Science > Physics > If there is no ether why does light lose its energy?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"habshi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2005 06:29:53 PM |
| Object: |
If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
.
|
|
| User: "habshi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 05:17:16 PM |
|
|
What about a laser light . If we shone it on the moon or amrs
from earth would it have the same energy theoretically and practically
assuming no spreading out ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
21 Dec 2005 05:55:55 AM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
What about a laser light . If we shone it on the moon or amrs
from earth would it have the same energy theoretically and practically
assuming no spreading out ?
Assuming no spreading out or scattering, yes.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
21 Dec 2005 06:19:23 AM |
|
|
If one shined a laser at 29,398 angels dancing on the head of a pin,
could one alter their dance step from a Grand Waltz to the Locomotion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 04:44:06 AM |
|
|
Are you talking about the inverse-square law? That's pure geometry.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisin" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 09:02:43 AM |
|
|
It doesn't. I hope your brain is still under warranty.
"habshi" <habshi@anony> wrote in message news:43a74ffa.3081761@news.clara.net...
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "habshi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
24 Dec 2005 04:03:02 PM |
|
|
O Excellent free learn astronomy site with great diagrams and
photos is
http://www.synapses.co.uk/astro/
.
|
|
|
| User: "habshi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
24 Dec 2005 04:09:28 PM |
|
|
Apparently light behaves in vaccum the same as sound does in
air or water . Why ? if there is no ether ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "habshi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
24 Dec 2005 04:03:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:29:53 GMT, habshi@anony (habshi) wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
.
|
|
|
| User: "daestrom" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
26 Dec 2005 09:28:43 AM |
|
|
"habshi" <habshi@anony> wrote in message
news:43adc4ab.38252464@news.clara.net...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:29:53 GMT, habshi@anony (habshi) wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
No, you need to go back to grade-school science class.
If 1 million photons leave the sun and are sent out in 1million directions,
a planet near the sun is likely to be in the path of several. But as the
photons travel from the sun, the various angles they are traveling at cause
the distance between photons to constantly increase. So a planet of the
same size, twice as distant, is likely to only intercept a quarter as many.
Neglecting relativistic effects, and any Doppler shift, each photon
continues to carry the same amount of energy all the way until it interacts
with matter. But the number of photons per m^2 drops off with distance.
Same energy per photon, but fewer photons means less energy per m^2.
daestrom
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "harmony" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 12:25:36 PM |
|
|
elementary, dear. energy per photon on mars is same as it is on earth or
anywhere else.
just as water is h2o all over the universe. the only exception is mommedan
world where laws of physics are tempered by alla. you confusing energy with
candle powers or luminous intensity and such stuff.
"habshi" <habshi@anony> wrote in message
news:43a74ffa.3081761@news.clara.net...
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 06:47:17 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html#c1
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 10:44:54 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle
Ref: Volume 292, Number 5526, Issue of 29 Jun 2001, p. 2414.
Copyright © 2001 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science
ASTROPHYSICS: 'Tired-Light' Hypothesis Gets Re-Tired
Charles Seife
The "tired-light" hypothesis, mainstay of a dwindling band
of contrarians who deny the big bang and its corollary, the
expanding universe, has suffered a one-two punch.
Observations of supernovae and of galaxies provide the best
direct evidence that the universe is truly expanding and
promise to shed light on the evolution of galaxies to boot.
"The expansion is real. It's not due to an unknown physical
process. That is the conclusion," says Allan Sandage, an
astrophysicist at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena,
California, and leader of the galaxy study.
It's a conclusion that most astronomers reached long ago. In
1929, Edwin Hubble announced that light from distant
galaxies is redder than light from nearby ones. Hubble and
others took the redshifts as evidence that the universe is
expanding, causing distant galaxies to speed away faster
than nearby ones. To an observer on Earth, they reasoned,
this would appear to stretch the wavelength of their light,
just as the sound of a police-car siren seems to drop in
frequency as it speeds away. However, within a few months of
the publication of Hubble's paper, astrophysicist Franz
Zwicky came up with an alternative explanation: that
galaxies' light reddens because it loses energy as it passes
through space. In Zwicky's tired-light scenario, the
universe doesn't expand at all. Distant galaxies are red not
because they are moving, but because their light has
traveled farther and gotten pooped along the way.
Beyond the fringe. "Tired light"--a radical alternative to
the standard expanding-universe model of the cosmos--has
just failed two crucial tests.
When experimenters first measured the cosmic microwave
background more than 30 years ago, they found that the
radiation was too dim to be explained by Zwicky's
hypothesis. That realization relegated "tired light" firmly
to the fringe of physics, but scientists still sought more
direct proofs of the expansion of the cosmos.
Two new papers provide the best direct evidence yet. The
first, slated to appear in Astrophysical Journal, measures
the brightening and dimming of a certain type of supernova.
Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, if distant
supernovae are speeding away from us, they will appear to
flare and fade at a more leisurely pace than close-by ones.
A team of scientists led by Gerson Goldhaber of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California,
has shown that this is, indeed, the case with 42 recently
analyzed supernovae. "It's such a clean-looking curve," says
Saul Perlmutter, a member of the LBNL team. "It's very
unambiguous."
In the second study, Sandage and Lori Lubin of Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore analyzed space-based measurements of
the surface brightness of galaxies. Both the standard
expanding-universe and the tired-light theory, they
realized, agree that redshifted light should make distant
galaxies look dimmer than they really are. In an expanding
universe, however, time dilation and other relativistic
distortions will also dim distant galaxies, making them
appear much fainter than tired-light theory dictates. What's
more, young stars--and thus young galaxies--tend to be
considerably brighter than old ones. When that extra
brightness is taken into account, the observations match
expanding-universe predictions, as Lubin and Sandage will
report in Astronomical Journal. For the tired-light theory
to be correct, young galaxies would have to be dimmer,
rather than brighter, than old ones. "There's no way to
explain that," says Lubin.
Although not surprising in themselves, the results are
useful for "tidying things up in our cosmology," says
Michael Pahre, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who
performed a similar surface-brightness experiment in the
mid-1990s. By comparing the expanding-universe theory's
predictions with observed values of the surface brightness
of distant galaxies, scientists can work backward and figure
out how much brighter those galaxies must have been earlier
in the history of the universe.
Even so, researchers doubt whether the results will convert
tired-light diehards. "I don't think it's possible to
convince people who are holding on to tired light," says Ned
Wright, an astrophysicist at the University of California,
Los Angeles. "I would say it is more a problem for a
psychological journal than for Science."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 06:15:37 AM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
A physics FAQ...
Light does not "lose its energy with distance" as you can find by
measuring photon energies as a function of distance from the source
(constant).
The _amplitude_ weakens because the same amount of energy fills a larger
volume of space.
Concerning cosmic redshift, energy is conserved locally by all the
interactions in relativity. Photon energy decreases because the spatial
scale factor and hence the volume increases.
Although energy is locally conserved, global energy is an ambiguous
subject in general relativity in cases where there is not a clear
boundary.
See the Physics FAQ for more detail (available with google).
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 06:52:54 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
If vacuum is empty why does light energy weaken with distance?
So the light shining on Mars should have the same energy and heat as
that on Venus or Earth and distance should not matter .
So the light must be swimming through ether and losing its
energy in the struggle . Jim stay out .
Energy is related to #photons/unit area of surface
As distance from source increases, the surface area of the wave-front
grows. Fewer photons per unit area passing means lesser energy per unit
area you can collect.
Energy of a photon stays constant. The total energy remains constant.
The energy/area falls.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:00:38 PM |
|
|
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Energy of a photon stays constant. The total energy remains constant.
The energy 'conveyed' by a photon is frame dependent. A photon does not
'have' energy.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:06:56 PM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Energy of a photon stays constant. The total energy remains constant.
The energy 'conveyed' by a photon is frame dependent. A photon does not
'have' energy.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:25:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Energy of a photon stays constant. The total energy remains constant.
The energy 'conveyed' by a photon is frame dependent. A photon does not
'have' energy.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:36:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference? It's been a long
time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r speeding at c may be
unique.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 09:26:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1135042609.782477.271820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
No, why? All inertial reference frames are equivalent.
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference?
Not in a "legitimate" one.
It's been a long time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r
speeding at c may be unique.
Yes, right on. A reference frame speeding at c relative to another
reference frame is not legitimate, the transformation breaks down
there. And, it'll take such frame to bring the energy of the to zero.
But, as long as you stay in the ralm of "more than zero and less than
infinity", given a photon with arbitrary energy in one frame, you can
find another frame in which it'll have another arbitrary energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
21 Dec 2005 02:42:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1135042609.782477.271820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
No, why? All inertial reference frames are equivalent.
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference?
Not in a "legitimate" one.
It's been a long time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r
speeding at c may be unique.
Yes, right on. A reference frame speeding at c relative to another
reference frame is not legitimate, the transformation breaks down
there. And, it'll take such frame to bring the energy of the to zero.
But, as long as you stay in the ralm of "more than zero and less than
infinity", given a photon with arbitrary energy in one frame, you can
find another frame in which it'll have another arbitrary energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
FoR's are artificial constraints designed to avoid the necessity of
achieving the reality
of a physical system's energy and motion.
Those who disagree can give me the temp alteration in degrees K of a
body in a different FoR
Jim G
c'=c+v
whether DHR's like to hear it or not!
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
21 Dec 2005 05:54:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135042609.782477.271820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
No, why? All inertial reference frames are equivalent.
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference?
Not in a "legitimate" one.
It's been a long time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r
speeding at c may be unique.
Yes, right on. A reference frame speeding at c relative to another
reference frame is not legitimate, the transformation breaks down
there. And, it'll take such frame to bring the energy of the to zero.
But, as long as you stay in the ralm of "more than zero and less than
infinity", given a photon with arbitrary energy in one frame, you can
find another frame in which it'll have another arbitrary energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
FoR's are artificial constraints designed to avoid the necessity of
achieving the reality
of a physical system's energy and motion.
Those who disagree can give me the temp alteration in degrees K of a
body in a different FoR
Changing a frame of reference will change the system's linear kinetic
energy, but not its random kinetic energy, and therefore not its
temperature.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
23 Dec 2005 12:07:39 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135042609.782477.271820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
No, why? All inertial reference frames are equivalent.
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference?
Not in a "legitimate" one.
It's been a long time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r
speeding at c may be unique.
Yes, right on. A reference frame speeding at c relative to another
reference frame is not legitimate, the transformation breaks down
there. And, it'll take such frame to bring the energy of the to zero.
But, as long as you stay in the ralm of "more than zero and less than
infinity", given a photon with arbitrary energy in one frame, you can
find another frame in which it'll have another arbitrary energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
FoR's are artificial constraints designed to avoid the necessity of
achieving the reality
of a physical system's energy and motion.
Those who disagree can give me the temp alteration in degrees K of a
body in a different FoR
Changing a frame of reference will change the system's linear kinetic
energy, but not its random kinetic energy, and therefore not its
temperature.
"***** is an artificial constraint applied in order to avoid
collateral splatter"
Jim G
c'=c+v
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
23 Dec 2005 06:20:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135042609.782477.271820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1135040816.268470.274690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Marcus Aurelius" <aryamihir@hotmail.com> writes:
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Sure. And relative to a different reference frame it has different
energy. What's so surprising here?
Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?
No, why? All inertial reference frames are equivalent.
Can a photon have zero energy in a frame of reference?
Not in a "legitimate" one.
It's been a long time since I studied frames and I guess a f.o.r
speeding at c may be unique.
Yes, right on. A reference frame speeding at c relative to another
reference frame is not legitimate, the transformation breaks down
there. And, it'll take such frame to bring the energy of the to zero.
But, as long as you stay in the ralm of "more than zero and less than
infinity", given a photon with arbitrary energy in one frame, you can
find another frame in which it'll have another arbitrary energy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
FoR's are artificial constraints designed to avoid the necessity of
achieving the reality
of a physical system's energy and motion.
Those who disagree can give me the temp alteration in degrees K of a
body in a different FoR
Changing a frame of reference will change the system's linear kinetic
energy, but not its random kinetic energy, and therefore not its
temperature.
"***** is an artificial constraint applied in order to avoid
collateral splatter"
I don't even know what that means, let alone what it has to do with the
physics.
PD
Jim G
c'=c+v
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:19:42 PM |
|
|
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Energy of a photon stays constant. The total energy remains constant.
The energy 'conveyed' by a photon is frame dependent. A photon does not
'have' energy.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
That's the new-age quantum mumbo-jumbo :P
No, it is not. See the paper, 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'.
The photon does not have a rest mass, but it does possess momentum.
Photons impacting a suspended mirror can impart momentum to it. And
that means energy.
Momentum is frame dependent. Think about this. A photon leaves a star
moving away from us conveying x amount of energy. But when we observe
that photon it is conveying less than x amount of energy. Where did the
energy go?
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Momentum is frame dependent. Think about this. A photon leaves a star
moving away from us conveying x amount of energy. But when we observe
that photon it is conveying less than x amount of energy. Where did the
energy go?
I thought only acceleration produced difference in measurement.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 08:22:17 PM |
|
|
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Momentum is frame dependent. Think about this. A photon leaves a star
moving away from us conveying x amount of energy. But when we observe
that photon it is conveying less than x amount of energy. Where did the
energy go?
I thought only acceleration produced difference in measurement.
It is the relative motion. Think about doing this with mass. You are in
an auto going 100 mph. Now shoot of a cannon ball backward with a muzzle
velocity of 100 mph. In the cars frame there is a pile of energy in that
cannon ball. But if you were standing on the side when the ball was shot
you would see it stand still, no energy.
Same goes for a photon but the math is a little different as there is no
frame for the photon. It always moves at c in any frame. Photons coming
from distant stars are red shifted because of the relative motion.
from the other post, you wrote:
'Don't frames of references have a standard reference frame to compare
with?'
One of the beautiful results of special relativity is that there is no
preferred frame. For one hundred years it has remained undefined,
unobserved. There is a form of Lorentz relativity where an eather is
defined and the math works. But it can be anywhere. It has to be because
it hasn't been observed. So it is unnecessary baggage to suite the minds
of men.
We may want dearly to rationalize nature but the best we can do is model it.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 08:50:56 PM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
It is the relative motion. Think about doing this with mass. You are in
an auto going 100 mph. Now shoot of a cannon ball backward with a muzzle
velocity of 100 mph. In the cars frame there is a pile of energy in that
cannon ball. But if you were standing on the side when the ball was shot
you would see it stand still, no energy.
I guess a simpler version would be that I throw a ball with velocity v
but a person standing on the ball would think that I have a velocity -v
..
I see your point. I just thought there should be a standard f.o.r.
If I see a photon entering an event horizon of a black hole, how would
the even horizon look from the photon's f.o.r? Relativity would break
down, no?
I wonder if the photon's f.o.r shows any interesting behavior during
interference.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 09:18:12 PM |
|
|
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
If I see a photon entering an event horizon of a black hole, how would
the even horizon look from the photon's f.o.r? Relativity would break
down, no?
I wonder if the photon's f.o.r shows any interesting behavior during
interference.
Now you have me on shaky ground. There is no FOR for a photon. c would
have to equal zero. dt would be zero. Everything else would have to go
to infinity. You don't need a black hole.
Also, you can't see a photon that doesn't hit your eye. Even if it
emitted something observable the world-line is always beyond your POV.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
Also follow the 'See Also' links. If I'm not covering this properly,
others on sci.physics will.
Adi Anant
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
19 Dec 2005 10:02:45 PM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Also, you can't see a photon that doesn't hit your eye. Even if it
emitted something observable the world-line is always beyond your POV.
My earlier post was a little confused. I guess I was thinking of a
barrier that would break the relitivity of FORs.
It doesn't have to be a photon. If two spin-coupled particles move in
opposite directions, would any kind of barrier (anything that distorts
space) produce asymmerty between the two FORs?
If I am chasing a running dog on an immensely large treadmill, but the
distance between me and the dog always stays the same, I would still
not think that I have no energy - internal changes like temperature
would tell me that I am spending energy. So even if the dog stays the
same distance from me, and the treadmill is so large that I cannot tell
if I am moving or not, I would still feel the cramp in my muscles and
know something is changing, even though nothing external seems to be
changing.
So changes internal to the frame of reference can be used to determine
changes external to it.
Adi Anant
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: If there is no ether why does light lose its energy? |
20 Dec 2005 09:47:10 AM |
|
|
and in addition
space is full of particles ans sub particles.
on which light collides
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
