It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Korg Trinity
If a photon and an anti-photon collide, do they annihilate each other?
Yes and not just in theory we have observed it many many times in high energy collisions. Normally what happens when they collide is they produce other sub atomic particles such as electron-positron, quarks or other fleeting particles, all energies accounted for of course.
Korg.
I think you were thinking about 'proton and anti-proton'. A photon and anti-photon (which is the same particle) have almost no reaction cross section. I don't believe there has been any direct observation (which could only happen by rare QED effects, instantiating virtual electron/positron pairs and scattering off of them).
The new research, published in Nature Photonics, shows for the first time how Breit and Wheeler's theory could be proven in practice. This 'photon-photon collider', which would convert light directly into matter using technology that is already available, would be a new type of high-energy physics experiment. This experiment would recreate a process that was important in the first 100 seconds of the universe and that is also seen in gamma ray bursts, which are the biggest explosions in the universe and one of physics' greatest unsolved mysteries.
Breit and Wheeler suggested that it should be possible to turn light into matter by smashing together only two particles of light (photons), to create an electron and a positron – the simplest method of turning light into matter ever predicted. The calculation was found to be theoretically sound but Breit and Wheeler said that they never expected anybody to physically demonstrate their prediction. It has never been observed in the laboratory and past experiments to test it have required the addition of massive high-energy
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity
It dosent say that they have done the Experiment to prove the theory.
originally posted by: spy66
But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity
It dosent say that they have done the Experiment to prove the theory.
It has happened already in the LHC and many many times, just by accident.
What Breit and Wheeler are talking about is building a specific photonic collider.
Korg.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.
This is not correct.
If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.
Do you see?
Korg.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.
This is not correct.
If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.
Do you see?
Korg.
Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.
The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.
This is not correct.
If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.
Do you see?
Korg.
Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.
The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.
No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.
The speed of Light is Constant.
Korg.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: spy66
But if you travel at 6000m/s and measure the speed of light from a stationary lazor. You will read the speed of light minus the platform speed of 6000m/s.
This is not correct.
If you were to measure the speed of light from all frames of reference the speed would not change. only the frequency of the light would differ.
Do you see?
Korg.
Correct, the speed of light would still travel at 299,792,458m/s. But since the platform where you measure the speed from is traveling at 6000m/s you will not read 299,792,458m/s.
The speed of light will seam slower by 6000m/s. That is if the messuring Device is callibrated as zero at 6000m/s.
No it wouldn't... I know it's counter intuitive... but the speed of light would still measure 299,792,458m/s.
The speed of Light is Constant.
Korg.
Yes the speed of light is constant.
Lets say you travel in a car at 50km/h and beside you have an other car moving at 50km/h. If you look out the window you will observe the car as if it was satnding still. Even though both are moving at 50 km/h.
If you slow down to 48 km/h the care will pass you With a speed differential of 2 km/h. If the referance point of measurement is zero at 50km/h. The car passing you will pass you With the speed of 2 km/h. Not 50 km/h.
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Korg Trinity
There is something in this video that are not true.HERE
Newton was not wrong about; if an even happeneds in the universe it happeneds for everybody.
Because, the nature/state of the univserse Depends on what perspective you take as the video state. Newton is only wrong when you use the perspective of the location of one or two observers relative to the event. A event can take Place within Our universe non the less if the observers observed the event or not. It is not like the event never happened. Its just that the observers didnt learn about it.
I liked the light cone perspective, that was informative. This also confirmes that Newton is right. A event can take Place without a observer knowing about it.
In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates:
(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and
(2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
It was originally proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1]
The inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and the inability to discover Earth's motion through a luminiferous aether led to the development of special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving motions nearing the speed of light.
As of today, special relativity is the most accurate model of motion at any speed. Even so, Newtonian mechanics is still useful (due to its simplicity and high accuracy) as an approximation at small velocities relative to the speed of light.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So the energy that a photon has in Noreaster's example is expended on increasing wavelength, not increasing speed....is that correct?
Nope. DEcreasing wavelength. You add energy to a photon, the wavelength gets shorter.