimensional .