Why light is bending?

[seriously disabled]

There is no such thing as light in my opinion, there are only different color models with different hues and different shapes that we can distinguish between.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Uri

[lemur]

There are no intersections and overlaps of forces, there is the resultant vector you get when you add all of the forces together. A particle's acceleration is due to the resultant force on it.

So you are saying that if there's a lagrangian point between the Earth and moon where gravity is zero, and then another point at the same distance on the other side of Earth has non-zero gravity, that Earth's gravity field is not "intersected," "overlapping," or otherwise "co-constituted" by that of the moon?

 

Curvature is the geometric interpretation of gravity, not other forces.

Why should curvature only be used to describe geodesic paths of motion through gravitational fields? Why can't an electron follow a geodesic path through electrostatic fields, for example? Why couldn't chemical reactions be studied in terms of re-configurations of electrostatic topography among atoms?

Edited January 10, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

So you are saying that if there's a lagrangian point between the Earth and moon where gravity is zero, and then another point at the same distance on the other side of Earth has non-zero gravity, that Earth's gravity field is not "intersected," "overlapping," or otherwise "co-constituted" by that of the moon?

 

Whatever the gravity is at a point it has a unique value. It's not clear you come to that conclusion with "overlapping" and "intersecting."

 

Why should curvature only be used to describe geodesic paths of motion through gravitational fields? Why can't an electron follow a geodesic path through electrostatic fields, for example? Why couldn't chemical reactions be studied in terms of re-configurations of electrostatic topography among atoms?

 

I'm sure you can try, but if you combine it with gravity you are mixing effects, and would require a different curvature for a neutral particle and for either charge possibilities. The property of spacetime then relies on what particle you are discussing, which is not the case for gravity alone. I imagine that would very messy and probably not worth the effort.

[lemur]

Whatever the gravity is at a point it has a unique value. It's not clear you come to that conclusion with "overlapping" and "intersecting."

Only to the extent that multiple points are viewed as a single "field" of force. It's like saying that if the Earth and moon were isolated, they would be surrounded by a more or less perfect sphere of force vectors, but if they are not isolated, their fields will interact and neutralize conflicting vectors. With magnets or atoms/molecules, you could also say that when they are lumped together, their fields merge and strengthen. That could also be a product of overlapping/interaction. So, for example, if the Earth and moon stay in their current configuration, they neutralize gravity where their fields intersect, but if they would merge into a single mass, their gravity fields would merge and intensify into a single field resulting from mass = Earth + moon.

 

I'm sure you can try, but if you combine it with gravity you are mixing effects, and would require a different curvature for a neutral particle and for either charge possibilities. The property of spacetime then relies on what particle you are discussing, which is not the case for gravity alone. I imagine that would very messy and probably not worth the effort.

Earth orbits in a certain geodesic around the sun, correct? Light, however, would not orbit in the same geodesic as the Earth, right? So doesn't technically every object/particle have certain specific paths that are available to it when traveling under the force of its own momentum? Why wouldn't this be as true for an electron or a neutron as for an asteroid?

 

 

[swansont]

Earth orbits in a certain geodesic around the sun, correct? Light, however, would not orbit in the same geodesic as the Earth, right? So doesn't technically every object/particle have certain specific paths that are available to it when traveling under the force of its own momentum? Why wouldn't this be as true for an electron or a neutron as for an asteroid?

 

You compare light with a massive particle, so it's really not the same as comparing two massive particles. Gravitationally, a neutron, electron or asteroid has the same geodesic. In the presence of an electromagnetic field, for your proposal, that goes away.

 

I'm sure people have tried this, but it hasn't caught on. Either there's a flaw, or there are no worthwhile advantages to it. GR math is not trivial. Net forces can be done with algebra and trig.

[lemur]

You compare light with a massive particle, so it's really not the same as comparing two massive particles. Gravitationally, a neutron, electron or asteroid has the same geodesic. In the presence of an electromagnetic field, for your proposal, that goes away.

Doesn't an asteroid exert more gravitation than an electron or neutron? I guess what you're saying, though, is that an electron traveling under its own momentum with no added force would orbit the sun more or less parallel Earth whereas photons don't. Still, couldn't you say that this is due to the escape velocity of a photon being the speed of light, and other particles/objects have lower escape velocities because they have mass that absorbs energy to accelerate? Particles with mass may have the same or similar escape velocities from a gravity field, but their "escape energy" would vary greatly according to their mass, right? In this sense, wouldn't the geodesic path of an electron with a certain amount of energy be closer to that of a photon with similar energy than an asteroid?

 

I'm sure people have tried this, but it hasn't caught on. Either there's a flaw, or there are no worthwhile advantages to it. GR math is not trivial. Net forces can be done with algebra and trig.

I don't do math to any significant degree, but I can see why you would just use a simpler equation/formula when the results are likely to be practically comparable. However, I'm not talking about which math to use as much as I'm trying to get at the basic logic of the relationship between forces and "space." Basically, I'm interested in how space only exists as the interplay of forces (instead of being a container for them). The universe as a spacetime entity seems to be expanding due to the gravitational interplay between matter changing. Likewise, I think you can say that spacetime within the atom exists of interplay between the electrostatic force binding the electrons to the nucleus and whatever energy or force prevents them from collapsing into it. The concept of a geodesic path seems generally relevant to me as the universal method for things bound by attractive forces to avoid collapsing into a singularity. Does any of this make sense to you?

 

 

[swansont]

Doesn't an asteroid exert more gravitation than an electron or neutron? I guess what you're saying, though, is that an electron traveling under its own momentum with no added force would orbit the sun more or less parallel Earth whereas photons don't. Still, couldn't you say that this is due to the escape velocity of a photon being the speed of light, and other particles/objects have lower escape velocities because they have mass that absorbs energy to accelerate? Particles with mass may have the same or similar escape velocities from a gravity field, but their "escape energy" would vary greatly according to their mass, right? In this sense, wouldn't the geodesic path of an electron with a certain amount of energy be closer to that of a photon with similar energy than an asteroid?

 

The curvature that dictates your motion depends on the mass of the attracting particle. Not the escape energy.

 

 

I don't do math to any significant degree, but I can see why you would just use a simpler equation/formula when the results are likely to be practically comparable. However, I'm not talking about which math to use as much as I'm trying to get at the basic logic of the relationship between forces and "space." Basically, I'm interested in how space only exists as the interplay of forces (instead of being a container for them). The universe as a spacetime entity seems to be expanding due to the gravitational interplay between matter changing. Likewise, I think you can say that spacetime within the atom exists of interplay between the electrostatic force binding the electrons to the nucleus and whatever energy or force prevents them from collapsing into it. The concept of a geodesic path seems generally relevant to me as the universal method for things bound by attractive forces to avoid collapsing into a singularity. Does any of this make sense to you?

 

"Can you do it" and "is it useful" are two separate questions. Epicycles and Lorentz contraction weren't dropped because they gave the wrong answer (indeed, the relativity equations are identical, and epicycles are well-understood in terms of Fourier components), they were dropped because they were ad-hoc and inelegant, and a better, more elegant theory came along. You could still use epicycles to describe planetary motion, but the problem is you won't be able to engage anyone else in the discussion. Constructing your own model to explain forces is similar; we all do it to bridge the gap in our understanding, but at the end of the day we have to communicate using the same language, and other forces as a geometric representation is a foreign language.

[lemur]

The curvature that dictates your motion depends on the mass of the attracting particle. Not the escape energy.

I used "escape energy" as an example of how to understand particles/objects on a continuum of mass with regard to the spacetime curvature of their geodesics. I'm trying to get at the possibility of looking at all trajectories as paths through specific topographies resulting from the specificities of force-interactions. This is not for instrumental purposes of measurement but for developing a unified view of materiality as force-governed energy-expressions/interactions.

 

"Can you do it" and "is it useful" are two separate questions. Epicycles and Lorentz contraction weren't dropped because they gave the wrong answer (indeed, the relativity equations are identical, and epicycles are well-understood in terms of Fourier components), they were dropped because they were ad-hoc and inelegant, and a better, more elegant theory came along. You could still use epicycles to describe planetary motion, but the problem is you won't be able to engage anyone else in the discussion.

I think I see where we differ in opinion/approach. My general approach to technologies, including conceptual/interpretive/analytical tools, is to view them as having specific utility and functions. I don't automatically include or exclude them from relevance based on their status relative to each other. So, for example, I have a tea kettle and an electric water boiler, which are both technologies for boiling water. I generally don't use the kettle because the electric boiler is more convenient, but if I wanted to heat water over a fire or if my boiler broke, the kettle has its own function and parameters. I view conceptual tools the same way. E.g. People always criticize the Bohr model as being outdated and (fundamentally) flawed. I don't deny this assessment. I just take it for what it is and use it to gain insights to the degree that it offers insight. I don't feel the need to restrict my modeling of physical phenomena to certain models and not others. I see no reason to throw out the old in order to utilize the new. It's not like they interfere with each other if you know how to distinguish between them.

 

Constructing your own model to explain forces is similar; we all do it to bridge the gap in our understanding, but at the end of the day we have to communicate using the same language, and other forces as a geometric representation is a foreign language.

I recommend practicing as many languages as possible. You may only be able to communicate with many people in English (or in this case standard physical concepts) but language diversity offers the possibility of developing different ideas in a different mode of thought. I have no idea why you would want to try to prevent people from thinking creatively, since this is the only way that new insight can be achieved.

 

 

 

[swansont]

I recommend practicing as many languages as possible. You may only be able to communicate with many people in English (or in this case standard physical concepts) but language diversity offers the possibility of developing different ideas in a different mode of thought. I have no idea why you would want to try to prevent people from thinking creatively, since this is the only way that new insight can be achieved.

 

I don't think I said that preventing people from thinking creatively was a goal of mine. But I don't have time to think about physics and learn the peculiarities of everyone's personal way of expressing their ideas. Even though there are multiple languages in the world, there are languages. We don't all have our own personal vocabulary and syntax. A bunch of people speak English, not just one or two.

[lemur]

I don't think I said that preventing people from thinking creatively was a goal of mine. But I don't have time to think about physics and learn the peculiarities of everyone's personal way of expressing their ideas. Even though there are multiple languages in the world, there are languages. We don't all have our own personal vocabulary and syntax. A bunch of people speak English, not just one or two.

Well, I don't think that I'm inventing a whole new conceptual language of physics when thinking and asking about interactions between force-fields. It's just an interest that occurred to me when I figured out that there doesn't have to be any distinction between a particle and its force-field (i.e. that the field can be self-constituting). This also got me wondering whether there could be force-field interactions between EM fields and gravitation that constitute EM waves. I don't know if these questions are conclusively answerable by current knowledge/theory, but I certainly think they are posable according to it, no?

 

edit: btw, I realized that there's bound to be a lot of vagueness in defining relative difference between "languages." If you define two ways of talking about something as "different languages," it's easy to assume that communication between them is difficult. But in reality, language differences are often minor enough to easily overcome in conversation. Often people have different syntactical or expressive habits, use different words, etc. and they are able to understand each other. A lot has to do with how much exposure people get to interacting in culturally diverse situations.

Edited January 13, 2011 by lemur

[alpha2cen]

Are there any difference between photon collide with electron and photon collide with positron?