A Model for John Titor's 'Parallel Universes."
- Thread starter Packerbacker
- Start date
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
That comes from the Internet and pages about the photon. It has no mass, and that is what is stated on scientific websites, but I will have to look one up. I am sure that I read that somewhere, or in a book by one of the physicists, so that is all I am going by.
Okay here is the link and definition, and perhaps an assumption I will try and bold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero invariant mass [1] and zero electric charge, but they do carry energy , momentum and angular momentum. Although the photon is generally accepted to be massless, experiments can only show that its mass is consistent with zero . A conservative upper limit for the mass of the photon, given by the Particle Data Group, is 6×10 to the negative 17eV, based on the magnetohydrodynamics of the solar wind.[2]
It seems to me that it should perhaps be an assumption.
So now they are saying that the photon has an upper limit on mass
But to me the question was valid before the conservative upper limit for the mass of the photon??
NOTE: Darn thing won't type the 6 times 10 to the negative 17 eV correctly.
So, just to retype the question:
How can no mass carry energy?
To me it can not.
It is an assumption, perhaps?
Some other discussion came from the Stanford page on Special Relativity about the Tau particle, and how its life gets longer and more gamma the closer the particle moves towards the speed of light.
I suppose I can look up that webpage also, just a minute:
Here it is:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
That comes from the Internet and pages about the photon. It has no mass, and that is what is stated on scientific websites, but I will have to look one up. I am sure that I read that somewhere, or in a book by one of the physicists, so that is all I am going by.
Okay here is the link and definition, and perhaps an assumption I will try and bold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
According to the quantum electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero invariant mass [1] and zero electric charge, but they do carry energy , momentum and angular momentum. Although the photon is generally accepted to be massless, experiments can only show that its mass is consistent with zero . A conservative upper limit for the mass of the photon, given by the Particle Data Group, is 6×10 to the negative 17eV, based on the magnetohydrodynamics of the solar wind.[2]
It seems to me that it should perhaps be an assumption.
So now they are saying that the photon has an upper limit on mass
But to me the question was valid before the conservative upper limit for the mass of the photon??
NOTE: Darn thing won't type the 6 times 10 to the negative 17 eV correctly.
So, just to retype the question:
How can no mass carry energy?
To me it can not.
It is an assumption, perhaps?
Some other discussion came from the Stanford page on Special Relativity about the Tau particle, and how its life gets longer and more gamma the closer the particle moves towards the speed of light.
I suppose I can look up that webpage also, just a minute:
Here it is:
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
Now the computer is working correctly also today. Although nothing was reported, it was sending out something while being on the Internet from my computer. The data flow stops, when web pages come up and are "done" or complete. The computer is doing that today, yesterday it was sending out data via something and still there is work that is needed on programs, since all of that and all the anti-virus programs and spyware programs. And that is with Microsoft's new Critical Downloads and all.
Now the computer is not working correctly. Well, it worked for a little while.
but they do carry energy------ but they do carry "time" because experiments would prove that at the speed of light, there is only virtual "time" if there is no mass.
And they last longer because it is "time" and all "time" at the speed of light with "time dilation".
Well, back to the computer woes!
Unless there is a mass for a photon.
Now the computer is working correctly also today. Although nothing was reported, it was sending out something while being on the Internet from my computer. The data flow stops, when web pages come up and are "done" or complete. The computer is doing that today, yesterday it was sending out data via something and still there is work that is needed on programs, since all of that and all the anti-virus programs and spyware programs. And that is with Microsoft's new Critical Downloads and all.
Now the computer is not working correctly. Well, it worked for a little while.
but they do carry energy------ but they do carry "time" because experiments would prove that at the speed of light, there is only virtual "time" if there is no mass.
And they last longer because it is "time" and all "time" at the speed of light with "time dilation".
Well, back to the computer woes!
Unless there is a mass for a photon.
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
TimeNot_0,
I think that you're misreading the literature.
A photon has zero "rest mass" but it most definitely has mass to the degree that E=mc^2.
Particles that move at the speed of light all have zero rest mass. That means that they can move at but one speed - the speed of light. A change in energy is not manifest in a change of speed for these particles. Rather, it is manifest in a change in frequency.
If a photon comes to rest, i.e. it is absorbed by an orbiting electron for instance, in ceases to exist as an independent entity. Its energy is taken up by the electron - the electron is excited and jumps to a higher orbital. If the electron emits the photon the photon leaves at velocity "c" and the electron jumps down to a lower orbital.
In any case the photon possesses a quanta of energy and energy is mass.
TimeNot_0,
I think that you're misreading the literature.
A photon has zero "rest mass" but it most definitely has mass to the degree that E=mc^2.
Particles that move at the speed of light all have zero rest mass. That means that they can move at but one speed - the speed of light. A change in energy is not manifest in a change of speed for these particles. Rather, it is manifest in a change in frequency.
If a photon comes to rest, i.e. it is absorbed by an orbiting electron for instance, in ceases to exist as an independent entity. Its energy is taken up by the electron - the electron is excited and jumps to a higher orbital. If the electron emits the photon the photon leaves at velocity "c" and the electron jumps down to a lower orbital.
In any case the photon possesses a quanta of energy and energy is mass.
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
Yes, and this deepens the plot here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
Again, they say that invariant mass and relativistic mass is the same for solid objects and most objects like that. Still, the Universe is expanding and perhaps even moving, which would change that concept again. Relativistic mass would also depend on that and may still be different. Not trying to nitpit, but the definitions seem to leave out the other definitions that are not considered on the real frame of reference, but only at the reference frame they seem to assume.
A person should be also concerned about the big picture (or even the outside frame of reference which is maybe something that can not be known perhaps but still thought about) or included when thinking in the first place. The frame of reference that would be operating would also include that total frame of reference which is perhaps only given as the uncertainty factor.
Well, have to read it all again and let it sink in a little more, unfortunately I have other real things to do though so scattered thought does not help. Maybe some day, I can look at it further and all of that.
I don't know without looking again, but perhaps light (electromagnetic radiation then) should be thought about as only having relativistic mass and never had invariant mass and right now the terms are confusing without thinking and looking at it again.
Maybe the Universe wanted to fly apart (or expand) at c^2 but could not due to those limiting factors again (which means the properties in computer terms of the Universe and the interaction of the Forces and all of that).
I will read it again sometime later but that may only prove that people should have lost their brain with thinking about any of this metaphysics but not the mind. It appears to be interesting though, for some reason, like pulling the brain back in for some reason.
Still the speed of light does not change so there is that "time" that is constant and may have something to do with the concept (along with the energy) of the big concept of "Time".
Well, back to this:
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// File: Donuts.cpp
//
// Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include "stdafx.h"
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Globals
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// This GUID must be unique for every game, and the same for
// every instance of this app. // {769FCCA3-150E-4514-A9E2-E28449A7C401}
// The GUID allows DirectInput to remember input settings
GUID g_guidApp = { 0x769fcca3, 0x150e, 0x4514, { 0xa9, 0xe2, 0xe2, 0x84, 0x49, 0xa7, 0xc4, 0x01 } };
CMyApplication* g_pApp = NULL; // Global access to the app
HINSTANCE g_hInst = NULL; // Global HINSTANCE
CProfile g_Profile; // Read & stores settings for the game from .ini
CTerrainEngine* g_pTerrain = NULL; // Terrian engine owns the graphics objects
IDirect3DDevice9* g_pd3dDevice = NULL; // Class to handle D3D device
C3DDrawManager* g_p3DDrawManager = NULL; // for debugging
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Name: WinMain()
// Desc: Application entry point
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
int WINAPI WinMain( HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int nCmdShow )
{
CMyApplication app;
srand( timeGetTime() );
g_hInst = hInstance;
if( FAILED( app.Create( hInstance ) ) )
return 0;
return app.Run();
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Name: CMyApplication()
// Desc: Constructor
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMyApplication/ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gifCMyApplication()
{
g_pApp = this;
m_fTime = 0.0f;
m_strAppName = _T("Donuts 4: Revenge of the Space Torus");
m_hWndMain = NULL;
m_dwScreenWidth = 1024;
m_dwScreenHeight = 768;
m_bFullScreen = FALSE;
m_bIsActive = FALSE;
m_bDisplayReady = FALSE;
m_bMouseVisible = FALSE;
m_dwAppState = APPSTATE_LOADSPLASH;
m_dwLevel = 0;
m_fFPS = 0.0f;
m_pInputManager = NULL;
m_pShip = NULL;
m_pViewportVB = NULL;
m_pRadarVB = NULL;
m_pSkyDome = NULL;
m_pFileWatch = NULL;
m_p3DListener = NULL;
m_pBullet1Sound = NULL;
m_pExplosionDonutSound = NULL;
m_pMusicManager = NULL;
m_pMusicScript = NULL;
m_pEnginePath = NULL;
m_pMusicManager = NULL;
m_pSkyTexture = NULL;
m_pRadarTexture = NULL;
m_pTempRadarTexture = NULL;
m_pUITexture = NULL;
g_pTerrain = NULL;
m_pGameFont = NULL;
m_pMenuFont = NULL;
m_pMainMenu = NULL;
m_pQuitMenu = NULL;
m_pCurrentMenu = NULL;
m_p3DDrawManager = NULL;
m_pSplashTexture = NULL;
m_bPaused = FALSE;
m_lSpeed = 0;
m_bDebugMode = FALSE;
m_bWireMode = FALSE;
m_fRadarTextureX = 0.0f;
m_fRadarTextureY = 0.0f;
m_fPhysicsSimCaryyOver = 0.0f;
}
which is only a small part of that file with many others to also look at.
Flying donuts! (little like UFO's -- just a demo game!)
Yes, and this deepens the plot here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
Again, they say that invariant mass and relativistic mass is the same for solid objects and most objects like that. Still, the Universe is expanding and perhaps even moving, which would change that concept again. Relativistic mass would also depend on that and may still be different. Not trying to nitpit, but the definitions seem to leave out the other definitions that are not considered on the real frame of reference, but only at the reference frame they seem to assume.
A person should be also concerned about the big picture (or even the outside frame of reference which is maybe something that can not be known perhaps but still thought about) or included when thinking in the first place. The frame of reference that would be operating would also include that total frame of reference which is perhaps only given as the uncertainty factor.
Well, have to read it all again and let it sink in a little more, unfortunately I have other real things to do though so scattered thought does not help. Maybe some day, I can look at it further and all of that.
I don't know without looking again, but perhaps light (electromagnetic radiation then) should be thought about as only having relativistic mass and never had invariant mass and right now the terms are confusing without thinking and looking at it again.
Maybe the Universe wanted to fly apart (or expand) at c^2 but could not due to those limiting factors again (which means the properties in computer terms of the Universe and the interaction of the Forces and all of that).
I will read it again sometime later but that may only prove that people should have lost their brain with thinking about any of this metaphysics but not the mind. It appears to be interesting though, for some reason, like pulling the brain back in for some reason.
Still the speed of light does not change so there is that "time" that is constant and may have something to do with the concept (along with the energy) of the big concept of "Time".
Well, back to this:
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// File: Donuts.cpp
//
// Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include "stdafx.h"
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Globals
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// This GUID must be unique for every game, and the same for
// every instance of this app. // {769FCCA3-150E-4514-A9E2-E28449A7C401}
// The GUID allows DirectInput to remember input settings
GUID g_guidApp = { 0x769fcca3, 0x150e, 0x4514, { 0xa9, 0xe2, 0xe2, 0x84, 0x49, 0xa7, 0xc4, 0x01 } };
CMyApplication* g_pApp = NULL; // Global access to the app
HINSTANCE g_hInst = NULL; // Global HINSTANCE
CProfile g_Profile; // Read & stores settings for the game from .ini
CTerrainEngine* g_pTerrain = NULL; // Terrian engine owns the graphics objects
IDirect3DDevice9* g_pd3dDevice = NULL; // Class to handle D3D device
C3DDrawManager* g_p3DDrawManager = NULL; // for debugging
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Name: WinMain()
// Desc: Application entry point
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
int WINAPI WinMain( HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int nCmdShow )
{
CMyApplication app;
srand( timeGetTime() );
g_hInst = hInstance;
if( FAILED( app.Create( hInstance ) ) )
return 0;
return app.Run();
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Name: CMyApplication()
// Desc: Constructor
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMyApplication/ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gifCMyApplication()
{
g_pApp = this;
m_fTime = 0.0f;
m_strAppName = _T("Donuts 4: Revenge of the Space Torus");
m_hWndMain = NULL;
m_dwScreenWidth = 1024;
m_dwScreenHeight = 768;
m_bFullScreen = FALSE;
m_bIsActive = FALSE;
m_bDisplayReady = FALSE;
m_bMouseVisible = FALSE;
m_dwAppState = APPSTATE_LOADSPLASH;
m_dwLevel = 0;
m_fFPS = 0.0f;
m_pInputManager = NULL;
m_pShip = NULL;
m_pViewportVB = NULL;
m_pRadarVB = NULL;
m_pSkyDome = NULL;
m_pFileWatch = NULL;
m_p3DListener = NULL;
m_pBullet1Sound = NULL;
m_pExplosionDonutSound = NULL;
m_pMusicManager = NULL;
m_pMusicScript = NULL;
m_pEnginePath = NULL;
m_pMusicManager = NULL;
m_pSkyTexture = NULL;
m_pRadarTexture = NULL;
m_pTempRadarTexture = NULL;
m_pUITexture = NULL;
g_pTerrain = NULL;
m_pGameFont = NULL;
m_pMenuFont = NULL;
m_pMainMenu = NULL;
m_pQuitMenu = NULL;
m_pCurrentMenu = NULL;
m_p3DDrawManager = NULL;
m_pSplashTexture = NULL;
m_bPaused = FALSE;
m_lSpeed = 0;
m_bDebugMode = FALSE;
m_bWireMode = FALSE;
m_fRadarTextureX = 0.0f;
m_fRadarTextureY = 0.0f;
m_fPhysicsSimCaryyOver = 0.0f;
}
which is only a small part of that file with many others to also look at.
Flying donuts! (little like UFO's -- just a demo game!)
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
RMT
Why does the frame of reference matter? I get the feeling your are thinking the laws of physics are different depending upon what your reference frame is. But frame invariance is one of the primary principles of physics. If frame invariance is not true then the idea of "Time being all there is" is in serious jeapordy.
RMT
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
No, just saying that there will be more.
I was just thinking at that time (with a headache a little and a little early in the morning) that relativistic mass may be more than what they think it is. That no matter how you look at it, they give a definition of invariant mass -- when perhaps all of it should be thought of as -- relativistic mass. Yes, I know it is just a base, to go by, but using terms like that sometimes does not clarify what they are really meaning.
It is like the photon must have mass or else the theory is dead, so we will say that the photon has mass with no proof because it is another educated guess. Now, perhaps there is some little mass to the photon, but if you read that 10 years ago, you would also have to know (reading minds) to understand what it is that they are really saying.
They do not understand that and did not, and could not come up with an experiment to prove anything like they just did on the webpage about Relativistic. If I were a student of physics I would be lost trying to understand (trying to read their minds) and learning that. Isn't just better to say that "We think the photon has mass but as of yet there is no proof of that." They go on and give assumption answers which are not really proof, as -- you should believe what we think. That is kind of like mind control --- a person should be left to read and then decide because again, they seem to always do that bit when explaining things. Of course, someone might say - well, you really do not know - like a Government Contract - and they would have to end up saying -- well, yes, we actually do not know - but we think -- we know - and that should be good enough for yous. I just do not like that kind of behavior -- to me, it is confusing, and downgrading, to have to read people give it as an answer -- instead of stating what it really is.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Well, who cares? No one that I know of!
I suppose then that there should be a light at the end of a time-traveling tunnel!
:eek:
No, just saying that there will be more.
I was just thinking at that time (with a headache a little and a little early in the morning) that relativistic mass may be more than what they think it is. That no matter how you look at it, they give a definition of invariant mass -- when perhaps all of it should be thought of as -- relativistic mass. Yes, I know it is just a base, to go by, but using terms like that sometimes does not clarify what they are really meaning.
It is like the photon must have mass or else the theory is dead, so we will say that the photon has mass with no proof because it is another educated guess. Now, perhaps there is some little mass to the photon, but if you read that 10 years ago, you would also have to know (reading minds) to understand what it is that they are really saying.
They do not understand that and did not, and could not come up with an experiment to prove anything like they just did on the webpage about Relativistic. If I were a student of physics I would be lost trying to understand (trying to read their minds) and learning that. Isn't just better to say that "We think the photon has mass but as of yet there is no proof of that." They go on and give assumption answers which are not really proof, as -- you should believe what we think. That is kind of like mind control --- a person should be left to read and then decide because again, they seem to always do that bit when explaining things. Of course, someone might say - well, you really do not know - like a Government Contract - and they would have to end up saying -- well, yes, we actually do not know - but we think -- we know - and that should be good enough for yous. I just do not like that kind of behavior -- to me, it is confusing, and downgrading, to have to read people give it as an answer -- instead of stating what it really is.
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Well, who cares? No one that I know of!
I suppose then that there should be a light at the end of a time-traveling tunnel!
:eek:
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
TimeNot,
This isn't a situation where physicists are taking an educated guess based on a gedankenexperiment. That a photon has a definite mass has been proven a kazillion times experimentally. Photons have mass thus they have momentum just as any other moving particle has momentum.
What you really need to do is to read some literature on the Special Theory of Relativity (as a starting place) beyond wiki. I can suggest two basic books for you:
1. Relativity, the Special and General Theory; Albert Einstein. This is a non-math popular science explanation by Einstein himself.
2. The Special Theory of Relativity; David Bohm. This is a step above popular science with some minor references to differential calculus and high school algebra.
Both books are available at any book store or online at Amazon.com for ~$10.00 each (paperback edition).
One property of matter that you should explore is the meaning of the term "mass" (something that Rainman is exploring). Its not what we generally think that it is when we are speaking non-scientifically...even though our non-scientific definition makes its way into science discussions.
There are two kinds of "mass" - inertial and gravitational. You'll read in the literature that they are equivalent. That does not mean that they are the same any more than the equivalance of mass and energy means that they are the same.
One hint that I'll give is this: One property of the term "mass" is that is a quality the resists a change in velocity (or position) when a force acts on the body. What is going on inside the "body" that might relate to velocity and which might result in a resistence to a change in the velocity of the body?
This might involve Einstein's Nobel Prize winning paper on Brownian motion.
TimeNot,
This isn't a situation where physicists are taking an educated guess based on a gedankenexperiment. That a photon has a definite mass has been proven a kazillion times experimentally. Photons have mass thus they have momentum just as any other moving particle has momentum.
What you really need to do is to read some literature on the Special Theory of Relativity (as a starting place) beyond wiki. I can suggest two basic books for you:
1. Relativity, the Special and General Theory; Albert Einstein. This is a non-math popular science explanation by Einstein himself.
2. The Special Theory of Relativity; David Bohm. This is a step above popular science with some minor references to differential calculus and high school algebra.
Both books are available at any book store or online at Amazon.com for ~$10.00 each (paperback edition).
One property of matter that you should explore is the meaning of the term "mass" (something that Rainman is exploring). Its not what we generally think that it is when we are speaking non-scientifically...even though our non-scientific definition makes its way into science discussions.
There are two kinds of "mass" - inertial and gravitational. You'll read in the literature that they are equivalent. That does not mean that they are the same any more than the equivalance of mass and energy means that they are the same.
One hint that I'll give is this: One property of the term "mass" is that is a quality the resists a change in velocity (or position) when a force acts on the body. What is going on inside the "body" that might relate to velocity and which might result in a resistence to a change in the velocity of the body?
This might involve Einstein's Nobel Prize winning paper on Brownian motion.
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"
That just leads to more questions.
The soup is mixing.
Might as well ask what mechanism or even created 'light' in the first place.
Then there are other effects also, like the soliton (I am trying to remember) creation, where the concentration is more as an increase in amplitude of the wave that is traveling, and the DC Kerr affect and the AC Kerr affect. Again I would have to look it up, at the Wiki, as it is all there and pages and pages can be read.
Mass depends on concentration of the matter also, like in stars with gravity increasing at such concentrations, but yet there are electromagnetic radiation waves that just plain right through it, and still light is still interacting at the quantum level. Yet, light is not perceived as having 'gamma' but it may continue "forever" with its kinetic energy and momentum.
This to me brings back the "Holographic" type projections talked about in another book, and all that goes with that.
And since I am out on another limb that to me makes the entire Universe a Relativistic Projection since it is probably moving also and that "Time" in its major property "created" and makes all things relavant in "Time".
But that all takes math and all of that also and proof and all of that, and "Time".
Discrete or not like quantum theory or Analog and Continuous just makes it all seem like it all should be even something else, but work is continuing trying to combine the two so, at the Plank's level there still is the "Time" factor, and all the other "time" measurements and all of the energy and well, it is just mind boggling.
In other words, I had really nothing to say about it all.
Oh, but that does give "work" to do in all forms of any theory.
Perhaps the 'leap ahead' insight is just another form of energy and the work at the fringes of being or not being, and again tuning the head to that insight.
But the common goal will still be to do all the small experiments and then try and combine it all to gain some insight into what makes it all 'tick' in some form of explanation or words combined to give it meaning and claims to be made by Humans in the Universe.
That just leads to more questions.
The soup is mixing.
Might as well ask what mechanism or even created 'light' in the first place.
Then there are other effects also, like the soliton (I am trying to remember) creation, where the concentration is more as an increase in amplitude of the wave that is traveling, and the DC Kerr affect and the AC Kerr affect. Again I would have to look it up, at the Wiki, as it is all there and pages and pages can be read.
Mass depends on concentration of the matter also, like in stars with gravity increasing at such concentrations, but yet there are electromagnetic radiation waves that just plain right through it, and still light is still interacting at the quantum level. Yet, light is not perceived as having 'gamma' but it may continue "forever" with its kinetic energy and momentum.
This to me brings back the "Holographic" type projections talked about in another book, and all that goes with that.
And since I am out on another limb that to me makes the entire Universe a Relativistic Projection since it is probably moving also and that "Time" in its major property "created" and makes all things relavant in "Time".
But that all takes math and all of that also and proof and all of that, and "Time".
Discrete or not like quantum theory or Analog and Continuous just makes it all seem like it all should be even something else, but work is continuing trying to combine the two so, at the Plank's level there still is the "Time" factor, and all the other "time" measurements and all of the energy and well, it is just mind boggling.
In other words, I had really nothing to say about it all.
Oh, but that does give "work" to do in all forms of any theory.
Perhaps the 'leap ahead' insight is just another form of energy and the work at the fringes of being or not being, and again tuning the head to that insight.
But the common goal will still be to do all the small experiments and then try and combine it all to gain some insight into what makes it all 'tick' in some form of explanation or words combined to give it meaning and claims to be made by Humans in the Universe.