vuquta

OK, well, I have not seen an accounting of infrared photons. I have see the usage of the abstract term energy and then this turns into IR photons. I am not sure how the abstract turns into the concrete. Do you know? I am simply not seeing the source of IR photons (and lots of them) from fusion, yet we can account for them specifically in a chemical reaction.

Well, that is not what I said. I said, "What folks have not realized yet with SR, if you have an absolute solution frame to frame, then you contradict the relativity postulate". For example, let's look at the relativity of simultaneity train enbankment experiment. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html Note how both frames draw the absolute conclusion the observer on the train sees the front light before the back. This is not a conclusion that is relative to the frames it is absolute for both. Note, how it implies both frames agree the train observer is hastening towards the beam of light . I wonder how the train taken as stationary hastens toward the light.

Yea, agreed. Source the IR photons since that is what we measure here on earth. You are just claiming they appear all of a sudden out of nowhere. Gamma ray photons cause the Compton effect.

Yea, I am OK with everything.

Nope. These observers A and B are perfectly time dilated in each direction. However, by them back in one frame, we can perform the Einstein clock sync and decide which is really older. So, the method of breaking SR is to place the relativity postulate in the form of reciprocal time dilation up against the absoluteness of the frame clocks sync. That flushes out the error in SR. And to further this, Einstein said, "We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions". http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ So, I did not introduce absoluteness, he did. Anyway, this little exercise says the clocks sync is inconsistent with reciprocal time dilation. It is simple logic. Yes, you have a perfect solution to these paradoxes. Your solution is not absolute. A and B disagree and the clock sync resolves it. Thus, under SR, there exists two conclusions where there should be one. Hey, if you want to introduce a 3rd to further break SR, have at it. It is simply not necessary. What folks have not realized yet with SR, if you have an absolute solution frame to frame, then you contradict the relativity postulate.

This does not solve the problem. We cannot just use an arbitrary term called energy. We know specifically it is photons. So, the question is with fusion, what is the complete source of all photons. They cannot just appear out of nowhere.

Tom Zepf of the physics department at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., notes that "Sunlight heats a material such as water or a brick primarily because the long wavelength, or infrared, portion of the sun's radiation resonates well with molecules in the material, thereby setting them into motion. So the energy transfer that causes the temperature of the substance to rise takes place at the molecular rather than the electronic level." Some of those atoms vibrate sufficiently vigorously that their vibrational energy is roughly equal to the electronic energy (photons) absorbed from the sun--in essence, they are in resonance with the solar energy. Those atoms then make a quantum transition from 'electronically excited' to 'vibrationally excited,' meaning that the energy causes the whole atom to move. OK, whereas the UV photon strikes the electon, the IF photon acts as a wave and vibrates the electon and thus the atom vibrates using the electon/proton force to keep them together unless they vibrate too much. Thanks for the link. I know where to go next now. Have a good one.

No, Janus said each frame will conclude the other is time dilated. If grandpa said that, or at least meant to but didn't, then fine. It is not worth debating since the fact remains, both will view the other as time dilated. I want to make sure I understand your argument. You are holding back the origina frame as an imaginery frame. Let's say A B C are all synched observers. A takes off, then after some time B takes off and joins the frame of A. Is this what you are saying? If so, what does A conclude about B. You did not mention that. So, we have, at the instant B rejoins A, 1) A concludes B and C are the same age since we are using instant acceleration. 2) B concludes A < C and A < B and B = C since we are using instant acceleration. 3) C concludes A < C and A < B and B = C since we are using instant acceleration. But, this is only if I understood you correctly.

Well, a blackbody does not get hot for no reason. So, nuclear fusion needs to show the source of the photons and this has nothing to do with blackbody radiation. That article fudged and did not indicate the source except for some gamma rays. The rest it simply called energy and the article did not indicate where the photons come from. The energy must be in the form of photons since that is what strikes the earth.

There are two lines of thnking in this thread. One by the OP and one I proposed. For the OP, I provided the math to prove the accelerating twin will have the slower clock. Then someone said, the twons paradox will always produce and answer. I then provided one in which you cannot decide the outcome. That is the one grandpa was talking about. 1) This "other" third frame, how is its motion related to the A and B? 2) If B leaves 1 second (t) after A then A has not experienced 1 full second (t') yet From the view of A, if B elapses 1 second, then A elapses 1/γ seconds. This is called reciprocal time dilation and is a consequence of SR.

Yes, I went through that. But, there are chains that do not appear to generate photons. Further gamma photons cause the Compton effect, but where are the infrared photons? I did not see them in this article. Anyway, the article kept claiming energy is produced from a chain. You cannot just simply say energy since here on earth we measure this in term of the infrared photons. So, if we measure infrared photons from the sun, then they must be sourced.

OK, I am following you 2's input. I am not claiming visible light will not heat water. But, I am still not getting how the infrared photon heats water. Let's just simplify it to that. Let's just have a match under the water. We have to agree that the infrared photon is heating the water. Otherwise, what is?

OK, I don't mind. This is a cheesy website but the idea is the same everywhere and it explains it in a simple fashion. Einstein believed that to give a single electron this energy to move, a single photon hit the metal surface (destroying itself), and transferred its energy to the one electron. Since the electron is attracted to the surface of the metal, some minimum amount of energy must be needed just to snap it off. Otherwise, electrons would just be dropping off of atoms all the time. Einstein called this the work function of the material, since you needed to do work on the electron to break it off. http://www.studyphysics.ca/30/Unit4/Light/Photoelectric/note.htm OK, we now know Einstein proposed a work function. (You can find other sources) Once we have introduced a work function for a photon, we must assume it operates this was across frequencies. Yea, it is a law. Because, one way or the other, infrared photons are delivered to wayter to turn it into steam. By the conservation of energy, we must assume the photons are doing work or transfering their energy to the water. But, energy transfer causes the stream or water molecules to move more rapidly. Now, why do they move more rapidly without work being done? This does not offend me and I appreciate your input.

OK, we have accelerating electrons I guess from the fusion. But, you are not telling me where they come from with the fusion. This should be part of the standard model.

Grandpa said, if A and B are both at the origin at T=0 and A instantly accelerates to v at T=0 then you just switch frames immediately to the new frame. In that frame it is B that is moving. Therefore it is B's clock that is ticking slower in that frame. At T=1 B stops moving in that frame. In that frame it is therefore B that ages less. Where exactly did he sat from the view of each frame, the other is younger? What I read is that he claimed B is always younger since he never stated a case in which A is younger in which Janus clearly stated. OK, then once A and B are in the frame and reciprocal time dilation is the correction conclusions to A and B, they perform Einstein's clock sync method and can decide which is older and which is younger. A says B is younger. B says A is younger. What does the clock sync say?

This is not how Einstein propsed the idesa. He did not make it materially based, though clearly it is. OK, let's assume, if the material is photo electric (perfect) then it obeys Einstein's work function. Otherwise, based on the material, if will obey it in a lesser way. I think this is what you are saying. Either way though, you must agree the work performed to eject an electron is less than that performed by the infrared photon otherwise, the steam engine would not exist. Yes, I will tell you my agenda. Something is wrong and I am trying to get ideas about the behavior of light. I do not have a theory as I do not have near enough information. But, there is something wrong with the current theory. Can you explain this in terms of the steam engine? This is the clearest experiment where the infrared photon does more work that the UV.

OK, I agree. So, 1) Where do the photons come from for fusion. 2) Why do they perform more work at the infrared level.

You have nice answers. But, if you recall, Einstein for the photo electric effect posited a work function as primitive. So, all logic must obey this method. ( I am amazed by the factory of photosynthesis, may I suggest you look at it. You may have, but again, it is something to me) Anyway, to analyze the photon, we must posit Einstein's work function to correctly operate on the problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Good question! The math and the experiments go together. Based on the work of David Bohm, this is successful. Perhaps you meant to say, is there a gap between the theory and reality.

What? I thought you functioned by logic. My answer was simply logical. I am sorry it offended you. What is your problem with logic? Otherwise, refute it.

LOL, you are funny. Now, I will demonstrate where you are wrong. Conclusions of A: 1) A takes off from the common frame of A and B. 2) A is then stationary for a time period. 3) Eventually B joins the frame of A. 4) Since B was the moving frame, A concludes the clock of B is time dilated. Conclusions of B: 1) A takes off from the common frame of A and B. 2) B is then stationary for a time period. 3) Eventually B joins the frame of A. 4) Since A was the moving frame, B concludes the clock of A is time dilated. This is very basic stuff. This is the above from Janus is correct answer.

Well, I know there aren't really "photo-electric effect photons". I used this phrase to refer to photons in the light spectrum. And yes, I know only certain materials are sensitive to the photo electric effect. As a side note, did you know if a plant did not operate in the pico second range for the photo electric effect for photosynthesis, there would be no life on this planet? We just hit this range in the last decade. http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html Do you find that amazing? The plant knows to use the photo electric effect to break water into H and O. It then reasembles them into a carbohydrate for energy storage. Naturally, higher level plants use N etc for protein construction using this same method. Anyway, this issue under consideration is the work function. Clearly, photons operating in the infrared range perform more work than do photons that operate in the higher frequency ranges. Do you agree or disagree?

Thank you grandpa, but I know accelerating electrons will emit photons as well as chemical reactions. These are very minor sources don't you agree? It they were not, then our energy troubles would have been over a long time ago. So, where is this tremendous source of photons for nuclear fusion come from?

Absolutely you must use c for those calculations. That way, depending on the direction you can use the below to calculate the t. You then compare this to the t you would have if no rotation occured. The difference between the two is the sagnac correction. [math] t = r/\sqrt{c^2+v^2-2cvcos(\theta)} [/math] So, all my logic was doing was establishing the absolute rotation of the earth since you cannot use ESP to figure it out.

Wrong answer, but what is your math and/or logic?