Muh physics savants, how does time dilation work?

[Hans Gercmiov]

lol changed your life how?

I read the first two... lol @ the blind faith level gymnastics most of the theories are built on.

Those books did have an impact on me tho, showed me that theoretical physics was a subject pursued by only the most stubborn and myopic of people.

lol Well look at you, mr. pompous ass. I'm sure a PhD in sherbro surely trumps an Ivy League professor of physics and mathematics.

 

[Luminaire]

lol Well look at you, mr. pompous ass. I'm sure a PhD in sherbro surely trumps an Ivy League professor of physics and mathematics.

 

[ScriptReadsMe]

Correct. Anything moving at c has no perception of time as we know it. At the same time, I think it's billiond upon billions of times more likely that something is wrong with our model than that something with mass can nevertheless move at c. Please provide a source for this evidence of photon decay, since I have not heard anything about this observation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2821.pdf First paragraph

I believe this is what rj144 and JudoThrowFiasco are referring to. In a quantum kind of fucked up way, a photon may be mass-less and massive at once, like the particle-wave duality.

 

[Loiosh]

Since time is "relative," I think everything would look normal...to you. But to us you would be a fucking beam of light, man. A beam of light.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

 

[tomjones]

not studying physics in secondary school was one of my regrets.

 

[rj144]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2821.pdf First paragraph

I believe this is what rj144 and JudoThrowFiasco are referring to. In a quantum kind of fucked up way, a photon may be mass-less and massive at once, like the particle-wave duality.

Even quantum mechanically, it can't have zero mass and some mass. If it has a non-zero mass it could oscillate between different flavors which have two different masses like neutrinos. But, the photon must be massive.

 

[Luminaire]

Seriously tho. Physics is great when it can be applied to engineering.

Theoretical Physics is a bunch of wheel spinning... the more you study the more it sits there and laughs at you.

Had enough!? no... ok here's another paradox your feeble mind can't handle MUAHAHAHAHA.

I've resigned myself to believe that people like Mr Greene recognize this but have managed to make a career of it so they continue to march forward.

 

[Andy Capp]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2821.pdf First paragraph

I believe this is what rj144 and JudoThrowFiasco are referring to. In a quantum kind of fucked up way, a photon may be mass-less and massive at once, like the particle-wave duality.

I haven't read it yet but that kind of duality would clearly not be the same as saying a photon has rest mass when speaking to a general audience absent of such important context.

Guys, please source these kinds of claims in future. I would have liked to contribute a more useful first post to this thread. Nevertheless I personally love the ever-living unholy fuck out of this subject and that is important news, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Even quantum mechanically, it can't have zero mass and some mass. If it has a non-zero mass it could oscillate between different flavors which have two different masses like neutrinos. But, the photon must be massive.

I'm going to read the paper and research the subject and get back to you about this claim but so far, the result seems to be based upon observations that could be caused by other phenomena, perhaps yet undiscovered. So much of Einstein's theory has been confirmed to this point it will take a lot of support to contradict the dictum that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Cheers! This will be fun.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Even quantum mechanically, it can't have zero mass and some mass. If it has a non-zero mass it could oscillate between different flavors which have two different masses like neutrinos. But, the photon must be massive.

if a photon does contain mass, how does the calculation of "m" = (ħ)(f)/c² change? You could just use a variant of the calculation for force, no?

 

[Andy Capp]

I haven't read it yet but that kind of duality would clearly not be the same as saying a photon has rest mass when speaking to a general audience absent of such important context.

Guys, please source these kinds of claims in future. I would have liked to contribute a more useful first post to this thread. Nevertheless I personally love the ever-living unholy fuck out of this subject and that is important news, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.



I'm going to read the paper and research the subject and get back to you about this claim but so far, the result seems to be based upon observations that could be caused by other phenomena, perhaps yet undiscovered. So much of Einstein's theory has been confirmed to this point it will take a lot of support to contradict the dictum that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Cheers! This will be fun.

It's rude to quote your own post but I just had a flash of insight. Imagine a photon, a totally massless bog standard Einsteinian photon cruising along for a literally totally random length of time when it experiences a quantum fluctuation that spontaneously imparts mass to the photon, say by converting the teeniest bit of its (potentially very high) energy into mass via E=mc^2. That would instantly destroy the photon and it would decay. Wow! I haven't even read the article yet and my mind is blown away already.

 

[rj144]

I haven't read it yet but that kind of duality would clearly not be the same as saying a photon has rest mass when speaking to a general audience absent of such important context.

Guys, please source these kinds of claims in future. I would have liked to contribute a more useful first post to this thread. Nevertheless I personally love the ever-living unholy fuck out of this subject and that is important news, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.



I'm going to read the paper and research the subject and get back to you about this claim but so far, the result seems to be based upon observations that could be caused by other phenomena, perhaps yet undiscovered. So much of Einstein's theory has been confirmed to this point it will take a lot of support to contradict the dictum that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Cheers! This will be fun.

If you read it, they aren't arguing a massive photon can reach c, I believe. It's moving slightly less than c.

 

[rj144]

if a photon does contain mass, how does the calculation of "m" = (ħ)(f)/c² change? You could just use a variant of the calculation for force, no?

What are you trying to say? Just include the rest mass, right?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's rude to quote your own post but I just had a flash of insight. Imagine a photon, a totally massless bog standard Einsteinian photon cruising along for a literally totally random length of time when it experiences a quantum fluctuation that spontaneously imparts mass to the photon, say by converting the teeniest bit of its (potentially very high) energy into mass via E=mc^2. That would instantly destroy the photon and it would decay. Wow! I haven't even read the article yet and my mind is blown away already.

thats what happens when a photon collides with an electron....

 

[rj144]

It's rude to quote your own post but I just had a flash of insight. Imagine a photon, a totally massless bog standard Einsteinian photon cruising along for a literally totally random length of time when it experiences a quantum fluctuation that spontaneously imparts mass to the photon, say by converting the teeniest bit of its (potentially very high) energy into mass via E=mc^2. That would instantly destroy the photon and it would decay. Wow! I haven't even read the article yet and my mind is blown away already.

I don't think that's what they're arguing though. It's metastable state is massive, not massless and therefore has a very long lifetime.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

What are you trying to say? Just include the rest mass, right?

the formula to calculate the kinetic energy of photon is planck's x frequency over C -- if a photon had a measurable rest mass, would that not change the formula?

 

[Zanatos333]

Seriously tho. Physics is great when it can be applied to engineering.

Theoretical Physics is a bunch of wheel spinning... the more you study the more it sits there and laughs at you.

Had enough!? no... ok here's another paradox your feeble mind can't handle MUAHAHAHAHA.

I've resigned myself to believe that people like Mr Greene recognize this but have managed to make a career of it so they continue to march forward.

Some of the strangest concepts have real world applications. Time dilation? Gravity, not a force but a curvature of space time? Those equations are in your gps. Adding up divergent series such as 1 + 2 + 3 +... and getting discrete answers such as, for the previous equation, -1/12, is something common in qft. Really weird, nonintuitive stuff happens all of the time.

Now if you want to talk about the limitations of string theory, which I'm pretty sure what Greene studies, then thats totally acceptable.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Suppose I piggyback a beam of light, what would the word look like from my perspective? Does everything come to a standstill until I stop to look around?

like when a womans gets preggerz and the baby comes out???

a Photon has no rest mass

does it have mass? i thought it didn't for a long time and thought i read something where it did....or maybe not

 

[rj144]

the formula to calculate the kinetic energy of photon is planck's x frequency over C -- if a photon had a measurable rest mass, would that not change the formula?

Right, you just include the rest mass as in the standard relativistic energy equation. To first order, of course, it's still E = m c^2, however because the mass is so small. So, that equation would still be applicable almost all the time.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

What was his name? Lubalong? He would have answered if he were here. He helped me with homework before. A true genius.

He posted in some thread here recently.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

physics is very complex.

Actually its only complex to explain. If we can only show it be easier. And a lot of its is conjecture and theoretical. We dont know if it is right.