Well, I suppose it has to get there somehow. Presumably something clever involving conversions of mass into energy. I'd ask Einstein - he might know...
Originally posted by rudolfh.: How does a photon accelerate up to 300.000km/sec?
A photon always travels at the speed of light. It could only accelerate up to the speed of light if it were at some other lower speed, but it can't be, so it doesn't accelerate.
According to special relativity theory, everything can be viewed as travelling at the same speed.
Stationary objects travel at 1 second per second and 0 kilometres per second.
As they accelerate in space, their progress through time slows.
An object travelling very close to 300,000 kilometres per second experiences almost 0 seconds per second (from the point of view of the stationery object). A photon experiences no time - from its point of view, space is contracted in its direction of travel such that its point of emission is at the same place as its point of absorption.
You can't travel at the speed of light, but if you fly from earth to Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) at very very close to the speed of light, space will contract for you such that it will appear that Proxima Centauri is very close to earth. From your point of view you will therefore travel the distance in a few seconds. But stationary observers will observe that you took about 4 years to get there - hence you have experienced time slowly because you experienced a few seconds per 4 years.
Where the acceleration of a photon can be put into a model without acceleration?
You need to start by looking at the creation of a photon which is always the result of a quantum event. ie it is outside the rules of special or general relativity. And by it's very nature once a photon exists it is travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum. So looking into the quantum side of things as it's a statistical event in terms of how it can be explained there will be uncertainty about it's starting position and there is no classical mechanistic process to describe its creation, so the concept of acceleration (a classical concept) is redundant during this creation.
Have a look at Wiki for Quantum Tunnelling which discusses a similar kind of process where classical laws are broken.
Hi again rudolfh. I see that this thread is allong similar lines to your last thread. Let's hope we can get a better end result than the last one.
quote:
How does a photon accelerate up to 300.000km/sec?
It doesn't. If it's a 'photon', it's already travelling at this speed.
More 'pertinent' to what I think you are trying to ask is; "how is a photon 'evolved' from a stationary mass to travel at the speed of light?".
Well, before I begin, I have a problem with the term 'photon'.
A 'photon' is an 'undisclosed level of energy' in the form of a 'parcel', or 'packet', of energy that is in transit from one point to another and was initialised by a 'mass perturbation' (probably 'charged particles'). In other words 'it is a "quantum"', so I'll not place any value to this energy (only a 'general' direction and, perhaps, speed [dependant on the 'mass medium' through which it is transmitted])!
My explanation to what I understand to be your question would be; a sudden change in (usually) 'charged mass' causes a perturbation within the medium that transports an electromagnetic energy (and we all know that the speed of 'electromagnetic transport' is the 'assumed' speed of light). Thus, the 'perturbation' (which is from a mass at rest) causes a reaction within the electromagnetic field to 'emanate' in the field as a 'flux' of energy that you have called a 'photon'. Obviously, this travels at the 'accepted' 'speed of light'.
The 'mass perturbation' is converted into a different form of 'energy transport' at the point of origin!
Now let's see what we can make of your thread.
Steve_M.
Your post only relates to 'telecom' problems with speed and distance.
C4 Editor.
quote:
Hi
you may find the following on Einstein interesting:
Why would you post this in a thread that searches for an 'alternative' to the 'proposals' of Einstein etc?
Son of Mulder.
quote:
You need to start by looking at the creation of a photon which is always the result of a quantum event. ie it is outside the rules of special or general relativity.
No it isn't! It's within these rules and what's more, it is 'classically' defined!
quote:
And by it's very nature once a photon exists it is travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum.
"A vacuum" really needs to properly defined here!
quote:
So looking into the quantum side of things as it's a statistical event in terms of how it can be explained there will be uncertainty about it's starting position and there is no classical mechanistic process to describe its creation, so the concept of acceleration (a classical concept) is redundant during this creation.
SoM. Please qualify your statement in some way! And 'read the above'!
quote:
Have a look at Wiki for Quantum Tunnelling which discusses a similar kind of process where classical laws are broken.
Congratulations SoM. You've found an 'experiment' that favours 'aether'.
The whole point of this is that 'sterile neutrinos' that are forced to 'scatter', or 'combine' with the charged mass that they are confronted with have an opportunity to 'commute through' the opposing mass with the same characteristic as a 'pilot wave'!
Sorry SoM, but this is logic. There are no 'classical laws' that are 'broken'!
You need to start by looking at the creation of a photon which is always the result of a quantum event. ie it is outside the rules of special or general relativity.
No it isn't! It's within these rules and what's more, it is 'classically' defined!
I've got to agree with suricat, SOM. Though technically you're right also! I think this is the first time I've witnessed two people squabbling over Algebra LOL
This is not a 'squabble', just a difference of opinion. Your link starts as:
From Wikipedia: 'In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena.'
Physics hasn't yet defined the 'elementary particle for electromagnetic phenomena', but quantum theory uses the photon as a base unit for statistical purposes. However, quantum theory defers to classical physics when a determination of the energy that the photon carries is needed, and it usually is needed.
If you know otherwise, you have my attention.
quote:
How?
How what? How does the experiment favour aether? How did you find the experiment?
The experiment favours aether by way of 'open area of a thin membrane', but I don't know how you found this.
A poor analogy.
If you throw rocks at a 'chicken wire' fence they bounce off (unless you break the wire), but if you throw dirt at the same fence you find that most of the dirt goes through.
This is a poor analogy because it is only qualified by the 'filter effect' that may be more easily recognised of a P-N semiconductor junction (diode). However, the basic principle is valid for even more 'microscopic' phenomena. Which means that the medium that propagates electromagnetic energy is small enough to pass between atoms that are not tuned to its 'resonant frequency'. We still see a 'small' 'DC current' due to 'resistance' (yet another 'bad analogy').
At a 'resonant frequency' only the 'reluctance' of the 'mass medium' is encountered for 'transmission' and this could be anything depending on the 'harmonic' frequency scale value of the 'mass' object under observation.
You may well ask (though you haven't yet), why did I refer to 'sterile neutrinos'?
These little blighters defy detection by accepted methods. However, their 'presence' is expected in abundance and they would exhibit a behaviour that would explain 'most' of the phenomena that we are discussing right now!
OK then all, lets play 'What if?' What if a photon doesn't exist at all? What if only the information of an event happening was being transmitted?Carried along on some kinda universal super-highway, to be de-coded by the observer! That kinda fits how light works doesn't it? What if C is the universal bandwidth? Don't it make you think?
Photons don't exist as a 'physical particle'. They exist as a measure of electromagnetic perturbation caused by a 'physical mass interaction' (for example, an electron moving to a lower 'shell') and these perturbations vary in 'magnitude' and 'oscillation' (amplitude and frequency) dependent on the 'mass interaction'.
The photon does carry a 'signature' of the original event, but the 'observer' can only 'decode' information from the collective 'homogenised wave' and not an individual photon (to the best of my knowledge).
It isn't only 'light' that makes up the 'electromagnetic spectrum'. It's a lot broader than that.
By 'C', I assume you mean c0 (speed of light in vacuo). No, this isn't 'bandwidth', it's the 'maximum speed of transmission' which slows when any 'mass' is included. Mass also 'filters' a transmission introducing limits of frequency depending on the 'resonant peaks' physically 'permitted' by the mass encountered. Add all the usable 'band passes' together and you've got the 'bandwidth' in analogue.
So, because mass affects the 'speed' of electromagnetic transmission (as well as 'filtering' it)! How can the speed of light (an electromagnetic radiation) be a 'constant' when using it to measure time and distance?
You need to start by looking at the creation of a photon which is always the result of a quantum event. ie it is outside the rules of special or general relativity.
No it isn't! It's within these rules and what's more, it is 'classically' defined!
quote:
Special and general Relativity say nothing about particle and wave creation. As a photon is a particle as well as a wave to explain how it attains its speed requires a process that entails the particle aspect as well as the wave behaviour.
quote:
My explanation to what I understand to be your question would be; a sudden change in (usually) 'charged mass' causes a perturbation within the medium that transports an electromagnetic energy (and we all know that the speed of 'electromagnetic transport' is the 'assumed' speed of light). Thus, the 'perturbation' (which is from a mass at rest) causes a reaction within the electromagnetic field to 'emanate' in the field as a 'flux' of energy that you have called a 'photon'. Obviously, this travels at the 'accepted' 'speed of light'.
This explaination is purely a wave analogy, like a pebble in a pond, from classical mechanics and ignores the particle part.
hence my introduction of tunneling as a phenomenon where the seemingly impossible,in classical terms for a particle, occurs.
A photon is a mathematical measure of energy generation that involves a 'group' of unidentified particles. That's the nearest I can get to 'wave/particle duality', but then again that's just about the same as 'wave theory' for 'microscopic' 'energy generation'.
quote:
Special and general Relativity say nothing about particle and wave creation.
Of course not. They deal with electromagnetic 'transmission', not its generation.
quote:
As a photon is a particle as well as a wave to explain how it attains its speed requires a process that entails the particle aspect as well as the wave behaviour.
Well from my explanation above, think of a Newton's Cradle for the 'attainment of speed', but it's not easy to fix the energy aspect when you don't know the size of the balls in the device's makeup. That's why you use a statistical approach with 'quantum mechanics' to fix the energy of a particular photon. Isn't it?
quote:
This explaination is purely a wave analogy, like a pebble in a pond, from classical mechanics and ignores the particle part.
We know the particle involved with water in a pond (molecule) and we know the bounding forces that generate the 'harmonics' in this analogy, but we don't know the particles in the makeup of a photon. Would you like to explain this statistically, as I don't use quantum mechanics.
quote:
hence my introduction of tunneling as a phenomenon where the seemingly impossible,in classical terms for a particle, occurs.
Well I know it was bad, but what aspect of the 'chicken wire' analogy do you want me to expand on. Perhaps 'osmotic effect', though mostly a static phenomenon, would explain this better?
A photon is a mathematical measure of energy generation that involves a 'group' of unidentified particles.
It's a detectable entity that displays both wave and particle properties and has a mathematical description.
quote:
Well from my explanation above, think of a Newton's Cradle for the 'attainment of speed',
In this example the balls attain speed through acceleration from zero. This occurs because the steel, although hard is elastic. Whereas the photon only exists at speed.
quote:
Well I know it was bad, but what aspect of the 'chicken wire' analogy do you want me to expand on.
If you were gently throwing pingpong balls at a solid steel wall and some passed through, that would be an appropriate analogy.
It's a detectable entity that displays both wave and particle properties and has a mathematical description.
We could go on like this all day. We both really seem to be saying the same thing using other words, except that I don't recognise a photon as an 'elementary particle'.
quote:
In this example the balls attain speed through acceleration from zero. This occurs because the steel, although hard is elastic. Whereas the photon only exists at speed.
The analogy is in the 'principle of operation', not the 'physical apparatus'. If you catch the end ball before it returns to the 'cradle', the device stops. The analogy is; no more kinetic energy; no more photon, because it has left the point of its generation (the cosmos is a very long 'cradle'). It isn't the balls that make up the 'cradle' (they hardly move), it's the energy that is transferred 'between' them (photon's energy) that moves the energy away.
