How long does it take for a single photon to travel from the sun?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nothing wrong with anything you said there , Steve. Why not try to expand on it and come up with a hypothesis, then go on from there

The only thing I'd disagree with is the infinite mass/zero volume part. You could say that something might be masquerading as such, so it could be an "apparent" construct. A "smoke and mirrors" type of thing. Could even have something to do with strings

[astroron (Ron)]

I am enjoying this thread even though the math flies over my head,but please cut down on the abbreviations or at least say what they mean somewhere in the discussion.
I know you are discussing this among yourselves but you have a lot of people following this thread.
Steve what is wrt?
Ron

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I didn't accept infinite mass in my argument except as a postulate of SR. When I mention an infinite mass or energy, it's in relation to SR postulates.

If rest mass is constant (invariant), and it's only the relativistic mass which becomes infinite, then any mass increase is nothing more than "relative" and therefore is a perspective illusion based on one's PoV. It's an apparent mass based on the addition of energy of motion (KE), not the real or proper mass of the system. It means that whilst it has measurable physical effects and can be confirmed by experiment, it's still nothing less than an illusion and that we don't really understand what we're looking at.

It's not a perspective illusion at all. The effects are very real.

In nucleur fusion involving the inelastic collisions between nuclei, the fused nuclei has a mass greater than the sum total of the colliding nuclei as the kinetic energy has been converted into mass. In the periodic table, are the atomic weights listed illusionary?

Regards Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

It's not a perspective illusion at all. The effects are very real.

In nucleur fusion involving the inelastic collisions between nuclei, the fused nuclei has a mass greater than the sum total of the colliding nuclei as the kinetic energy has been converted into mass. In the periodic table, are the atomic weights listed illusionary?

Regards Steven

Even illusions can have real effects, if the causes of those illusions have properties which are based in physical reality. Take a mirage, for instance. Refraction of light caused by a hot layer of air just above the ground, magnifying a distant mountain range and making it appear closer than it actually is...or even distorting the image of an object till it appears something it isn't. Very real physical effects, nothing but illusions seen.

No, the atomic weights of the elements are not illusions. Not as you would define them, although I can imagine there's probably a quantum theory somewhere out there which maintains they are

[renormalised (Carl)]

You know, I could've sworn I saw another post of AGarvin here on page 4!!!!. Now it's gone, or appears to be gone.

An effect of SR!!!!

Also, you know I'm wondering about what White Rabbit is making of all of this. All he asked for was for the travel time of a photon from the Sun to here and we're going on about SR and all that!!!!!

Poor guy must be lost

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by astroron

I am enjoying this thread even though the math flies over my head,but please cut down on the abbreviations or at least say what they mean somewhere in the discussion.
I know you are discussing this among yourselves but you have a lot of people following this thread.
Steve what is wrt?
Ron

My apologies
wrt = with respect to
WNF = weak nuclear force
SNF = strong nuclear force
EMF = electromagnetic force

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

My apologies
wrt = with respect to
WNF = weak nuclear force
SNF = strong nuclear force
EMF = electromagnetic force

It's all in the GUT's of the matter

[AGarvin]

Originally Posted by renormalised
You know, I could've sworn I saw another post of AGarvin here on page 4!!!!. Now it's gone, or appears to be gone.

An effect of SR!!!!

Nah, QM, my uncertainty in it's validity lead to a complete breakdown in its wavefunction.

Seriously though, there was but I deleted it. After I re-read it I felt it was kinda pointless .

Andrew.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by AGarvin

Nah, QM, my uncertainty in it's validity lead to a complete breakdown in its wavefunction.

Seriously though, there was but I deleted it. After I re-read it I felt it was kinda pointless .

Andrew.

It got caught in the "quantum foam" beyond the Planck Scale

It was "randomised"

[skwinty (Steve)]

I assume thats the "Great Unknown Theory".
On a more serious note though, in mathematical terms, infinity occurs at a very specific point. ie at exactly tan of 90 degrees, not 89.9999 for example.
So I suppose that the singularity approaches infinity but does not quite get there.

Now, if it does, space time ruptures, the laws of physics disintegrate and something really big happens.
Now consider the hypothetical particle the tachyon. This particle supposedly travels faster than the speed of light. This implies that it then travels backwards in time. Perhaps this hypothetical particle is only created in these infinite mass zero space structures

So, perhaps when infinite mass is contained within zero volume or close enough to this, the process is reversed, but in a different direction leading to another space time. Once the process has reversed all is restored, but unfortunately its happens to be somewhere else. So, the mass has done a Buzz Lightyear and gone to infinity and beyond.

[Kokatha man]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Even illusions can have real effects, if the causes of those illusions have properties which are based in physical reality. Take a mirage, for instance. Refraction of light caused by a hot layer of air just above the ground, magnifying a distant mountain range and making it appear closer than it actually is...or even distorting the image of an object till it appears something it isn't. Very real physical effects, nothing but illusions seen.

I'm (almost!) staying out of this thread topic: but felt cheeky enough to comment on the above, r/n.....

There are a number of perspectives re your comments above, several of these subscribing to nothing tangible, re quantifiable; as opposed to the inferences intimated by your statement....!

Not necessarily disputing the validity of your comments in this discussion per se, but just picking on your particular post from amongst a sea of speculators, swimming in a sea of speculation....!

The Macquarie Dictionary:

"specular" - pertaining to, or having the properties of, a mirror

"speculate" - to engage in thought or reflection, or meditate or to indulge in conjectural thought

" speculation" - (2) a single instance or process of consideration

"speculator" - (2) one devoted to mental speculation

There is an intent/perspective to my specific ordering of the above definitions that has more (possibly) to do with some of my own intimations, rather than their alphabetical order: cheers, Darryl!

ps - what about the Stephen Hawking program on SBS last Sunday night....?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Even illusions can have real effects, if the causes of those illusions have properties which are based in physical reality. Take a mirage, for instance. Refraction of light caused by a hot layer of air just above the ground, magnifying a distant mountain range and making it appear closer than it actually is...or even distorting the image of an object till it appears something it isn't. Very real physical effects, nothing but illusions seen.

Analogies don't make good scientific arguments.

Let's go back to your original statement.

Originally Posted by renormalised

I didn't accept infinite mass in my argument except as a postulate of SR. When I mention an infinite mass or energy, it's in relation to SR postulates.

If rest mass is constant (invariant), and it's only the relativistic mass which becomes infinite, then any mass increase is nothing more than "relative" and therefore is a perspective illusion based on one's PoV. It's an apparent mass based on the addition of energy of motion (KE), not the real or proper mass of the system. It means that whilst it has measurable physical effects and can be confirmed by experiment, it's still nothing less than an illusion and that we don't really understand what we're looking at.

Unfortunately you just can't pick and choose what's real and what's an illusion. Why should the energy contribution from mass be considered "more real" than the KE.

In fact your line of reasoning contradicts the conservation of relativistic mass.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

I assume thats the "Great Unknown Theory".
On a more serious note though, in mathematical terms, infinity occurs at a very specific point. ie at exactly tan of 90 degrees, not 89.9999 for example.
So I suppose that the singularity approaches infinity but does not quite get there.

Now, if it does, space time ruptures, the laws of physics disintegrate and something really big happens.
Now consider the hypothetical particle the tachyon. This particle supposedly travels faster than the speed of light. This implies that it then travels backwards in time. Perhaps this hypothetical particle is only created in these infinite mass zero space structures

So, perhaps when infinite mass is contained within zero volume or close enough to this, the process is reversed, but in a different direction leading to another space time. Once the process has reversed all is restored, but unfortunately its happens to be somewhere else. So, the mass has done a Buzz Lightyear and gone to infinity and beyond.

That's about the way it is...the number of GUT's theories about you'd think they'd settle on one at some stage!!!!. It loses most people

That first idea of yours is a very good point. It's entirely possible that infinities, in real life terms, can never be reached, despite the machinations of theoretical physicists. The singularity might come damn close to diving off the edge of the wacky abyss but just pulls up by the skin of it's toenails.

Now whilst tachyons are supposed to have properties which are time reversed according to SR, we still don't really know enough about space and time itself to really be definitive about this. Who knows what the real properties of tachyons are...and given what they've come up with in many quantum theories it's become debatable whether time itself even exists as we seem to know it. But, you maybe right. Tachyons may need extreme circumstances to come into existence.

That could be how infant universes form. Once a singularity gets to being close to an infinitely dense and small point, spacetime might rupture and unfold into it's original 11 dimensional state, at that point. That, I should imagine, would generate more than enough energy to start another bubble in Superspace expanding into another universe. It probably needs to reach a critical threshold in energy density before it can initiate an expansion of a new 4D spacetime bubble (spike, membrane or whatever shape it is).

If you look at brane theory, it's possible that the agency which causes two branes in Superspace to collide might be the formation of a black hole in one of them. The singularity might be where both of them touch one another. The problem with visualising that, if you look at the conventional way they portray branes colliding is that you have to visualise a 11 dimensional object interacting with another of the same type. The thing is, two 11 dimensional objects could intertwine with one another without even necessarily touching at any stage, except when a new universe is formed, so it's entirely feasible that the conventional interpretation of interacting branes might not be totally correct, if at all. Given that the Calabi-Yau manifolds they're proposing have 11 dimensions, the number of degrees of freedom of movement within those 11 dimensions is staggering. Almost unquantifiable. It'll be damn interesting to see what they can come up with

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The thing is, two 11 dimensional objects could intertwine with one another without even necessarily touching at any stage, except when a new universe is formed, so it's entirely feasible that the conventional interpretation of interacting branes might not be totally correct, if at all. Given that the Calabi-Yau manifolds they're proposing have 11 dimensions, the number of degrees of freedom of movement within those 11 dimensions is staggering. Almost unquantifiable. It'll be damn interesting to see what they can come up with

Which is probably just as well otherwise the life span of any given universe could be measured in femtoseconds rather than billions of years.
Where would that have left us,regardless of our perspective of time!
A multitude of Omega points every femtosecond would certainly put some truth into the old adage of the only constant being change!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Analogies don't make good scientific arguments.

Let's go back to your original statement.



Unfortunately you just can't pick and choose what's real and what's an illusion. Why should the energy contribution from mass be considered "more real" than the KE.

In fact your line of reasoning contradicts the conservation of relativistic mass.

Regards

Steven

I probably didn't word my original statement as good as I should've.

Analogies quite often are the only things you have to go by until evidence comes to light which either proves or disproves what you've found. They're only used as examples of what is likely, not what is certain.

I wasn't picking and choosing what was real or illusion. I said that the relativistic mass was illusional...an so was the infinite mass value. The KE is real, but the increase in mass due to the motion of the body in question was illusional and only based on the PoV of an outside observer.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by skwinty

Which is probably just as well otherwise the life span of any given universe could be measured in femtoseconds rather than billions of years.
Where would that have left us,regardless of our perspective of time!
A multitude of Omega points every femtosecond would certainly put some truth into the old adage of the only constant being change!!

Precisely, because every time the two universes touched it'd set off all sorts of fireworks which would destroy anything in either of them. We'd be nothing more than road kill!!!

It'd leave any universe completely uninhabitable.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I wasn't picking and choosing what was real or illusion. I said that the relativistic mass was illusional...an so was the infinite mass value. The KE is real, but the increase in mass due to the motion of the body in question was illusional and only based on the PoV of an outside observer.

The basis for SR are observers making measurements in different frames of reference. Relativistic mass is NOT illusional because it is a measurable parameter for each observer. (Example:Inelastic collisions of atomic nuclei).

Infinite mass on the other IS illusional for the following reasons.

(1) It is not a measurable parameter.
(2) SR has an operating range of 0 <= v < c. Mass is finite in this interval.

The fundamental postulate of SR, supported by the mathematics and observation, is that a mass particle cannot obtain the value v=c. So why have this debate in the first case?

To argue that SR "is basically OK" except for the infinities is a total contradiction because it brings into question that fundamental postulate on which SR is built on.

Enough of my ramblings I will now go quiet on this subject.

Regards

Steven
http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/small