Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Jakob wrote:And how come the measure of joule turns out to be fitted so neatly to the measure of m/s?
Jakob wrote:how come the measure of joule turns out to be fitted so neatly to the measure of m/s?
James S Saint wrote:Energy is formed by inertia in motion.. m and c
Jakob wrote:James S Saint wrote:Energy is formed by inertia in motion.. m and c
Is it wrong to say that c^2 represents the way a paired photon revolves around itself?
At least this was my intuition, that c^2 represents spin.
Inner Effort = m*c'*c' = mc^2. Again, assuming that the speed of affect is the speed of light or close to it.
If you multiply the reluctance to change times the speed of changing, you get a value related to m*c.
Jakob wrote:Inner Effort = m*c'*c' = mc^2. Again, assuming that the speed of affect is the speed of light or close to it.
If mass increases with its acceleration relative to another mass, does perhaps the inner speed of affect within that mass decrease? Perhaps c pertains to the integrity of an object as such.
Jakob wrote:If you multiply the reluctance to change times the speed of changing, you get a value related to m*c.
What exactly do you mean by the speed of changing, as opposed to the speed of turning?
Please elaborate on the speed of changing as it partakes in an electron, I have to get a bit more context of the physical interactivity to picture this.
Yes. In the electron the photon revolves around itself with a c^2.5 factor. It isn't a paired photon.Jakob wrote:Is it wrong to say that c^2 represents the way a paired photon revolves around itself? At least this was my intuition, that c^2 represents spin.
Farsight wrote:Yes. In the electron the photon revolves around itself with a c^2.5 factor. It isn't a paired photon.Jakob wrote:Is it wrong to say that c^2 represents the way a paired photon revolves around itself? At least this was my intuition, that c^2 represents spin.
In pair production you start with a photon and "split it" into two to make an electron and a positron. If you annihilate an electron with a positron you typically get two photons. Think of the electron as one photon going round and round, and the positron as another.Jakob wrote:Ah, I thought this was what pair-production was about.
I can't tell you I'm afraid. I saw it in a draft paper, and I promised I wouldn't reveal any details until after the paper is published. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the 2.5.Jakob wrote:my question then becomes: how does what precisely (in physical terms?) arrive at the c^2.5 factor?
The photon is a wave, it doesn't really have a size, like that picture you put up where you mentioned standard deviations. The electron has a wavelike nature, it doesn't really have a size either. The smallness that people talk about it something like the smallness of the eye of a storm. Think of the electron's electromagnetic field as being "part of what it is".James S Saint wrote:An electron is extremely small compared to a photon, so don't go thinking in terms of merely a couple of photons spinning around each other and forming an electron. Just because you get photons formed after you breakup an electron, doesn't mean there were tiny little photons inside just waiting to puff up and be free.
James S Saint wrote:An electron is extremely small compared to a photon, so don't go thinking in terms of merely a couple of photons spinning around each other and forming an electron. Just because you get photons formed after you breakup an electron, doesn't mean there were tiny little photons inside just waiting to puff up and be free.
Farsight wrote:In pair production you start with a photon and "split it" into two to make an electron and a positron. If you annihilate an electron with a positron you typically get two photons. Think of the electron as one photon going round and round, and the positron as another.
I can't tell you I'm afraid. I saw it in a draft paper, and I promised I wouldn't reveal any details until after the paper is published. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the 2.5.Jakob wrote:my question then becomes: how does what precisely (in physical terms?) arrive at the c^2.5 factor?
Einstein’s derivation of E=mc^2 wrote:Assuming that bodies at rest with zero mass necessarily have zero energy, this implies the famous formula E = mc^2 – but only for bodies which are at rest. For moving bodies, there is a similar formula, but one has to first decide what the correct definition of mass is for moving bodies; I will not discuss this issue here, but see for instance the Wikipedia entry on this topic.
Broadly speaking, the derivation of the above proposition proceeds via the following five steps:Using the postulates of special relativity, determine how space and time coordinates transform under changes of reference frame (i.e. derive the Lorentz transformations).
Using 1., determine how the temporal frequency \nu (and wave number k) of photons transform under changes of reference frame (i.e. derive the formulae for relativistic Doppler shift).
Using Planck’s law E = h\nu (and de Broglie’s law p = \hbar k) and 2., determine how the energy E (and momentum p) of photons transform under changes of reference frame.
Using the law of conservation of energy (and momentum) and 3., determine how the energy (and momentum) of bodies transform under changes of reference frame.
Comparing the results of 4. with the classical Newtonian approximations KE \approx \frac{1}{2} m|v|^2 (and p \approx mv), deduce the relativistic relationship between mass and energy for bodies at rest (and more generally between mass, velocity, energy, and momentum for moving bodies).
They shouldn't. There will be some differences in the language and the detail, but it's the same general picture.Jakob wrote:James & Farsight, I can't make sense of your texts together. They seem to contradict.
It's a bit like two opposite knots cancelling each others' knottedness to free up the photon that's configured as an electron and the photon that's configured as the positron. Yes, you can merge two photons to create one photon with half the wavelength. At least I think you can. You can definitely split a photon into two photons with double the wavelength, and most things in physics are reversible because they're just wavefunction configuration changes.Jakob wrote:Farsight - if one foton becomes an electron and a positron, why do the latter two when they collide or merge become two fotons? Could these fotons then also be merged again into one "heavier" foton?
No probs. When I can tell you, you'll appreciate that It's horribly simple.Jakob wrote:Well, thanks anyway, I'd hate to be straining myself to understand things that aren't even so.
Assuming that bodies at rest with zero mass necessarily have zero energy, this implies the famous formula E = mc^2 – but only for bodies which are at rest.
Jakob wrote:James S Saint wrote:An electron is extremely small compared to a photon, so don't go thinking in terms of merely a couple of photons spinning around each other and forming an electron. Just because you get photons formed after you breakup an electron, doesn't mean there were tiny little photons inside just waiting to puff up and be free.
Jakob wrote:What are the minimum and maximum electrical charges of a photon and of an electron?
Jakob wrote:Sorry for continuing to ask silly questions James (I got that Joule-joke the first time though)
I am just curious as to the type of changes that happen between an electron and a photon.
How does the energy of a photon amount to electrical charge in an electron? What exactly is electrical charge?
It doesn't. A photon might have an energy of 0.511MeV, which is the "rest energy" of an electron, but the photon has zero charge, whilst the electron charge is −1.602×10^−19 Coulombs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#F ... properties. Energy and charge are different.Jakob wrote:How does the energy of a photon amount to electrical charge in an electron?
It's a "standing electromagnetic field variation" with a particular disposition. The photon or electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic field variation that goes past you at c. The field variation is sinusoidal, with a positive followed by a negative. If you fix this so that it's going round and round in a stable configuration where the negative field variation is on the outside, what you've got is a negatively charged particle.Jakob wrote:What exactly is electrical charge?
James S Saint wrote:Well, before I get into another lengthy and boring lecture on Rational Metaphysics, I need to know whether, when speaking to me, you are asking of the physics or of the Truth. Physics can only determine measurements between the measured. Science is an effort to reverse engineer nature using nature. Rational Metaphysics is the mental engineering of nature taken from the Genesis approach, starting from "nothing" and building up to what can be measured.
But then realize also that Rational Metaphysics is a mountain growing from under the sea ("subspace") and hasn't yet reached the surface where it meets the theories of Science and can be clearly seen.
Farsight wrote:It's a "standing electromagnetic field variation" with a particular disposition. The photon or electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic field variation that goes past you at c. The field variation is sinusoidal, with a positive followed by a negative. If you fix this so that it's going round and round in a stable configuration where the negative field variation is on the outside, what you've got is a negatively charged particle.Jakob wrote:What exactly is electrical charge?
Thanks Jakob. One of the reasons I talk on forums is to try to hone the descriptions to get them as brief and clear and robust as possible. It's nice to get some feedback that says I'm hitting the mark.Jakob wrote:Wow, that's a great explanation. From my perspective very useful, at least.
I guess so. I probably would have said geometry, but that's "form" I suppose. But note the distinction is probably not so much between force and form as between fundamental and form. In electromagnetism there's the electrostatic force and the magnetic force, both of which are the result of the electromagnetic field. Some would say they're the result of charge, but charge isn't fundamental. You can create and destroy charge via pair production and annihilation. You can liken this to angular momentum - if you're an astronaut in space poised in front of a satellite and neither of you are spinning, it's like there's no charge. If you grab the satellite and spin it clockwise, you'll find that the reaction causes you to spin anticlockwise. Angular momentum is conserved - there wasn't any, now there is, but it nets to zero.Jakob wrote:If this means that we could (if we were to distinguish categories "force" and "form") classify electrical charge in the category of form.
You could say that the positive field variation is on the outside, but it's probably better to get a handle on the "form" of a charged particle like an electron. It's a spin ½ particle. I think it's something like this, with a steering-wheel spin along with a smoke-ring spin:Jakob wrote:That sheds a new light on the compatibility of positive and negative charges. Is there an analogous explanation for a positive charge?
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]