ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th November 2020, 08:15 AM   #1161
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are assuming that there is a minimum wavelength. You don't actually know that. Nobody has ever observed that a minimum exists.

You also fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scientific theories. It is possible special relativity is wrong. It is possible that it does not match reality. This is not news to anyone who actually understands science. But if it is wrong, then it is wrong in the same way Newtonian physics is wrong. Internally, it remains completely self-consistent.
Ziggurat, we observe the minimum wavelength through the uncertainty principle.




If we look at the particle P.
There is going to be a small scale distance when the particle P is going to get from t=-1.3 to t=1.3 and we WOULD NOT know the world line.
It could be the red one but it is only one of the many. It is just going to be one jump up from t=-1.3 to t=1.3.
For this jump the light round trip is going to be the same in length through any direction, ... left, right, front, back,
... because that's the comoving inertial observer going through 'b' in the straight line worldline at the small scales and not moving to the left through '0'.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 09:03 AM   #1162
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Ziggurat, we observe the minimum wavelength through the uncertainty principle.
You obviously don't understand the uncertainty principle either. Let me give you a hint: the spatial uncertainty imposed by the uncertainty principle depends on momentum uncertainty. There is no hard limit on either, only a reciprocal relationship between the two.

Quote:
If we look at the particle P.
There is going to be a small scale distance when the particle P is going to get from t=-1.3 to t=1.3 and we WOULD NOT know the world line.
It could be the red one but it is only one of the many. It is just going to be one jump up from t=-1.3 to t=1.3.
For this jump the light round trip is going to be the same in length through any direction, ... left, right, front, back,
... because that's the comoving inertial observer going through 'b' in the straight line worldline at the small scales and not moving to the left through '0'.
What the hell are you even talking about? There is no light round trip in that problem.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 09:36 AM   #1163
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You obviously don't understand the uncertainty principle either. Let me give you a hint: the spatial uncertainty imposed by the uncertainty principle depends on momentum uncertainty. There is no hard limit on either, only a reciprocal relationship between the two.



What the hell are you even talking about? There is no light round trip in that problem.




How do we know through what worldline particle P got from A to B?
The red worldline and the inertial worldline through 'b' are equivalent for small scales.
If there are two light roundtrips as shown above then the time elapsed is equal for the left and the right roundtrips.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 11:08 AM   #1164
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
How do we know through what worldline particle P got from A to B?
The red worldline and the inertial worldline through 'b' are equivalent for small scales.
What counts as "small scales"? That's the part you don't understand: there isn't a fixed answer for that. And none of this points to there being any minimum wavelength for light.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 01:39 PM   #1165
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Ziggurat, we observe the minimum wavelength through the uncertainty principle.
SDG lies about the uncertainty principle which does not say there is a minimum wavelength. As in his relativity textbook, the uncertainty principle is that there are pairs of complementary variables or measurements where measuring one increases the uncertainty in the other. The usual example is the standard deviation of momentum and standard deviation of position.

What the uncertainty principle says is that we can measure the position of a particle to within any uncertainty we like, including an uncertainty less than the Planck length. The consequence is an increasing uncertainty in momentum.

SDG lies about Fig. 12.4 from his textbook. This is a "Physics in an Accelerated Frame" chapter in a relativity textbook. If the Planck scale was a limit to measurement, we WOULD know the particle's worldline down to that scale. Standard relativity WOULD apply to scales above the Planck scale. The particle P will still have a worldline.

SDG lies with "light round trip is going to be the same in length through any direction". There is no round trip of light in Fig. 12.4.
The second figure in Fig. 12.4 shows the Rindler horizon that explicitly allows a hypothetical] light round trip to have different lengths. Namely finite one way and infinite the other way. Light directed back at he horizon passes through it. Reflect that light or send another signal from beyond the horizon and the light does not get back to the observer ! That is what "horizon" means.
This lie is obvious because we have a uniformly accelerating observer O. If they send a signal behind them to another observer and they send a signal to them the lengths will be different because the observer is accelerating! The observers will have moved apart during the time the signal passed between them. Ditto for an observer ahead of O (they will move closer together). Ditto for observers to the left or right of O.

SDG lies with "comoving inertial observer" when there is no comoving inertial observer in Fig. 12.4, just a particle P and observer O. There are inertial coordinates used in the first figure.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2020 at 02:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 02:22 PM   #1166
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
...
If there are two light roundtrips as shown above then the time elapsed is equal for the left and the right roundtrips.
SDG writes "two light roundtrips as shown above" gibberish when he alters Fig. 12.4 and still has one and only one uniformly accelerating observer O. In tis case SDG is correct. Observer O will always have the same length and time for the legs of a roundtrip in any direction. That length and time is 0 !

Add another observer and the lengths can differ in different directions because we have a uniformly accelerating observer O.

It may be that SDG has a fantasy that at the Planck scale, relativity (and even physics?) magically goes away so he can say anything about what happens there. So SDG imagines that two observers separated by say 10-36 m will measure that light takes the same time to go between them no matter what direction or whatever acceleration difference.
In the real world, we say that we cannot know what happens at the Planck scale or even if anything happens because we do not have a working quantum gravity theory. We expect no effects: The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[10]

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2020 at 02:29 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 07:21 PM   #1167
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What counts as "small scales"? That's the part you don't understand: there isn't a fixed answer for that. And none of this points to there being any minimum wavelength for light.
There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement.
What is the shortest time interval we can measure?

There is also the ultraviolet catastrophe:

Quote:
According to classical electromagnetism, the number of electromagnetic modes in a 3-dimensional cavity, per unit frequency, is proportional to the square of the frequency. This therefore implies that the radiated power per unit frequency should be proportional to frequency squared. Thus, both the power at a given frequency and the total radiated power is unlimited as higher and higher frequencies are considered: this is clearly unphysical as the total radiated power of a cavity is not observed to be infinite, a point that was made independently by Einstein and by Lord Rayleigh and Sir James Jeans in 1905.
It is impossible to cross some boundary of EM radiation, because it would require too much energy.
When the wavelength goes to zero (even though not zero) the required energy goes to infinity.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 07:24 PM   #1168
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Hey, Reality, check the Relativistic Doppler Effect calculation I showed above and tell me how it fits with the symmetry.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 08:06 PM   #1169
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,782
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The train observer and platform observer are aligned at the event G.
The train observer sends red polarized light beam across to the center of the train car at 1cs then it reflects the light beam back to the platform observer that is at the same position as he was at G event.
The device sends exactly 1cs long polarized waves.
The platform observer sends blue polarized light beam to the center for the train car and it gets reflected back to him.
The platform device is the same type, it sends exactly 1cs long polarized waves as well.
The train observer light crosses 1cs in the first leg and 7cs in the second leg of the train frame.
The blue diagonal one wave (2cs in length) is the red train frame single wave as seen by the platform observer.
The platform observer light crosses 2cs in both legs of the platform frame.
The two diagonal waves (each 1cs in length) are the waves emitted by the platform observer.
The second train leg 7 wave light beam is drawn in blue because that's the platform view.
The frequency is the problem it does not fit the Relativistic Doppler Effect equation.
First let's take the beam fired on the train, each vector shown represents a wavelength and B represents the mirror:


Train frame on the left, platform frame on the right:



This suggests that the frequency for the second leg on the platform should be 3.5 Hz.

Now the beam fired on the platform, again, each vector represents a wavelength:

Train frame on the right, platform frame on the left:



Which suggests a frequency on the train of 0.2857 Hz for that second leg

So the Doppler Shift equation works for converting the second leg of the beam fired on the platform to the train frame.

The question is, what is the correct Doppler Shift Equation for each scenario?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 18th November 2020 at 08:14 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 08:13 PM   #1170
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,782
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is also the ultraviolet catastrophe:
You might want to check the physics that has happened since the Rayleigh Jeans equation.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 08:14 PM   #1171
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 68,816
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is also the ultraviolet catastrophe:



It is impossible to cross some boundary of EM radiation, because it would require too much energy.
When the wavelength goes to zero (even though not zero) the required energy goes to infinity.
I admit to only barely following this thread, but isn't this just the black-body problem that spurred the development of quantum mechanics at the beginning of the last century?
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 11:12 PM   #1172
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement.
Practical limits are distinct from theoretical limits.

Quote:
There is also the ultraviolet catastrophe:
We can add another item to the long list pf physics you don't understand.

The ultraviolet catastrophe was the result of an incorrect prediction about how much energy each electromagnetic mode should contain. The prediction was wrong because energy is quantized. That reduces the expected energy in short wavelength modes, but it does NOT make those short wavelength modes non-existent.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that will make sense. At low temperatures, short wavelength modes are essentially frozen out because of quantization. Instead of having energy proportional to temperature, they have exponentially suppressed energy. If you look at a cavity at room temperature, optical photons are essentially frozen out. Does that mean that optical photons are too high energy to exist? No, of course not. Increase the temperature to, say, 6000 Kelvin, and your cavity will be flooded with optical photons. The fact that a particular mode gets frozen out below some temperature has nothing to do with those photons being too high energy to exist.

Every single time you try to introduce new physics, you get it wrong, and it doesn't actually support your point. Your perfect streak of error continues.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 12:57 PM   #1173
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement.....
SDG's lie about the Planck length is extended to the Planck time.
One more time:
This is special relativity where there is no such limit as in his textbook.
The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[10]
(my emphasis added)

SDG lies about the ultraviolet catastrophe by quote mining the Wikipedia article on it ! Ultraviolet catastrophe
Quote:
Problem
The ultraviolet catastrophe results from the equipartition theorem of classical statistical mechanics which states that all harmonic oscillator modes (degrees of freedom) of a system at equilibrium have an average energy of kT.
...
Solution
In 1900, Max Planck derived the correct form for the intensity spectral distribution function by making some strange (for the time) assumptions. In particular, Planck assumed that electromagnetic radiation can be emitted or absorbed only in discrete packets, called quanta, of energy:...
My emphasis added.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
It is impossible to cross some boundary of EM radiation, because it would require too much energy.
When the wavelength goes to zero (even though not zero) the required energy goes to infinity.
The Planck length is still irrelevant because it is not a limit on lengths in conventional physics.
The Planck length is also irrelevant because there is no process in the existing universe that creates light with enough energy to be affected by a non-conventional physics Planck scale limit.

This is the real "boundary of EM radiation".

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th November 2020 at 01:40 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 01:25 PM   #1174
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Exclamation SDG asks an abysmally ignorant question on the Relativistic Doppler Effect equation

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Hey, Reality, check the Relativistic Doppler Effect calculation I showed above and tell me how it fits with the symmetry.
SDG asks an abysmally ignorant question about the Relativistic Doppler Effect equation he used :

SDG did 1 calculation with a single "geometry" - a receiver at 30 degrees to a source. That absolutely fits the equation. We just plug the angle and speed, etc. in to get the result.

SDG lies by quote mining my post which was not about his ignorant assertions about the relativistic Doppler effect.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
SDG writes "two light roundtrips as shown above" gibberish when he alters Fig. 12.4 and still has one and only one uniformly accelerating observer O. In tis case SDG is correct. Observer O will always have the same length and time for the legs of a roundtrip in any direction. That length and time is 0 !

Add another observer and the lengths can differ in different directions because we have a uniformly accelerating observer O.

It may be that SDG has a fantasy that at the Planck scale, relativity (and even physics?) magically goes away so he can say anything about what happens there. So SDG imagines that two observers separated by say 10-36 m will measure that light takes the same time to go between them no matter what direction or whatever acceleration difference.
In the real world, we say that we cannot know what happens at the Planck scale or even if anything happens because we do not have a working quantum gravity theory. We expect no effects: The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[10]
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 06:15 PM   #1175
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Practical limits are distinct from theoretical limits.



We can add another item to the long list pf physics you don't understand.

The ultraviolet catastrophe was the result of an incorrect prediction about how much energy each electromagnetic mode should contain. The prediction was wrong because energy is quantized. That reduces the expected energy in short wavelength modes, but it does NOT make those short wavelength modes non-existent.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that will make sense. At low temperatures, short wavelength modes are essentially frozen out because of quantization. Instead of having energy proportional to temperature, they have exponentially suppressed energy. If you look at a cavity at room temperature, optical photons are essentially frozen out. Does that mean that optical photons are too high energy to exist? No, of course not. Increase the temperature to, say, 6000 Kelvin, and your cavity will be flooded with optical photons. The fact that a particular mode gets frozen out below some temperature has nothing to do with those photons being too high energy to exist.

Every single time you try to introduce new physics, you get it wrong, and it doesn't actually support your point. Your perfect streak of error continues.
We have a misunderstanding here.
I do not deny the smaller wavelengths do not exist.
I am trying to make a point that Maxwell equations do not hold when an EM wavelength reaches a limit.
The energy transfer done through the EM is not possible beyond the limit.
Going back to relativity a very very very long acceleration is a pipe dream from energy point of view.

Breaking news: an alien spaceship flew by the Earth at close to c speed, the aliens posted a picture on Instagram but too bad, the wavelength happened to be so small we were not able to detect it.

The (b) and (c) wheels represent two different reference frames for the relativistic wheel moving to the left in one frame and to right in the other frame.
There is going be a limit when an EM field emissions at the wheel top for (b) and at the wheel bottom for (c) are not going to observable/possible in the outside frame, yet it is part of the current physics papers and the relativity theory.

SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 06:52 PM   #1176
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
We have a misunderstanding here.
"We"? No, YOU have a misunderstanding, seemingly about all of physics.

Quote:
I do not deny the smaller wavelengths do not exist.
I am trying to make a point that Maxwell equations do not hold when an EM wavelength reaches a limit.
But there is no limit. The ultraviolet catastrophe has absolutely nothing to do with a limit on wavelength. And the error had nothing to do with Maxwell's equations being wrong either, but rather the equipartition theorem being wrong when applied to quantized systems.

Even when it comes to non-relativistic physics, you get everything wrong.

Quote:
Breaking news: an alien spaceship flew by the Earth at close to c speed, the aliens posted a picture on Instagram but too bad, the wavelength happened to be so small we were not able to detect it.
Wrong again. Ultra-short wavelength photons are easier to detect than ultra-long wavelength photons.

Quote:
The (b) and (c) wheels represent two different reference frames for the relativistic wheel moving to the left in one frame and to right in the other frame.
Wrong again. Those are not the same wheel in two frames, but different wheels. The direction of rotation won't change when you change reference frames.

Quote:
There is going be a limit when an EM field emissions at the wheel top for (b) and at the wheel bottom for (c) are not going to observable/possible in the outside frame, yet it is part of the current physics papers and the relativity theory.
No there isn't. You're simply making stuff up now.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 19th November 2020 at 06:54 PM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 09:03 PM   #1177
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Exclamation SDG's persistent lie that there are "limits" to light emissions

SDG lies that the Planck length is a limit for special relativitySDG lied that his "limits" fantasy is the uncertainty principle.
SDG lied that his "limits" fantasy does whatever he imagines to the worldline of a uniformly accelerating observer.
SDG lied that there is his "limit" to the classical Maxwell equations.
SDG lied that there is his "limit" to the light emitted by relativistic rotating wheels.
The current spate of lies about the relativistic Doppler effect that is a real effect measured in the real world may be part of his ignorant "limits" fantasy.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 09:05 PM   #1178
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
We have a misunderstanding here.
I do not deny the smaller wavelengths do not exist....
SDG wrote "There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement." Ziggurat's reply was agreeing with the obvious fact there there are limits to what we can measure .

SDG adds an ignorant "Maxwell equations do not hold when an EM wavelength reaches a limit" fantasy to his body of ignorant fantasies. Maxwell's equations are classical .

SDG starts to lie about relativistic, rotating wheels. There are no limits to wavelengths in any relativistic situation.
SDG's persistent lie that there are "limits" to light emissions

SDG is probably lying about that uncaptioned image from somewhere. It looks to be a rotating wheel at rest, that wheel moving to the left and appearing to rotate in the same direction, and that wheel going right and appearing to rotate in the opposite direction. There is no indication that the light emitted is changed - there are similar rainbows around the rim. His emissions at the top and bottom have the same red color in all 3 wheels ! It is possible that image is just about the perceived shape and rotation of the wheel.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th November 2020 at 09:19 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 10:02 PM   #1179
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
SDG wrote "There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement." Ziggurat's reply was agreeing with the obvious fact there there are limits to what we can measure .
More specifically, I meant that there are limits to what wavelength we can produce. Those are practical limits, and as technology advances those limits get pushed back farther. We can detect photons in excess of the energy of photons which we can produce.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 07:38 AM   #1180
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

Wrong again. Those are not the same wheel in two frames, but different wheels. The direction of rotation won't change when you change reference frames.
...
It is ONE wheel as seen by two different inertial frames.
The rotation is the same.
Notice how the geometrical and energy centroids shift, they are frame dependent.

The frequency for the relativistic Doppler effect shows the problem.
There is no way around the problem of frequency increasing on the 'wrong side' of the train car for the Doppler effect.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 07:47 AM   #1181
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
More specifically, I meant that there are limits to what wavelength we can produce. Those are practical limits, and as technology advances those limits get pushed back farther. We can detect photons in excess of the energy of photons which we can produce.
No we cannot produce/detect photons of 'infinite' energy.
There is a limit to frequencies we can produce and detect.
These are physical limits.
Nature as we know it cannot produce infinite energy photons.
Infinity discussions are another 'cans of worms'.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 07:58 AM   #1182
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
SDG wrote "There is a limit to what wavelength we can use for a measurement." Ziggurat's reply was agreeing with the obvious fact there there are limits to what we can measure .

SDG adds an ignorant "Maxwell equations do not hold when an EM wavelength reaches a limit" fantasy to his body of ignorant fantasies. Maxwell's equations are classical .

SDG starts to lie about relativistic, rotating wheels. There are no limits to wavelengths in any relativistic situation.
SDG's persistent lie that there are "limits" to light emissions

SDG is probably lying about that uncaptioned image from somewhere. It looks to be a rotating wheel at rest, that wheel moving to the left and appearing to rotate in the same direction, and that wheel going right and appearing to rotate in the opposite direction. There is no indication that the light emitted is changed - there are similar rainbows around the rim. His emissions at the top and bottom have the same red color in all 3 wheels ! It is possible that image is just about the perceived shape and rotation of the wheel.
Here is the source, post #594.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I guess you have not seen this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5618.pdf

SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 08:44 AM   #1183
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
No we cannot produce/detect photons of 'infinite' energy.
Who said anything about infinite? The question was whether there's an upper limit. There isn't. That's not the same thing as infinite.

Quote:
There is a limit to frequencies we can produce and detect.
These are physical limits.
No.

There's a limit to frequencies we can produce, due to the limits of our technology. That limit is higher today than it was in the past, and will be higher in the future.

There is no limit to the frequencies we can detect.

Quote:
Nature as we know it cannot produce infinite energy photons.
Infinity discussions are another 'cans of worms'.
Again, you have confused a lack of an upper limit with infinity. These are not the same thing, and your confusion demonstrates that not only do you not understand physics, you don't even understand math. As an example, there is no upper limit to prime numbers, but no prime number is infinite.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 09:06 AM   #1184
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who said anything about infinite? The question was whether there's an upper limit. There isn't. That's not the same thing as infinite.



No.

There's a limit to frequencies we can produce, due to the limits of our technology. That limit is higher today than it was in the past, and will be higher in the future.

There is no limit to the frequencies we can detect.



Again, you have confused a lack of an upper limit with infinity. These are not the same thing, and your confusion demonstrates that not only do you not understand physics, you don't even understand math. As an example, there is no upper limit to prime numbers, but no prime number is infinite.
There is a limit.
If there was NO limit then there would be one wave of 'infinite' frequency/wavelength/energy and there would be no energy left for anything else in the universe.

Prime numbers is not a good example.
Better question is if an infinity is a countable set or not.

Do you see the relativistic wheel now?
Do you see it is one wheel in two frames?

Last edited by SDG; 20th November 2020 at 10:11 AM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 10:57 AM   #1185
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is a limit.
If there was NO limit then there would be one wave of 'infinite' frequency/wavelength/energy and there would be no energy left for anything else in the universe.
That isn't how it works. No limit doesn't mean infinite. And energy is not relativistically invariant, so the energy of the universe isn't some fixed quantity.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 02:08 PM   #1186
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That isn't how it works. No limit doesn't mean infinite. And energy is not relativistically invariant, so the energy of the universe isn't some fixed quantity.
Well, this is interesting. I am going to rephrase it if I understand it right.
The total energy of the universe is not constant.
The exchange of energy between systems is invariant for all observers.
Where would the excess of energy come from if an exchange does not generate a new energy?
Out of nothing? That's the first question.

The second one is, how much energy is estimated in the EM radiation of the whole universe?
If it is not 100% then EM cannot have an infinity frequency because there is more energy available outside of the EM.

Third point, even if we consider all energy to be in the EM radiation we still see many photons.
If there were only 2 photons then they would have a boundary between them and the frequency would have a limit.
That's my point about the countable set.

Last edited by SDG; 20th November 2020 at 02:14 PM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 02:49 PM   #1187
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Well, this is interesting. I am going to rephrase it if I understand it right.
The total energy of the universe is not constant.
It's not invariant. It is conserved.

Quote:
The exchange of energy between systems is invariant for all observers.
Nope, not that either. And that's true even in Newtonian mechanics. Consider for example a problem with two equal mass balls, ball A at rest and ball B moving. They collide perfectly elastically, so that ball B comes to rest and ball A is now moving. Energy transferred from B to A. But that's only true in this frame. In a different frame, ball A starts in motion and ball B starts at rest, and after collision ball A is at rest and ball B is in motion, so that in this second frame energy transferred from A to B.

Quote:
Where would the excess of energy come from if an exchange does not generate a new energy?
Out of nothing? That's the first question.
Nobody is talking about violating energy conservation. That's completely your own fevered imagination.

Quote:
The second one is, how much energy is estimated in the EM radiation of the whole universe?
That rather depends on the size of the universe, doesn't it? So you tell me: how big is the universe?

Quote:
If it is not 100% then EM cannot have an infinity frequency
Again, nobody but you is talking about infinite frequency.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 01:00 PM   #1188
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not invariant. It is conserved.
I am not talking about total energy, I am talking about change of energy.

Quote:
Nope, not that either. And that's true even in Newtonian mechanics. Consider for example a problem with two equal mass balls, ball A at rest and ball B moving. They collide perfectly elastically, so that ball B comes to rest and ball A is now moving. Energy transferred from B to A. But that's only true in this frame. In a different frame, ball A starts in motion and ball B starts at rest, and after collision ball A is at rest and ball B is in motion, so that in this second frame energy transferred from A to B.
The deceleration and acceleration is invariant.
All observers have to agree how much B decelerated, F=ma and how much A accelerated.
Change of energy has to be invariant.


Quote:


Nobody is talking about violating energy conservation. That's completely your own fevered imagination.

That rather depends on the size of the universe, doesn't it? So you tell me: how big is the universe?

Again, nobody but you is talking about infinite frequency.

This is a big problem.
Why we do not measure higher frequency when the light is bounced backwards, in the opposite direction of the velocity?
This 7s wave is based on the relativity.


SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 04:49 PM   #1189
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I am not talking about total energy, I am talking about change of energy.
And I addressed that too.

Quote:
The deceleration and acceleration is invariant.
All observers have to agree how much B decelerated, F=ma and how much A accelerated.
Nope, wrong again, as always. In relativity, F does not equal ma. F = dp/dt. The difference is important for several reasons, one of them being that F and a are not always even parallel.

Quote:
Change of energy has to be invariant.
It's not invariant. I just gave you a simple example where different observers will disagree. This isn't peculiar to relativity either, it's true in Newtonian mechanics. And it doesn't take exotic conditions to manifest.

Quote:
This is a big problem.
For you, maybe. But the universe is indifferent to your problems.

Quote:
Why we do not measure higher frequency when the light is bounced backwards, in the opposite direction of the velocity?
Who is "we"? You keep screwing up. That's not my problem, that's yours. And your diagram is crap.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 09:36 PM   #1190
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Here is the source, post #594.
SDG lies about the source of his diagram. The Relativistic Hall Effect (PDF) paper does not have a diagram with 3 wheels.
The Relativistic Hall Effect (PDF) paper is about deformations of the wheel, not whatever SDG imagines about its "EM field emissions".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 09:45 PM   #1191
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
There is a limit....
SDG writes idiocy about all of the energy in the universe being in a "wave of 'infinite' frequency/wavelength/energy".
Photon energy. The longer the wavelength of a photon, the less energy it has .

Some posts of irrelevant stupidity about the energy of the universe which is probably zero! What's the Total Energy In the Universe?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 09:52 PM   #1192
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
This is a big problem.
Why we do not measure higher frequency when the light is bounced backwards, in the opposite direction of the velocity?
SDG lies that his fantasies about his cartoon are a problem for the real world.

There is no "opposite direction" difference because it is the speed of the observers that appears in the relativistic Doppler effect equation he has cited.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 08:20 AM   #1193
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And I addressed that too.



Nope, wrong again, as always. In relativity, F does not equal ma. F = dp/dt. The difference is important for several reasons, one of them being that F and a are not always even parallel.



It's not invariant. I just gave you a simple example where different observers will disagree. This isn't peculiar to relativity either, it's true in Newtonian mechanics. And it doesn't take exotic conditions to manifest.



For you, maybe. But the universe is indifferent to your problems.



Who is "we"? You keep screwing up. That's not my problem, that's yours. And your diagram is crap.
Right, this is exactly your example A, B balls moving and having different energy based on the frame of reference.





This drawing is related to the relativistic Hall effect.
From the paper:
Quote:
Introduction.—Hall effects represent a group of intriguing phenomena
which appear from the interplay be-tween rotation
and linear motion of particles. These phenomena are associated
with a transverse drift of the particle in the direction orthogonal
to both its angular momentum(AM) and external force.
The centroids represent the transverse drift of the particle.
How is it possible that for (b) observer the particle drifts up and for the (c) observer the particle drifts down?
This is clear disagreement on the motion/drift of the particles as mentioned in the paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5618.pdf
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 08:26 AM   #1194
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

Who is "we"? You keep screwing up. That's not my problem, that's yours. And your diagram is crap.
What is wrong with the waves as they are drawn in the diagram?
One 1cs wavelength wave up and seven 1cs wavelength waves backwards, right?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 09:07 AM   #1195
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
What is wrong with the waves as they are drawn in the diagram?
One 1cs wavelength wave up and seven 1cs wavelength waves backwards, right?
It's a 3-dimensional problem (two space and one time) but you've only got two of the dimensions shown. There's no way for me to sort out what you think is happening, let alone what's actually happening, from that diagram. Plus, of course, if the wavelength is that long, then the emissions must be occurring over an extended period of time, which means that in any frame where the emitter is moving, it will be in a very different place when it's emitting a peak and when it's emitting a trough, and there's no way your diagram is accounting for that either.

And lastly, since I still have no idea what you think is going on let alone why you think it's a problem, this is just guesswork on my part. But I suspect that your problem with relativistic Doppler effect probably has a lot to do with your inability to fully distinguish between what one sees and what one observes. I explained this early in the thread, but it never actually sunk in.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 10:12 AM   #1196
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's a 3-dimensional problem (two space and one time) but you've only got two of the dimensions shown. There's no way for me to sort out what you think is happening, let alone what's actually happening, from that diagram. Plus, of course, if the wavelength is that long, then the emissions must be occurring over an extended period of time, which means that in any frame where the emitter is moving, it will be in a very different place when it's emitting a peak and when it's emitting a trough, and there's no way your diagram is accounting for that either.

And lastly, since I still have no idea what you think is going on let alone why you think it's a problem, this is just guesswork on my part. But I suspect that your problem with relativistic Doppler effect probably has a lot to do with your inability to fully distinguish between what one sees and what one observes. I explained this early in the thread, but it never actually sunk in.

As per the paper above, two inertial observers do not agree on the energy distribution in the y-direction.
The different energy distribution is related to the Doppler effect.
If inertial observers do not agree on the energy centroid drift in y-direction when the relative motion is along x-direction then how they can agree on physics?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 10:33 AM   #1197
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
As per the paper above, two inertial observers do not agree on the energy distribution in the y-direction.
The different energy distribution is related to the Doppler effect.
If inertial observers do not agree on the energy centroid drift in y-direction when the relative motion is along x-direction then how they can agree on physics?
You keep jumping from problem to problem. You can't actually stay focused on one thing and solve it. Whenever I ask about problem A, you always move to problem B, and when I ask about problem B, you move back to problem A. This is a stupid way to go about trying to understand a subject, and it's really no wonder that you don't have a clue about anything.

As for your last question, you have made an assumption that they need to agree about where the energy centroid is. But you haven't actually shown that the do need to agree about where it is. You are simply assuming that.

And you are wrong. As with many aspects of physics, they don't need to agree. That quantity doesn't have to be invariant.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 11:03 AM   #1198
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You keep jumping from problem to problem. You can't actually stay focused on one thing and solve it. Whenever I ask about problem A, you always move to problem B, and when I ask about problem B, you move back to problem A. This is a stupid way to go about trying to understand a subject, and it's really no wonder that you don't have a clue about anything.

As for your last question, you have made an assumption that they need to agree about where the energy centroid is. But you haven't actually shown that the do need to agree about where it is. You are simply assuming that.

And you are wrong. As with many aspects of physics, they don't need to agree. That quantity doesn't have to be invariant.
The Doppler effect, the energy distribution are related.
The paper is trying to show an electron drift in the Hall effect.
Quote:
This is the relativistic analogue of the spin-Hall effect,
which occurs in free space without any external fields.
One inertial observer 'sees' the electron (energy centroid) drift up, the other inertial observer 'sees' the electron drift down.
This is not right.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 11:16 AM   #1199
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,388
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The Doppler effect, the energy distribution are related.
Not really.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 11:22 AM   #1200
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 926
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...
But I suspect that your problem with relativistic Doppler effect probably has a lot to do with your inability to fully distinguish between what one sees and what one observes. I explained this early in the thread, but it never actually sunk in.
Two inertial observers of the same inertial reference frame/grid see the reality differently even though they are supposed to observer the same reality.
Why is it important what they see?
The observer at the back 'sees' the redshift.
The observer at the front 'sees' the blueshift.
This means the front is receiving more energy than the back.
The interaction is already creating asymmetry.
This is the case even though the source emitted the same energy in both directions.
Do you see the problem here?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.