Paradoxes of special relativity

Science and Technology
21

Continuing the proven non-paradoxical behavior of photons in SR

A few random thoughts passed my mind in regard to “c” being an absolute speed limit.

  1. In a “pure vacuum” a photon having zero inertia (rest mass), would travel infinitely fast

  2. In a vacuum containing fields (a medium) the speed of a photon is restricted by resistance and at a certain speed the photon acquires virtual mass.

  3. In a Higgs field a photon acquires virtual mass @ “c”, and it is unable to go any faster, as that would require expenditure of energy

  4. If a photon were to go faster than “c” it would begin to shed energy and a photon being energy, the photon would cease to exist. Poof…!

  5. This might also account for virtual particles to pop in and out of existence. Virtual particles traveling at faster than “c” acquire virtual mass and must shed energy…Poof… !

Ran across this Q & A :

This follows from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity which predicts a number of physical consequences for objects moving at large velocities, consequences which are outside our normal everyday intuition gained from observing objects moving at low velocities.
One effect is that particles with mass acquire a "relativistic mass" equal to their mass at zero velocity (called the rest mass) divided by the square root of ( 1 minus (particle velocity/speed of light) squared ). So effectively a particle gets more and more mass and is therefore harder and harder to speed up further. So hard that you can't ever reach the speed of light.
If you look at the equation, you see that if the particle velocity were to equal the speed of light, then you would compute a "relativistic mass" of the rest mass divided by zero. Something divided by zero is infinitely large. Another effect is that particles with exactly zero mass (for example a photon), MUST ALWAYS travel at exactly the speed of light! Pretty strange, and I suggest you consult your local library for books on Special Relativity for more interesting examples.
Now, all this is a "theory". Is it correct? I can only say that in countless tests done since Einstein put forth his theory in 1905, it has held up to every challenge. But then, so did Newton's theory for 219 years until Einstein found the flaws with high velocity objects. Hope this answers helps, John Cooper
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/accel_mass.html

 

22

For general knowledge of paradoxes.

List of paradoxes

This list includes well known paradoxes, grouped thematically. The grouping is approximate, as paradoxes may fit into more than one category. This list collects only scenarios that have been called a paradox by at least one source and have their own article on Wikipedia. Although considered paradoxes, some of these are simply based on fallacious reasoning (falsidical), or an unintuitive solution (veridical). Informally, the term paradox is often used to describe a counter-intuitive result.

However, some of these paradoxes qualify to fit into the mainstream perception of a paradox, which is a self-contradictory result gained even while properly applying accepted ways of reasoning. These paradoxes, often called antinomy, point out genuine problems in our understanding of the ideas of truth and description.

23

What is the LENGTH of a photon?

And no. 2 above is a classic example of BBB or Bee Cubed.

24

[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:23, topic:7861, full:true”]
What is the LENGTH of a photon?

Is that a question or a declaration that photons have “length”?

And no. 2 above is a classic example of BBB or Bee Cubed.

First, I have no clue what BBB means.

Second, it is established science that the Higgs Field imparts mass on quanta.

IMO, “c” is a limit imposed by quantum fields. What that has to do with length is a mystery to me.

25

It looks like a question to me? That I asked? And exactly. It’s a meaningless concept. Introduced in the second sentence of the OP.

BBB: BS Baffles Brains.

I don’t see the relevance of your ‘Second’ and why or how quantum fields, whatever they are, impose “c”.

26

Something does else “c” would be infinitely fast. The fact that @ “c” it takes infinite energy to break that barrier is proof that resistance builds with increased speed.

In “empty” space there is nothing but dynamic fields from which quanta emerge and self-form patterns such as atoms.

There is no irreducible complexity, only chaos.

27

Why would c be infinitely fast?

Infinite energy wouldn’t break that barrier. It would take more than that…

Empty space is defined by fields and virtual particles that come and go, they don’t form atoms.

I don’t think we’ll be reducing these complexities any time soon.

28

[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:27, topic:7861, full:true”]
Why would c be infinitely fast?

No resistance , no limit.

Infinite energy wouldn’t break that barrier. It would take more than that…

No barrier, no additional energy necessary

Empty space is defined by fields and virtual particles that come and go, they don’t form atoms.

Some of these come and don’t go. They are the sub-atomic particles that self-form nuclei and begin to acquire mass, and are causal to the emergent 4 fundamental forces. If this didn’t happenen that way , then how else?

Atoms were created after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago . As the hot, dense new universe cooled, conditions became suitable for quarks and electrons to form. Quarks came together to form protons and neutrons, and these particles combined into nuclei. Dec 15, 2021 What is an atom? Facts about the building blocks of matter | Live Science

I don’t think we’ll be reducing these complexities any time soon.

You just identified “virtual” quanta. Quanta are not complex, they are a single value.
I don’t think you can reduce a single value any further than that.

A virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.[vague]

The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2 Virtual particle - Wikipedia

There are no irreducible complexities. There is no mystery. That’s religion.

29

What medium is the resistance in?

Where’s the barrier?

That’s got nothing to do with what happens now, as in since before the Planck epoch. What you describe is nothing to do with what you screed. And never happens.

So you have reduced causality to your simplicity. Despite science having no answer. You have. That sounds like religion.

30

The quantum fields that make up spacetime.

Example is the Higgs boson that adds mass to particles in the field.

The strong force and you

The Higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles —the electrons, quarks and other building blocks that cannot be broken into smaller parts. … The energy of this interaction between quarks and gluons is what gives protons and neutrons their mass. May 12, 2016

An example of irreducibly singular quanta that self-form into massive particles and acquire a durable existence after escaping the quantum field.

31

We know. No need ever to screed red herrings.

So, the quantum fields that make up spacetime, how do they do that and how do they fix c.

There are no mysteries to you, so make them clear to us.

Without irrelevant screeds. In your own words.

32

[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:31, topic:7861, full:true”]
We know. No need ever to screed red herrings.

What red herrings? I quote and link to mainstream science that informs of the conditions I base my opinions on.

So, the quantum fields that make up spacetime, how do they do that and how do they fix c .

This seems fairly obvious to me. A soon as a particle acquires mass it requires more energy in order to accelerate. And we know that maximum speed a massive particle can move is @ “c”.

AFAIK, virtual particles can only move @ FTL and cannot exist outside quantum fields

There are no mysteries to you, so make them clear to us.

No mysteries. I cite what is established science. Please correct me if I misquote something.

Without irrelevant screeds. In your own words.

That is a false statement.
First, all quoted long screeds are relevant mainstream science. That is why I quote them. They are peer-reviewed and say it better than I ever could.

Second, if that is unacceptable , please tell me how one can explain E = Mc^2 in their own words.

(p.s. there are no “own words”. Everybody uses the same words)

I just try to keep it simple. That is how it all started . Mysterious complexities come much later. But IMO, there never was magic involved. I like the concept of a logical universe based on the spacetime dynamics of inherent fundamental “relational values” being processed by algebraic “mathematical functions”, that can be described and modelled with human symbolic mathematics.

It seems that we have a pretty good idea as to the mechanics of the beginning. We just cannot know what came before and was causal to the beginning. It is beyond our event horizon, as there are still several physical conditions like black holes which are beyond our event horizon and can only be theoretically hypothesized. I try to shy away from such speculation.

33

You know better than science, surely? In your faith.

34

What are you talking about? Where have I ever argued against science?

This is becoming annoying. Put up or shut up. Give me an example where I have argued against mainstream science.

35

You are constantly making claims that science does not.

36

Like what, for the third time. Give me an example so that I know what you are even talking about. As long as you have no example I shall continue to ignore your objection. I am trying to be courteous here…take note!

37

If you won’t know, you can’t be told. And I’ve told you repeatedly.

38

I see, it is the secret knowledge I am not privy to. The magical word and handshake.
If one doesn’t know them, you don’t belong to the club of initiates. Now I see!

Unless of course, you don’t know what you are talking about.
If you cannot tell me specifically where I am wrong, then you have no right to poo poo my posts. It is you who is lacking here.

39

You are right that a photon has no rest mass. But it is never at rest, therefore it always has mass relative to medium it is in. It is impossible to measure a photon with zero mass.

[quote=“andrewlsmith, post:18, topic:7861”]
Have you ever wondered how this gets from the emitting particle to the absorbing one without accelerating to the speed of light and then decelerating again? A change of speed involves acceleration in the frame of a particle.

Perhaps you may avail yourself of some advice from physicists. Photons do not accelerate. They travel @ “c” the moment they are created and have relative mass.

How does a photon accelerate to light speed so quickly?

Category: Physics Published: June 26, 2014

A photon of light does not accelerate to light speed . Rather, a photon is already traveling at light speed c when it is created. It’s not like a photon jumps from a speed of zero to light speed instantaneously. Rather, a photon is always traveling at c, from the moment of its creation. Jun 26, 2014

The key is that a photon is not a traditional particle. Rather it is a quantum object, which is part wave, and part particle. When a photon is being created, it is acting mostly like a wave, and waves have no problem going a certain speed from the moment they are created.

image
Like water waves, sound waves, and all other waves, light waves are already going at a certain non-zero speed the moment they are created, without needing to be accelerated. Public Domain Image, source: US Department of Health and Human Services

For instance, bob your hand up and down against a pond’s still surface and you will create water waves that ripple away from your hand. The water waves do not start out motionless and then slowly pick up speed as they travel away. The water waves are already traveling at their nominal speed the moment you start creating them. That is how waves behave.

So before you try to belittle someone’s intellect (also known as ad hominem) you may want to be sure you are correct or you will end up as the fool!

40

Mere projection. And utter, utter nonsense:

How on Earth do you KNOW that? From what physics syllabus? By what process of epistemology? Education? Teaching? Where is that taught? Find a physicist, a real one, who says that. Quote one of the greats. You KNOW wrong. Not even wrong.