Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
From a photons perspective, distance does not exist nor does time. Distance and time contract as you approach the speed of light, they are variables.
And I think you are in error or at least sly in stating that we don't actually measure the field. We don't measure light, either, we measure it's intensity. (Or its frequency or polarization.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!
Certainly Light (photons) exist. I never said that they didn't.
So how can you say that a field cannot be measured?
Again, what are you measuring?
Please explain why the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of where it appears. (I honestly want to understand this one, too.) And this one shouldn't require QM, QED, or Relativity to understand!)
This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.
It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head. Now if you are shooting photons, the observer will 'see' you 180 degrees off from where you actually are.
Now can you try and answer the question? If you have a problem may I suggest turning to Feynman 12-4, Fundamental Forces. Fields.
All particles are waves.
Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.
I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.
The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.
I hardly know where to begin. First off nothing is static, measurements are always in relationship to another non static entity. If the relationship doesn't change then it is considered static in regards to the two items.
As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.
We are, because you say that picking up a rock and dropping it demonstrates the theory of gravity. I would say that not even a high-school student would write something like that, if asked to think of a way to demonstrate the theory of gravity. Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it? Using the same logic, glass-blowing demonstrates the existence of the element silicon, because, well, if there is no silicon there is no glass, right? Taking a bath is a demonstration of the theory of van der Waals forces. Lighting a candle is a demonstration of Maxwell's theory of light. The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light. Demonstrating the existence of gravity by dropping a rock is a demonstration of superstring theory [*]. Jellyfish are a verification of the theory of evolution. After all, if there was no evolution, there would be no jellyfish, right?
But this is not an isolated gaff on your part. There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to your interpretations of experiments and observations. Here you say that Planck's black-body formula is a convincing demonstration of the wave-particle duality of light. While here, in response to a request about the experimental demonstration of photons, you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.
All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
----
[*] I heard a famous superstring theorist say this.
Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?
Nothing is provable, it can only be falsified. How hard is that to understand?
Of course.
The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light.
No it isn't. Your examples may be considered evidence but not proof. Why is the concept of falsification so hard for you to understand?
you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.
Photons are waves. Particles are waves too. Everything is a wave/particle. I don't see what your problem is.
All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
All of my statements are true. lets take an easy one for you. I claim that you can't prove a theory, you obviously claim that you can. Prove me wrong, prove that God exists. I will wait but I won't hold my breath.
I'd ask what constitutes a particle - an atom? any molecule? -- but I already know that you'll say that all mater is waves of nothing so I won't bother.
I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.
First of all, I never said that an object could not pass through a certain position at a certain time.
But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.
As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.
I realize it's not polite to quote one's self but I'm going to anyway. What I said was "So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory."
But just for fun, my speedometer takes time to measure velocity, and it averages the velocity over a second or so period. (Longer in the winter. or above 60MPH.) Furthermore, the reason I need a speedometer is because I have no way to control my speed accurately otherwise, so I cannot just go 50mph except by what my speedometer says. So considering that my speed varies some, but even if I keep my 1-second average right at 50 even, and I note the time I pass through a certain position, I still won't know what my exact speed was as I passed that point because all I know is that the velocity reading will be an average for the second near when I passed the marker - but I won't know exactly where I was when I was actually going at the average speed.
And besides, if something is moving in relation to a certain reference, it doesn't have "a" position - it passes through an infinite number of positions every second.
So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?
-Jesse
Well, ok whatever. I need to read more whether there is any truth in that. But I do know that it takes twice as long to bounce a laser beam twice as far. So I'm not sure that distance and time never exist with relation to light.
Again, what are you measuring?
The force that the field applies to the electron. Just like we measure other invisible fields - by the force or pressure they exert on things.
This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.
With the above I agree - you are correct - and this well models how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth! The sun's rays would indeed reach the earth from a different angle (about 2.13 degrees or 8.5 minutes lagged) then reality. Then, if gravity "traveled" instantly (which I think was a basis for your question) then indeed, the sun's gravity would be 2.13 degrees ahead of its visual location... But the sun doesn't orbit the earth! Other way around!
It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head.
Let me remind you what you said: "In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point?"
You were unquestionably talking about angular lag - not just an observer turning their head after the flash. The observer turning their head after the flash does not change the direction from which the flash comes, nor does the earth turning cause an angular lag in the optical image of the sun! (And it most certainly doesn't cause the sun's apparent direction of gravity to lead by 2.13 degrees its apparent direction of light!)
As I mentioned, you said: "In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point?"
How again would the earth's rotation cause an angular lag in the apparent position of the sun (compared to its gravitational field -- or otherwise) ?
If you doubt this, just do this experiment (even as a thought experiment.)
First, take a turntable like people put spices on in their cupboard. Set it up with a cup in the center, and two cups on opposite sides. Punch a small hole in the outer cups half way down and also mount a laser pointer on one of them. You will see that as the water shoots out of the outer cup onto the center cup, it will go straight in just like the laser beam and they will hit the same spot. Now spin the whole works, and behold, the water will lag the laser beam. THat demonstrates if the sun orbited the earth. Now stop the turn table, and hang the center cup on a string, and just spin it! Lo and behold, the water and laser will continue to hit the same spot even though the cup is spinning!
Actually that sounds kind of fun. If you think I'm wrong let me know I'll try that experiment too!
-Jesse
"I don't see what your problem is." [excerpt]Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)
Perhaps you meant to say that the sun is 7 minutes ahead of the angular position it was at 7 minutes ago, when it emitted the light that you now see. Either that, or you are a geocentrist.
And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?
Let me give you something else to think about, too :)
Lets say that I'm on a mountaintop park, where there is a merry go around. It's a beautiful bright sunny warm morning, and as I sit on the merry go around, I look out and notice that the sun is exactly horizontal. Now let us further pretend that I get the merry go around rotating at 17 minutes per turn. This way, it'll have turned 180 degrees in the time it takes the light to reach the earth from the sun. So now let's say I have a very sensitive gravity meter which can measure the sun's gravitational pull.
Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west? I don't think so :-)
-Jesse
Yes, your question is better put : )
And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?
It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number. The actual time and distance is not important to the question.
You are correct. The effect of the field is instantaneous : ) That is why the rocket scientist boys use Newtons equations when they are aiming to put a rover on Mars.
Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)
These religious forums will be the death of me :( I didn't mean the statement in a pejorative manner.
I wasn’t sure what or how you meant it, so I thought I’d give you a friendly reminder. ;)
I think you are confused by Zeno's paradox : ) Let me give you a quote that you might find interesting.
"… Zeno was born in the Greek colony of Elea in Southern Italy in the fifth century BC. He travelled widely for many years and then returned to his birthplace only to be tortured to death after being implicated in a plot to assassinate the city’s tyrant Nearchus. He appears to have been a resilient character: he is said to have bitten off his tongue and spat it at the tyrant during torture. However, it is for his activities during happier days that he is chiefly remembered; particularly a series of paradoxes set in the form of short fables. The most famous concerns a race between Achilles (fleetest of foot of all mortals) and a tortoise. Being far slower than Achilles the tortoise is given a head start of say ten metres. But once the race is off Achilles easily reaches the tortoise’s starting position with a few lengthy bounds. But by now the tortoise has moved on. Achilles leaps after the tortoise but on reaching its last position the tortoise has again advanced by some tiny amount. Achilles again advances but each time Achilles moves to close the gap, the gap is widened. Achilles appears to be unable to ever reach the tortoise (or even to move at all) because to do so he must advance through an infinity of ever decreasing distances.
Zeno knew of course that motion was possible and Achilles would catch up with the tortoise. His paradoxes were to illustrate that something must be wrong about our simplistic notion of time and motion. It took two millennia of mathematical head scratching to solve Zeno’s paradox by demonstrating that an infinite sum can add up to a finite number. However, the paradox lives on in the quantum Zeno effect and the inverse quantum Zeno effect, which describe how a quantum system can be manipulated by measurement. "
Does that help?
So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?
Yes, that is what is nice about the speed of light. For all practical purposes it is a constant. Everything else is a variable.
Your experiment needs to add one additional bit of information. Instead of a steady stream of water or photons you need to send individual particles. For example simply repeat the experiment but use a precisely timed simultaneous opening of the water hole and a burst from the laser. Will anything change with the spinning cup example? The won't hit at the same point will they? That is essentially what my original question was, except that I used light and a field, instead of water and light. : )
I wasn't asking you a question, I was telling you something. Either you face the fact that you are completely wrong, or face the fact that you are a geocentrist.
It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number.
Why didn't you use 8 as a number?
The pulse of light may reach the center cup sooner then the pulse of water, but they will still both come from exactly the same place!
You were clearly describing angular lag between the sun's gravitational pull and optical apparent position.
-Jesse
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.