Jump to content

God And The Big Bang


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Are neutrino's part of a photon, or an element unto themselves?

Neutrinos are elementary particles and are not part of photons. In fact, photons are bosons while neutrinos are fermions so they are quite different.

How can I relate this to religion? Hmmm.

OK, how's this: The proper time "experienced" by a photon as it travels from one point to another is actually zero! Someone said photons (light) live in eternity. :P

Link to comment

Let's play a version of the game where we ask, "where did God come from?"

So, if i understand correctly, about 7 billion years ago niether space, time or matter existed. This universe did not exist. What existed was a singualirty of condensed energy the size of my thumb nail.

Six: Where did this condensed energy come from? If I understand correctly, it is the remnant of the previous big bang that was all sucked into a black hole to become condensed energy.

So...where did the the previous universe come from...and the one before that...and the one before that...and so on to the very first big bang?

Any thoughts?

Six

Link to comment

Neutrinos are elementary particles and are not part of photons. In fact, photons are bosons while neutrinos are fermions so they are quite different.

How can I relate this to religion? Hmmm.

OK, how's this: The proper time "experienced" by a photon as it travels from one point to another is actually zero! Someone said photons (light) live in eternity. :P

I thought cosmic rays were eternal?

Link to comment

In fact, energy is not a substance. Energy is a property of matter and mass is a property of matter. Energy can be interchanged with the property of mass, but not the matter itself. In Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, m does not stand for matter, it stands for mass. The fundamental unit of mass is kg. Energy is kg*m^2*sec^-2. C is in m*sec^-1. The equation clearly demonstrates the relationship between the two.

The mass/energy physical laws are where creation ex nihilo really gets into trouble.

D&C 131:7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Thanks Connolly, post #13 helps. I cut much out to save time and space.

I hope you are one who believes that there are no stupid questions.

It sounds like you are saying that as matter approaches the speed of light it â??shedsâ? its mass and the particle of matter, the photon, has the property of energy. Is this then only energy in the form of motion through space and time? Would it be classified as kinetic energy? Yet, I thought mass is a component of kinetic energy.

In Einsteinâ??s equation the speed of light is a constant given units of space and time. But if space and time is relative than does that make the speed of light relative to the units we are applying to it?

Thanks for bringing up the â??creation from nothingâ? concept. It was a real show stopper for me as a young catholic; it seemed an irreconcilable dilemma in faith. And thanks for reminding me of D&C 131:7. It helped me explain the events of my conversion.

The fundamental unit of light is a photon. It is a particle. It has a property of energy and very small almost non-existent mass.

When a photon enters your eye it may strike an electron in an atom in a photo receptor compound in your eye. An electron in that atom acquires the energy and will momentarily enter an elevated energy state and if the energy level is sufficient, the electron is liberated from the atom. It, along with other electrons, makes a neural-electrical current in your optic nerve where it is conducted to the brain. The information is passed thru a series of electrical/chemical interaction until at last the image is processed in the brain. Ultimately, all of these reaction consume and release energy, making heat, releasing the photon as infrared energy (thats what heat is), which could be seen by an eye designed to detect infrared frequencies, starting the whole process over again.

We could get much more technical, I'm just trying to find a simple way to adequately illustrate the differences between matter and the properties of energy and mass and the conservation of both.

So here we are in a bath of photons bouncing off of solid objects and then hitting our eye where the miracle of sight begins to occur as energy-with-matter is converted to electro-chemical images in our brain, hence giving us form and function, perspective and insight, and knowledge about our world. Praise the LORD for His ingenuity.

If God is light, then we are baptized in it as we leave the darkness of our motherâ??s womb. Likewise in His light, He orchestrates a vision in the minds of men that they may know their God.

QUESTION: Are all the forms of wave energy, as they change in wave length and frequency, considered photons? Is the photon always traveling at the speed of light and the only difference is that itâ??s path across the wave is longer or shorter based on wave length and frequency?

QUESTION: Could the nature of photon travel be helical with different wave lengths and frequencies resulting from the relationship of the photons distance from the â??centerlineâ? of travel?

Thank you for your consideration,

Zemah

Link to comment

It sounds like you are saying that as matter approaches the speed of light it â??shedsâ? its mass and the particle of matter, the photon, has the property of energy. Is this then only energy in the form of motion through space and time? Would it be classified as kinetic energy? Yet, I thought mass is a component of kinetic energy.

No. If we were to accelerate a proton or a neutron, as it approaches the speed of light it becomes more massive. But the photon exhibits the opposite behavior, it has a virtually zero mass, but if we slow one down, it becomes more massive. There is quite a bit or research going on in this area and I'm not sure that we fully understand why the photon gains mass when it is decelerated.

In Einsteinâ??s equation the speed of light is a constant given units of space and time. But if space and time is relative than does that make the speed of light relative to the units we are applying to it?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If one were to fire a laser beam into space past a ship travelling at .99 C, observers on both Earth and on the ship would measure the speed of the laser beam to be 299.8 million meters per second. What would be different therefore is that time and space are different on the craft traveling close to C.

QUESTION: Are all the forms of wave energy, as they change in wave length and frequency, considered photons? Is the photon always traveling at the speed of light and the only difference is that itâ??s path across the wave is longer or shorter based on wave length and frequency?

The photon itself is not energy. The photon is matter that has an energy state. It can't go faster than the speed of light, so levels of energy are manifest as frequency.

QUESTION: Could the nature of photon travel be helical with different wave lengths and frequencies resulting from the relationship of the photons distance from the â??centerlineâ? of travel?

Are you asking if it spirals? No, but it is impossible to know both the exact position of a photon and its momentum at the any given instant (the famous double slit experiment.) Essentially, it is equally probably that a photon will be at one particular point as another at any given instant. Google "Copenhagen interpretation" for more information on that. I don't really want to drive this thread off course too much and I'm not a quantum physicist.

The main idea I'm trying to support is that the LDS position on the eternal nature of matter is supported by what we know about matter.

Link to comment

The main idea I'm trying to support is that the LDS position on the eternal nature of matter is supported by what we know about matter.

Thank you for your information and correction. I don't want this thread to become a course on quantum physics either.

I well conclude by concurring that what was revealed to Joseph was correct and ahead of its time.

Link to comment

No. If we were to accelerate a proton or a neutron, as it approaches the speed of light it becomes more massive. But the photon exhibits the opposite behavior, it has a virtually zero mass, but if we slow one down, it becomes more massive. There is quite a bit or research going on in this area and I'm not sure that we fully understand why the photon gains mass when it is decelerated.

??

Call for references.

As I stated earlier, the photon has zero according to the current mathematics of the standard model. I know of no accepted and verified experiment that contradicts the standard model.

The idea of slowing a photon down not something I have heard of and I don't believe it. Virtual (off shell) photons can be thought of as having an effective mass but that is a different story.

Please note wiki entry:

The photon is massless,[11] has no electric charge[12] and does not decay spontaneously in empty space. A photon has two possible polarization states and is described by three continuous parameters: the components of its wave vector, which determine its wavelength and its direction of propagation. Photons are emitted in many natural processes, e.g., when a charge is accelerated, when an atom or a nucleus jumps from a higher to lower energy level, or when a particle and its antiparticle are annihilated. Photons are absorbed in the time-reversed processes which correspond to those mentioned above: for example, in the production of particleâ??antiparticle pairs or in atomic or nuclear transitions to a higher energy level.

Since the photon is massless, the photon moves at (the speed of light in empty space) and its energy and momentum are related by , where is the magnitude of the momentum. For comparison, the corresponding equation for particles with an invariant mass would be , as shown in special relativity.

Link to comment

QUESTION: Are all the forms of wave energy, as they change in wave length and frequency, considered photons? Is the photon always traveling at the speed of light and the only difference is that itâ??s path across the wave is longer or shorter based on wave length and frequency?

Light, as we think of it, is just electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths falling within a fairly small range that we are able to perceive with our eyes. Electromagnetic radiation is described as being photons, but you must understand that the nature of photons is such as we cannot adequately understand and contemplate. It acts like a particle, a photon, depending on how you observe it, but it also exhibits behavior we commonly associate with waves. Read this article about the double-slit test done by shining light one photon at a time at a barrier with two slits in it. When the photons are directed at a single slit, they make a shotgun-blast like pattern that you'd think they would if they are strictly particles. However, direct the photons, even just one at a time, at a pair of slits, and the resulting pattern formed will include interference patterns, which is a wave phenomenon. This isn't limited to just photons - you can reproduce the same behavior with electrons!

The equations that describe electromagnetic radiation are fairly simple, and describe a relationship where a changing magnetic field generates an electric field, and a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. It is these properties that allow us to generate electricity by turning magnetics inside of coils of wire, and such. In the context of light, the mathematical description of it is that a particle of light is a self-sustaining entity consisting of a magnetic field that turns itself into an electric field which turns itself back into a magnetic field, etc. A photon of this stuff isn't strictly just a particle, nor is it strictly like a wave. It is what it is, and we macroscopic people, who have a hard time imagining things that are both wave and particle, just have to get used to it.

As for wavelength, well, that's one of the photon's wavelike properties coming out. The take-home point for today is that the wavelength of a photon of electromagnetic radiation depends on how much energy the photon has. The higher the energy of a photon, the lower the wavelength. The highest end of the energy spectrum, the gamma rays, have the lowest wavelengths. The photons with the longest wavelengths aren't carrying, comparitively speaking, all that much energy.

Link to comment

The idea of slowing a photon down not something I have heard of and I don't believe it. Virtual (off shell) photons can be thought of as having an effective mass but that is a different story.

C, the speed of light as we think of it, is only the speed of light in a vacuum. And it's that speed because of the electrical and magnetic properties of a vacuum. Other things through which light may pass in fact have their own electrical and magnetic properties, and thus light passes through them at different rates. This is in fact the reason for indices of refraction, which are just ratios of the speed of light through that substance and the speed of light in a vacuum. Light will pass through a diamond at less than half the speed of light through a vacuum!

Cerenkov radiation is light given off when an electron enters a medium at a velocity higher than the speed of light for that medium. The electron is decelerated, and the difference in energy is given off as a photon. You see it in glowing fuel rods at the bottom of water pools and such. That's beta particles entering the water at rates higher than the speed of light in water, and losing energy in slowing down.

Link to comment

??

Call for references.

As I stated earlier, the photon has zero according to the current mathematics of the standard model. I know of no accepted and verified experiment that contradicts the standard model.

The idea of slowing a photon down not something I have heard of and I don't believe it. Virtual (off shell) photons can be thought of as having an effective mass but that is a different story.

Please note wiki entry:

Ah, yes, the great internet sage of all infallible knowledge, wikipedia, which of course contradicts itself.

The photon, the particle of light which mediates the electromagnetic force is believed to be massless. The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.[1] Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino. These photons would propagate at less than the speed of light defined by special relativity and have three directions of polarization. However, in quantum field theory, the photon mass is not consistent with gauge invariance or renormalizability and so is usually ignored. However, a quantum theory of the massive photon can be considered in the Wilsonian effective field theory approach to quantum field theory, where, depending on whether the photon mass is generated by a Higgs mechanism or is inserted in an ad hoc way in the Proca Lagrangian, the limits implied by various observations/experiments may be different.[2]

There is also the little bit down towards the bottom of the article you referenced.

A great deal of experimentation has been done with photons and Cesium and the indications are that when a photon is decelerated it gains mass - this is cutting edge physics and I've only come across bits and pieces of it from time to time. Google Higgs mechanism. Also of interest is some of the faster than light experiments that have been going on that indicate that while a photon can't go faster than light, the information it carries in its energy state can.

The implications for the topic at hand is this: If a proton and an anti-proton come into proximity with each other they will annihilate. But is matter really destroyed here? Apparently not. Photons are released as the proton and anti-proton blow each other to smithereens , and the energy of the photons can be described neatly by Einsteins E=mc^2. Multiply the mass of the photon/anti-photon pair by c^2 and you have the energy of the released photons. One property, mass, has been exchanged for another, energy. The really big question is, can it be reversed? If it can't then a number of our physical laws may be in trouble, (not to mention that we probably couldn't have made the anti-proton in the first place). We are pretty good at tearing particles apart, but not so good yet at putting them back together. One thing that the Higgs mechanism predicts as I understand it is that if we can get the photons to slow down and stick together then they become more massive. As E gets smaller, m must increase, unless we want to just throw E=mc^2 out the window.

Link to comment

Ah, yes, the great internet sage of all infallible knowledge, wikipedia, which of course contradicts itself.

There is also the little bit down towards the bottom of the article you referenced.
The photon, the particle of light which mediates the electromagnetic force is believed to be massless. The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.[1] Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino. These photons would propagate at less than the speed of light defined by special relativity and have three directions of polarization. However, in quantum field theory, the photon mass is not consistent with gauge invariance or renormalizability and so is usually ignored. However, a quantum theory of the massive photon can be considered in the Wilsonian effective field theory approach to quantum field theory, where, depending on whether the photon mass is generated by a Higgs mechanism or is inserted in an ad hoc way in the Proca Lagrangian, the limits implied by various observations/experiments may be different.[2]

A great deal of experimentation has been done with photons and Cesium and the indications are that when a photon is decelerated it gains mass - this is cutting edge physics and I've only come across bits and pieces of it from time to time. Google Higgs mechanism. Also of interest is some of the faster than light experiments that have been going on that indicate that while a photon can't go faster than light, the information it carries in its energy state can.

The point of the above is that if it weren't for quantum theory we might imagine that the photon had a tiny mass. But this is inconsistant with important aspects of the quantum theory such as gauge invariance. A photon is after all a gauge boson.

And effective mass is not the same thing as the true mass of the particle in question.

I think you are misleading people when they ask if a photon has mass and you say that it has a tiny mass.

A great deal of experimentation has been done with photons and Cesium and the indications are that when a photon is decelerated it gains mass -

This is what I would like a referrence for.

The implications for the topic at hand is this: If a proton and an anti-proton come into proximity with each other they will annihilate. But is matter really destroyed here? Apparently not. Photons are released as the proton and anti-proton blow each other to smithereens , and the energy of the photons can be described neatly by Einsteins E=mc^2.
Multiply the mass of the photon/anti-photon pair by c^2 and you have the energy of the released photons. One property, mass, has been exchanged for another, energy. The really big question is, can it be reversed?

Of course it can be reversed, it is called pair production. The exisence of annihilation operators in QFT is necessarily accompanied by creation operators. They are Hermitian conjugates of each other.

pair.gif

Link to comment

C, the speed of light as we think of it, is only the speed of light in a vacuum. And it's that speed because of the electrical and magnetic properties of a vacuum. Other things through which light may pass in fact have their own electrical and magnetic properties, and thus light passes through them at different rates. This is in fact the reason for indices of refraction, which are just ratios of the speed of light through that substance and the speed of light in a vacuum. Light will pass through a diamond at less than half the speed of light through a vacuum!

Of course, this is only because are using the "macroscopic" Maxwell's equations wherein we add in the polarizations P and M to create new effective fields (the constitutive relations). There is a lot going on quantum mechanically.

This is about right:

In passing through materials, the observed speed of light can differ from c. The ratio of c to the apparent group velocity is called the refractive index of the material. This apparent contradiction to the universality of the constant c is a consequence of sloppy (but universally practiced) nomenclature: what is referred to as light in a medium is really a light-like hybrid of electromagnetic waves and mechanical oscillations of charged or magnetic particles such as electrons or ions, whereas light in the strict sense is a pure electromagnetic wave (see further discussion below). The speed of light in air is only slightly less than c. Denser media, such as water and glass, can slow light much more, to fractions such as
Link to comment

Tarski, I had this voice in the back of my head screaming at me "do not post that bit about the change in light speed through non-vacuum media, Tarski will only respond and in such a way that I will seem like an ignoramus in comparison!", but would I listen?

Link to comment

Light, as we think of it, is just electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths falling within a fairly small range that we are able to perceive with our eyes. Electromagnetic radiation is described as being photons, but you must understand that the nature of photons is such as we cannot adequately understand and contemplate. It acts like a particle, a photon, depending on how you observe it, but it also exhibits behavior we commonly associate with waves. Read this article about the double-slit test done by shining light one photon at a time at a barrier with two slits in it. When the photons are directed at a single slit, they make a shotgun-blast like pattern that you'd think they would if they are strictly particles. However, direct the photons, even just one at a time, at a pair of slits, and the resulting pattern formed will include interference patterns, which is a wave phenomenon. This isn't limited to just photons - you can reproduce the same behavior with electrons!

The equations that describe electromagnetic radiation are fairly simple, and describe a relationship where a changing magnetic field generates an electric field, and a changing electric field generates a magnetic field. It is these properties that allow us to generate electricity by turning magnetics inside of coils of wire, and such. In the context of light, the mathematical description of it is that a particle of light is a self-sustaining entity consisting of a magnetic field that turns itself into an electric field which turns itself back into a magnetic field, etc. A photon of this stuff isn't strictly just a particle, nor is it strictly like a wave. It is what it is, and we macroscopic people, who have a hard time imagining things that are both wave and particle, just have to get used to it.

As for wavelength, well, that's one of the photon's wavelike properties coming out. The take-home point for today is that the wavelength of a photon of electromagnetic radiation depends on how much energy the photon has. The higher the energy of a photon, the lower the wavelength. The highest end of the energy spectrum, the gamma rays, have the lowest wavelengths. The photons with the longest wavelengths aren't carrying, comparitively speaking, all that much energy.

I can see light when my eyes are closed, when I dream, or meditate. Light has a spiritual property to it, that does not require physical eyes. I think it is more than what science defines it to be.

Link to comment

Actually, what you're "seeing" in your mind is just a mental picture. Even what you see with your eyes open is a mental picture, created by your brain, in response to a bunch of visual signals from your retina.

Look at some high-tension electrical transmission lines from a couple miles away. This cable is what, a half inch or so in diameter? If you can see a half-inch cable at a couple miles distance, in fact the field of view covered by the thickness of that cable is actually smaller than the field of view covered by a single visual cell in your eye. Given the placement of these cells as discrete units, you don't even really "see" a continuous cable with your eyes. What happens is that a string of cells will pick up a hint of the cable, and your brain will connect the dots and what you'll "see" is a mental image that your brain has constructed.

If you understand that what you think you are seeing is in fact just a mental image created by your brain, then it's not as much of a mystery why you can "see" things even without the stimulation of your retinal cells by actual light. When you are seeing with your eyes open, the brain is creating this mental image in response to the signals it receives from your eyes. When you're dreaming, what you "see" is a mental image created in response to some other stimulus, originating somewhere in your mind. It's the same reason as why people can hallucinate and "see" things that aren't actually sending photons into the person's eyes, because what is being seen is in fact just a mental image created by the brain.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone took a shot at answering my question.

Where did this condensed energy come from? If I understand correctly, it is the remnant of the previous big bang that was all sucked into a black hole to become condensed energy.

So...where did the the previous universe come from...and the one before that...and the one before that...and so on to the very first big bang?

Any thoughts?

Six: I know that I have not come up with an original physics question...I'm not that smart. Perhaps the question is just too dense. Humor me, please.

Six

Link to comment

I don't think anyone took a shot at answering my question.

Six: I know that I have not come up with an original physics question...I'm not that smart. Perhaps the question is just too dense. Humor me, please.

Six

No one has a testable answer; only informed speculation at best. The real successes of science and biology are how it shows that if we assume a certain begining of very low entropy, then much of the complexity we see follows by natural processes. The question you are asking is just shy of the question of why there is anything at all (even reason, logic or math!).

Perhaps not every question we can pose has an answer.

I think what has to be admitted is that the possibilites that are latent in the laws of physics are astounding; just look around you. Of course the combinatorics of material universe is vastly beyond our ability to fathom. It is a big and complex universe (or is it a multiverse?).

However, and here is perhaps what you are looking for, the fact that there are unanswered ultimate physical and metaphysical questions doesn't by itself do anything to support any particular religion or creation myth. We are just left guessing about these ultimate issues. Of course, history is full of imagined and pretended mystical and religious revelations about these things but that doesn't cut it form me.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...