‘ . . big picture view of the universe, built of space-time,’

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Sep 1, 2012.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
  2. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Have Three Little Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?
    http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html
    ==.

    My opinion about photon.

    Even one single photon can change the opinion of modern theoretical physics.
    Why?
    Because:
    ‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
    no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
    Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
    but he is mistaken. ‘
    / Einstein /

    In light of ' the quantum of light ', we will always know the truth.

    =.
    My opinion about space and time .

    ‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an
    electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
    world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
    appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
    becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
    non- Euclidian.’
    / Book ‘Albert Einstein’ The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /
    =.
    It means.
    a)
    Universe as a whole without masses, without electrons,
    without an electromagnetic field is an empty world.
    Such an empty world is flat ( infinite flat spacetime continuum).
    b)
    But if masses appear, if charged particles appear,
    if an electromagnetic field appears ( in local places )
    then our world becomes curved ( in local places stars
    and planets were created – spaces and time were created ).
    From outside point of view it is local Riemannian geometry,
    non- Euclidian geometry.
    ==..
    ===.
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
    =.
     
  3. hexreader

    Active Member

    Apr 16, 2011
    250
    82
    You are back to posting rubbish again.....

    Please stop
     
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  4. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    ‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
    no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
    Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
    but he is mistaken. ‘
    / Einstein /

    You are back to posting rubbish again.....
    / hexreader
    Member /

    ‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an
    electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
    world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
    appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
    becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
    non- Euclidian.’
    / Book ‘Albert Einstein’ The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /

    You are back to posting rubbish again.....
    / hexreader
    Member /
    ===..

    according to hexreader Einstein and Infeld wrote rubbish things.
    Is hexreader correct ?
    =.
     
  5. hexreader

    Active Member

    Apr 16, 2011
    250
    82
    You misunderstand what I am saying. (or perhaps you are deliberately twisting my words)

    It is YOUR lack of a clear point that I object to. And the "death by a thousand cut-and-paste quotes"

    I have huge respect for Einstein and would never call any of his work rubbish.

    Tell us what your point is IN YOUR OWN WORDS and succinctly and maybe my respect for you will be restored.

    Your previous long, rambling multiple posts on multiple forums suggest that you do not know what succinct is.

    Quality, not quantity please.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2012
    DerStrom8 likes this.
  6. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    I like the OP's first post to refer us to an interesting experimental result in physics.

    But, I agree. The second post is very confusing since the point and the relevance to the first post are not clear. Does this seemingly random quoting in any way relate to the very interesting experimental observation, and the implication it has on the question of whether spacetime is discrete or continuous? If so, please explain.
     
  7. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3

    The first post says:
    Have Three Little Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?
    http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

    I posted Einstein quote that said - we don’t know what
    quantum of light is. Therefore I asked:
    Can One Single Photon Broken Theoretical Physics?
    =.

    And hexreader wrote that my question (post) was ' rubbish again.....'
    =.
     
  8. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    I would say that the question should be "what do photons do?" rather than "what are photons?"

    The former question is more in the realm of what real physics can answer, while the latter is the concern of science based philosophy, which also can not answer the question.

    So, I would conclude that if a single photon does not do what theory says it should do, then potentially one photon can break the theory and point to a new theory.

    At the same time, no theory relies on one scrap of experimental data, and in that sense, one photon is not enough to truly break the theory.

    Am I being too quantum mechanical to answer both yes and no?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2012
  9. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    You are right and i must agree with you that most physicists
    have interest in "what do photons do?" rather than "what are photons?"
    But in modern physics ( from Einstein - Bohr discussion ) there are
    a few physicists who want to understand "what are photons?"
    =.
     
  10. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Of course. I think most people in general do want to understand exactly what and why many things are, including photons.

    It's just that such questions are very very hard, and physics does not (at least not yet) provide the tools to answer them.

    However, physics is a very good tool to describe the laws of nature and make predictions about how things behave. That is, "what will we measure, when we do such and such?" is the exact question that physics is well suited to answer.

    So, what we want and what we get, are not always the same thing.
     
    Blackbull likes this.
  11. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    So, what we want and what we get, are not always the same thing.
    =.
    And it is a pity. Only one hope - the time will clear situation.

    #
    “ One thing I have learned in a long life:
    that all our science, measured against reality,
    is primitive and childlike –
    and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
    Einstein
    ==.
     
  12. hexreader

    Active Member

    Apr 16, 2011
    250
    82
    @socratus

    I apologise, I have been very rude to you and there is no excuse for it.

    I am ashamed of myself and will fully understand if you choose to hate me for it.

    Don't know what came over me - sorry
     
  13. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Sorry, but you shaked me.
    I feel myself confused that you wrote such post.
    You dont need any apology.
    You are you and it was your way to understand something.
    Be happy in your life
    socratus.
    =.
     
  14. Poppy

    New Member

    Nov 3, 2012
    1
    0
    To quote the 3 photon article -

    That is because quarks or electrons do not exist if there is no gravity anymore than photons express light in low or no gravity environments.

    Show me one single photo taken in space over the last 50 years with the Sun behind the camera where you see large quantities of stars - you can't. The reason for that is no gravity, or even in reduced gravity, photons do not emit light unless they were just created. It is the reason they can't find 96% of the light in the Universe.

    Now go up to the Arctic circle where the acceleration of gravity is highest on Earth and you see a sky so full of stars that it is almost solid stars.

    The mathematical relationship between light and gravity was hidden by Einstein in spite of the fact he claimed he spent the last 30 years of his life trying to figure it out. It is so simple, an eight year old can do the math.

    If you understand how a photon is formed and what gravity is, then it ALL starts to make sense. I stand with Socratus in that I needed to know what it is more than how it behaves. If I know what it is, how it behaves is predictable. Everything else is monkey see, monkey do.

    Mars appears red because the velocity of light increases the further away from the Sun you get due to the reduction of gravity and density of the heliosphere (law of inverse squares) - photons move between matter not through it.

    Conversely, Venus appears blue because the velocity of light is slower the nearer you get to the Sun as gravity and hence the density of the heliosphere increases.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  15. paulktreg

    Distinguished Member

    Jun 2, 2008
    612
    120
    Mars is red because it's surface is red and doesn't Venus appear blue because of its CO2 atmosphere?
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    These statements are so full of holes I'm not even going to go through them, except to say your understanding of the basics is very, very flawed.

    I will say this, colors do not change within the solar system, not even near the surface of the sun. The gravitational gradient is way too weak, the suns gravitational curve caused a 2% deviation in the orbit of Mercury from Newtonian physics, which is partly what lead to special relativity. It is not enough to cause a change in the spectrum of the light.

    The elements and their spectrograph signatures is what determines colors, this is Science 101. We know most of the elements with in our sun as well as others from their spectrum absorption lines. The color of the light coming from the sun is a function of temperature, same as an incandescent light bulb.
     
  17. loosewire

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 25, 2008
    1,584
    435
    You guys have three social points of view,from three different countries.

    SteveB is trying to savage your post,you must meet on the same level or

    learn to understand where each other is coming from,its how you express

    your self. That what starts wars and bad feelings. My two cents worth.
     
  18. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    On this I disagree, the fundamentals of science are well established, and goes way beyond a misunderstanding. There are fine details that can be argued, but this goes way beyond that.
     
  19. BillO

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2008
    985
    136
    What??:confused:

    Are you serious?
     
Loading...