h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Jim understands gravity bends the path of a photon…
It could be that the photon is bound to a curved pathway - or the
photon has effective rest mass.
If a photon falls in a gravitational field - a photon emittted
perpendicularly to parrallel mirrors will descend.
(Also the assumption of
zero rest mass is discontinuous)
Deflection of light due to gravity
http://books.google...approach%3F&f=false
[ldischler, Oct 26 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Jim fails to demonstrate any form of invention or
innovation via these revelations. |
|
| |
Gravity bends the spacetime through which the photon travels in a straight line. |
|
| |
Inventive misunderstanding isn't. |
|
| |
Maybe it's my lack of quantum
physics knowledge [I apparently don't even know
enough to see that this *isn't* quantum physics], but
I don't see the invention,
either. (If you're a reader who "gets" this, please
translate. Thanks!) |
|
| |
[Edit: at least one commentator sees
this as "a cool experiment", so I'm holding off.] |
|
| |
This would be more relativity than quantum physics,
but I don't think it makes much difference. |
|
| |
This makes more sense than it might seem at first reading. By bouncing a photon between two mirrors--the surfaces of which are parallel to the direction of gravity--madness expects to observe whether a photon falls at g, like any mass. |
|
| |
Well of course the photon would fall. |
|
| |
//Well of course the photon would fall.// |
|
| |
Since a photon has no mass, it wouldn't fall. If it did and the photon were traveling straight up from the earth, you would measure a constant decreasing speed. But photons don't act that way. They become red shifted instead. |
|
| |
I think the assumption is based on observations that
photons sometimes exhibit properties of massive particles,
which is one of the features that make them unique. Key
word: 'sometimes'. |
|
| |
//This would be more relativity than quantum
physics, but I don't think it makes much
difference.// Marked for tagline |
|
| |
//Key word: 'sometimes'.//
But in this case, they would. Gravity does affect photons causing them to bend towards the source, see gravitational lensing. If you fired a laser perpendicular to the two mirrors and had an instrument that could measure the location of the "impact" of the reflected light, it should show up maybe a nanometer lower than the original source. Bun for an interesting experiment. |
|
| |
// a photon emittted perpendicularly to parrallel mirrors // |
|
| |
This Idea needs to specify that the mirrors are perpendicular to the local gravity field, so that the photon starts out traveling horizontally across the local gravity field. |
|
| |
The main problem is that mirrors are not 100% reflective, so the photon would get absorbed before falling any significant distance in an ordinary gravity field like Earth's. |
|
| |
Yes, but on the plus side, the cat would probably survive. |
|
| |
Gravity definitely affects light, but that fact doesn't prove that it has mass, rest or otherwise. |
|
| |
I have to go ahead and back up jutta's MFD as there is no idea here, or if there is there is, it is widely known to exist, as observing the displacement of light due to gravity is well understood and used in scientific instruments. |
|
| |
There is no reason to MFD this. He isn't suggesting that
gravity affects light, that is well known. I had to read it a
couple times but he's proposing a cool experiment - if you
bounce a photon between two mirrors it won't reflect
straight back to the source, it will fall slightly as it
bounces. |
|
| |
// He isn't suggesting that gravity affects light... if
you bounce a photon between two mirrors it won't
reflect straight back to the source, it will fall
slightly as it bounces// |
|
| |
I don't get the difference. |
|
| |
If there is one, and most of us have missed it,
then perhaps [madness] would consider putting a
bit more effort into the idea. Just because you
can chip away at a lump of rock to make a statue,
it doesn't mean the statue was there to begin
with. |
|
| |
Conversely, seeing that the statue is already there doesn't
mean you're the one that can free it from the stone. |
|
| |
//he's proposing a cool experiment // - a cool *thought* experiment, unless you have some mirrors of 100% reflectivity. |
|
| |
// on the plus side, the cat would probably survive
// |
|
| |
We assure you the cat will not survive. |
|
| |
// gravitational lensing // |
|
| |
Gravitational lensing happens not because the
gravitational field acts on the photon, but because
the field distorts space-time; from the photon's
point of view, it never deviates from its straight
line. |
|
| |
Consider three equidistant points A, G and B, all
lying on a
straight line in a region of space that is for
experimental purposes homogenous and isotropic. |
|
| |
At G, let there be an arbitrarily large point mass. |
|
| |
if a photon or a physical object is launched
directly from A towards B, it will strike G. |
|
| |
If a physical object is launched from A with
sufficient velocity at an angle +dL from A towards
B, such that the gravitational field of G will cause
its course to deviate by -2dL, then the object will
strike B |
|
| |
If a photon is launched from A with velocity C at
an angle +dP from A towards B, such that the
gravitational field of G will cause its course to
deviate by -2dP, then the photon will strike B. |
|
| |
When the physical object is located at its nearest
point to G, an observer on the object would note
that external distant points of reference were
changing their relative positions as the path of the
object was deflected by the gravity field of G. This
is clearly observable from Earth-orbiting satellites. |
|
| |
An observer on the photon would not see this
effect. The observer would perceive that they are
passing from A to B with no deflection, since the
photon is travelling in a straight line; it is space-
time that is curved. |
|
| |
[MB] is correct when he states that this is
Relativity, not Quantum Physics. |
|
| |
Space and time, and I suspect spacetime, do not exist. There is only mass and velocity. A distance, d if you must, between two objects is defined by the mass and velocity of the system... |
|
| |
Space and time, and I suspect spacetime, do not exist. There is only mass and velocity. A distance, d if you must, between two objects is defined by the mass and velocity of the system... |
|
| |
The mere fact that you were able to accidentally double-
post your last anno disproves your assertion that space-
time 'does not exist'. I think, however, you may be
confusing a fundamental property of nature known (to us)
as space-time (or space/time) with the theoretical
construct humans have devised in order to observe it,
which conveniently carries the same title. |
|
| |