Shouldn't force carrier particles not propagate at "c"?

[questionposter]

Gauge bosons which I think are the particles that carry force are suppose to be time-dependent in relativity, (since in relativity that's what those forces are, even if they "propagate" at the speed of light), but in the standard model they travel physical distance over time, but there seems to be two conflicts with this:

 

As you approach the speed of light, there should be fewer particles that are able to exchange going in the direction that an object near the speed of light is going, which means near the speed of light, atoms should more or less fall apart.

And then, with black holes, the event horizon is currently modeled to be a boundary where time stops flowing for an outside observer, yet force carrier particles even for the electro-mangetic force can ignore this and still continue to travel distance over time from inside to outside of the black hole, which is related to seeing an electric field emanating from a black hole.

Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter

[md65536]

As you approach the speed of light, there should be fewer particles that are able to exchange going in the direction that an object near the speed of light is going, which means near the speed of light, atoms should more or less fall apart.

How do you figure? In whose frame of reference would you expect to see such a thing?

 

Are you considering that the speed of light [does not vary] relative to the speed of the source or observer, so that even a very fast-moving atom would still have light (or force carriers travelling at the speed of light) emitted or absorbed with a relative speed of c [according to any observer]? (Edited for clarity but I'm still not sure what I wrote makes sense.)

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2012 by md65536

[questionposter]

How do you figure? In whose frame of reference would you expect to see such a thing?

 

Are you considering that the speed of light is not relative to the speed of the source or observer, so that even a very fast-moving atom would still have light (or force carriers travelling at the speed of light) emitted or absorbed with a relative speed of c?

 

 

 

 

Ok, if I'm traveling 99.99% the speed of light in direction x, and I shoot a photon out in front of me, to an outside observer, the photon I shot is traveling like only 1 mile per hour greater than me, while if the photon itself shot another photon behind itself, to an outside observer that photon would almost instantly hit me because its going the opposite direction.

See what I'm saying?

It would take more speed for a gauge boson to reach a destination in front of me if I'm traveling near the speed of light to actually exchange in both directions in time.

Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter

[Janus]

Ok, if I'm traveling 99.99% the speed of light in direction x, and I shoot a photon out in front of me, to an outside observer, the photon I shot is traveling like only 1 mile per hour greater than me, while if the photon itself shot another photon behind itself, to an outside observer that photon would almost instantly hit me because its going the opposite direction.

See what I'm saying?

It would take more speed for a gauge boson to reach a destination in front of me if I'm traveling near the speed of light to actually exchange in both directions in time.

 

As far as you are concerned, there is no difference in the speed of a photon going one direction vs. another. IOW, the photon you shot travels away relative to you at c and a photon coming at you from that direction also travels relative to you at c.

 

The fact that an outside observer to which you are traveling at 99.99% of c, gets different values for the "closing speed" between you and those photons makes no difference. This is compensated for by length contraction, time dilation and the Relativity of Simultaneity.

[md65536]

that photon would almost instantly hit me because its going the opposite direction.

I suspect that if you resolved the thought experiment satisfactorily (including time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity as Janus mentioned) that relativity of simultaneity might provide the key "Aha!" moment.

 

"Almost instantly" implies a notion of simultaneity that wouldn't be shared by all observers. Other observers would consider a different set of events to be simultaneous or "almost instantaneous".

Edited March 22, 2012 by md65536

[questionposter]

I suspect that if you resolved the thought experiment satisfactorily (including time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity as Janus mentioned) that relativity of simultaneity might provide the key "Aha!" moment.

 

"Almost instantly" implies a notion of simultaneity that wouldn't be shared by all observers. Other observers would consider a different set of events to be simultaneous or "almost instantaneous".

 

I suppose I did forget about the photon being c even if I'm observing it travel in the opposite direction, but otherwise, isn't what your saying the exact point of relativity?

[juanrga]

Gauge bosons which I think are the particles that carry force are suppose to be time-dependent in relativity, (since in relativity that's what those forces are, even if they "propagate" at the speed of light), but in the standard model they travel physical distance over time, but there seems to be two conflicts with this:

 

As you approach the speed of light, there should be fewer particles that are able to exchange going in the direction that an object near the speed of light is going, which means near the speed of light, atoms should more or less fall apart.

And then, with black holes, the event horizon is currently modeled to be a boundary where time stops flowing for an outside observer, yet force carrier particles even for the electro-mangetic force can ignore this and still continue to travel distance over time from inside to outside of the black hole, which is related to seeing an electric field emanating from a black hole.

 

Electromagnetic 'force' carriers (aka photons) propagate at c. Take a look to Feynman diagrams in QED.

Edited April 7, 2012 by juanrga

[JohnStu]

Hmm, in your own model then I guess yes. In Einstein's model, space-time itself curves, making stuff shift toward that direction.

 

Also, may I suggest: force carrier particles should be called gravity carrier particles.

[swansont]

Hmm, in your own model then I guess yes. In Einstein's model, space-time itself curves, making stuff shift toward that direction.

 

Also, may I suggest: force carrier particles should be called gravity carrier particles.

 

What does this have to do with anything in the discussion? GR is not a quantum theory, so it doesn't have force-carrier particles, and the particles of the other interactions are not gravity.

[Mosheh Thezion]

if you think... for a moment... about what the most fundamental particle... or thing.. in the universe could be?????

And then you ask... what is the smallest thing we know of...

you get one answer....

there cannot be anything smaller than... an electrostatic line of force....

it has no mass... it exists only between two points in space, and cannot be observed unless and until it acts on those two points..

NOTHING ELSE CAN BE SMALLER.

its one dimensional.... ONE DIMENSIONAL.... and is one of the first things modern science discovered.

and for some reason... everyone seems to forget about it.

 

Modern science... started... by studying charged objects.... literally.

 

From this fundamental thing... it is my view.. that everything else can be made.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

also... T=CR... meaning... that static tension... is the one thing that can exceed the speed of light.

for... if C is very small.... and R is very small.... then T... is very small.

 

if C.. is composed of two plates... 3 light years apart... and R is... .1 then... T... the timing constant for 1/5 of the field to form... is super fast.

 

Remember static force... tension... forms at both ends at the same time.. they say... as such... exceeds light speed.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

[swansont]

if you think... for a moment... about what the most fundamental particle... or thing.. in the universe could be?????

And then you ask... what is the smallest thing we know of...

you get one answer....

there cannot be anything smaller than... an electrostatic line of force....

 

An electrostatic line of force is a conceptualization.

 

also... T=CR... meaning... that static tension... is the one thing that can exceed the speed of light.

for... if C is very small.... and R is very small.... then T... is very small.

 

if C.. is composed of two plates... 3 light years apart... and R is... .1 then... T... the timing constant for 1/5 of the field to form... is super fast.

 

Remember static force... tension... forms at both ends at the same time.. they say... as such... exceeds light speed.

 

What? and No. Static force does not exceed light speed.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Replies in the mainstream science forums should ONLY be replied to with accepted mainstream science, for your own ideas please post in the speculation forum.

Please do not reply to this modnote.

[questionposter]

What does this have to do with anything in the discussion? GR is not a quantum theory, so it doesn't have force-carrier particles, and the particles of the other interactions are not gravity.

 

I think I once again forgot about the Lawrentz transformation. Even if I am traveling in the opposite direction, if the electrons couldn't catch up to me as fast in the way I'm putting it, that would mean I would be observing them traveling like .00001% the speed of light if I was traveling 99.99999 which would happen with Lawrentz Transformation

Edited April 13, 2012 by questionposter

[md65536]

I think I once again forgot about the Lawrentz transformation. Even if I am traveling in the opposite direction, if the electrons couldn't catch up to me as fast in the way I'm putting it, that would mean I would be observing them traveling like .00001% the speed of light if I was traveling 99.99999 which would happen with Lawrentz Transformation

 

Can you explain this thought experiment again in detail? It sounds like you're speaking of travelling at 0.99c in some absolute sense. You wouldn't travel at that (or any) speed except relative to something else. So you're wondering about exchanging force carrier particles with some object that you're moving relative to??? But stuff relative to "your rest frame" that you're talking about (like your atoms, or particles that you shoot away from you) will behave exactly as if you are at rest.---Perhaps someone else can make more sense of this than I can.

[Mosheh Thezion]

T=CR... do the math...

 

if C is very small.... and R is small... (needing high voltage obviously)... then T... is very small.. i.e.. very fast.

 

Science shows... static field form at both ends... at the same time.... and.. according to the math... can have unlimited velocity of connection across space.

 

Do i have to do the math for you????

Do any of you study electronics?

 

-Mosheh Thezion

[md65536]

And then, with black holes, the event horizon is currently modeled to be a boundary where time stops flowing for an outside observer, yet force carrier particles even for the electro-mangetic force can ignore this and still continue to travel distance over time from inside to outside of the black hole, which is related to seeing an electric field emanating from a black hole.

I looked back and noticed this second half of your post. If you google "how do gravitons escape a black hole" there are a few answers. The most useful or understandable for me are a few of the different answers here:

http://physics.stack...pe-a-black-hole

 

- No information needs to leave a black hole because it's all on the horizon. Theoretical gravitons would only need to travel from there?

- Propagation of gravity (excitation of the gravitational field) is not the same as the static gravitational field itself. Gravitons would only be necessary for carrying information about changes to the gravitational field??? Any change in a black hole's mass would come from matter falling into it, and the information would come from there, not from inside the black hole. (Does that mean that the distribution of mass within a black hole's event horizon is static according to anyone outside -- because no time passes inside according to an outside observer???)

- The static fields can be described with virtual particles that don't need to obey the speed limit of light.

etc.

 

Note: Oops, your post wasn't talking about gravity but I think the same answers apply to a black hole's charge, and static electric field, and virtual photons?

Edited April 14, 2012 by md65536

[questionposter]

Can you explain this thought experiment again in detail? It sounds like you're speaking of travelling at 0.99c in some absolute sense. You wouldn't travel at that (or any) speed except relative to something else. So you're wondering about exchanging force carrier particles with some object that you're moving relative to??? But stuff relative to "your rest frame" that you're talking about (like your atoms, or particles that you shoot away from you) will behave exactly as if you are at rest.---Perhaps someone else can make more sense of this than I can.

 

My original thinking was that if I travel at 99.99% the speed of light, force carrier particles wouldn't catch up to me at the speed of light, but they would have to because I would need to always be measuring any type of photon, whether they are virtual or not, to travel at "c".

I looked back and noticed this second half of your post. If you google "how do gravitons escape a black hole" there are a few answers. The most useful or understandable for me are a few of the different answers here:

http://physics.stack...pe-a-black-hole

 

- No information needs to leave a black hole because it's all on the horizon. Theoretical gravitons would only need to travel from there?

- Propagation of gravity (excitation of the gravitational field) is not the same as the static gravitational field itself. Gravitons would only be necessary for carrying information about changes to the gravitational field??? Any change in a black hole's mass would come from matter falling into it, and the information would come from there, not from inside the black hole. (Does that mean that the distribution of mass within a black hole's event horizon is static according to anyone outside -- because no time passes inside according to an outside observer???)

- The static fields can be described with virtual particles that don't need to obey the speed limit of light.

etc.

 

Note: Oops, your post wasn't talking about gravity but I think the same answers apply to a black hole's charge, and static electric field, and virtual photons?

 

I guess that "kind of" makes sense, but then what about the singularity? Isn't the singularity what is generating the gravitational field and causing all this warping of space? Otherwise, how could anything else? To me it seems like in GR space just continue's getting warped in the same type of pattern past the event horizon, and the event horizon just happens to be a line in 4D space that marks where it doesn't flow to an outside observer, but in QM I don't know. Maybe the concentration of gravitons per cubic centimeter becomes so great it causes time dilation or something?

Edited April 14, 2012 by questionposter

[md65536]

I'm hoping someone will correct any mistakes I'm making.

 

My original thinking was that if I travel at 99.99% the speed of light, force carrier particles wouldn't catch up to me at the speed of light, but they would have to because I would need to always be measuring any type of photon, whether they are virtual or not, to travel at "c".

Yes. Except that you would not be able to measure a virtual photon and there is no measurable behavior that indicates it must travel only at c.

When thinking about "real" particles travelling at c, it is possible (and often easiest) to consider it from your reference frame, in which you're at rest.

 

I guess that "kind of" makes sense, but then what about the singularity? Isn't the singularity what is generating the gravitational field and causing all this warping of space? Otherwise, how could anything else? To me it seems like in GR space just continue's getting warped in the same type of pattern past the event horizon, and the event horizon just happens to be a line in 4D space that marks where it doesn't flow to an outside observer, but in QM I don't know. Maybe the concentration of gravitons per cubic centimeter becomes so great it causes time dilation or something?

Well I don't think that speculating about specifics of gravitons is the best way to understand because there's no accepted theory of their behavior.

But like it's mentioned in the link I posted, the same things apply to a black hole's charge as to its mass.

 

Yes, the spacetime curvature is continuous (and monotonic?) through the event horizon.

Some of the responses to "how do (particles) escape a black hole?" talk about virtual particles being able to tunnel across the horizon.

 

The gravitational or electric field around a black hole is a static field. I don't know what the best way to think about that is, but it's as if it is fixed in space relative to the black hole. It doesn't need to be continuously generated. Only an excitation (or change, say if you add some mass to the black hole) would require a propagation of information (as waves and/or particles) across the field.

 

Or say you suddenly created a black hole. The change in fields would propagate through space at c, and then it would just "be there"... remote locations would not need to keep receiving new information from the black hole to know that it's still there. You would not even be able to receive new information from the singularity. Anything that you can know about the singularity would have to be obtained from the fields around the black hole. Eg. the mass of the black hole affects the curvature of spacetime at your location, so you can be affected by the singularity's mass without receiving any new information about it. Specifically, it might be that all the information you can get about what's inside the horizon, is somehow encoded on the horizon???

 

 

Edited April 14, 2012 by md65536

[questionposter]

I'm hoping someone will correct any mistakes I'm making.

 

 

Yes. Except that you would not be able to measure a virtual photon and there is no measurable behavior that indicates it must travel only at c.

When thinking about "real" particles travelling at c, it is possible (and often easiest) to consider it from your reference frame, in which you're at rest.

No, virtual particles still follow a lot of the same physics as real particles, so virtual photons should travel at "c".

 

 

Or say you suddenly created a black hole. The change in fields would propagate through space at c, and then it would just "be there"... remote locations would not need to keep receiving new information from the black hole to know that it's still there. You would not even be able to receive new information from the singularity. Anything that you can know about the singularity would have to be obtained from the fields around the black hole. Eg. the mass of the black hole affects the curvature of spacetime at your location, so you can be affected by the singularity's mass without receiving any new information about it. Specifically, it might be that all the information you can get about what's inside the horizon, is somehow encoded on the horizon???

 

 

 

Except how can it just "be there" without anything to create it?

[md65536]

Except how can it just "be there" without anything to create it?

It can't.

Move a charge into some space, and the change to the field propagates all around it.

Then you have a static field.

Remove the charge and that change propagates also... the static field doesn't remain without the thing that effects it.

 

 

Compare this with say atoms of matter, with always-changing kinetic energies and are constantly propagating those changes in the form of thermal radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

 

 

[mooeypoo]

T=CR... do the math...

 

if C is very small.... and R is small... (needing high voltage obviously)... then T... is very small.. i.e.. very fast.

 

Science shows... static field form at both ends... at the same time.... and.. according to the math... can have unlimited velocity of connection across space.

 

Do i have to do the math for you????

Do any of you study electronics?

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

!

Moderator Note

Mosheh, this is not the place for your personal pet theories. You have a thread about your theory in the speculation forum, stick to it.

It's not the first time you are warned. Start following our rules.

 

This isn't a request, it's a friendly reminder. Do not reply to this moderation note.

[questionposter]

It can't.

Move a charge into some space, and the change to the field propagates all around it.

Then you have a static field.

Remove the charge and that change propagates also... the static field doesn't remain without the thing that effects it.

 

 

Well what is the "charge" made out of? It would probably be virtual photons, and virtual photons travel distance over time to an outside observer if we could observe them, just as light would.

Edited April 14, 2012 by questionposter

[Amr Morsi]

Charges are charges .. created like this man. Are you trying to ask about them in the EYES of GOD, His Almighty? They are basics to us, at least in what is proven to us.

 

Friendly, force carrier particles are not stead to my mind at all. Really!! Scientifically, they are bad solutions and may be wrong properties of halucinations

 

But, they should be quicker than the deliverred itself.a And, it can be proven - with mathematics - in the known domain of properties of forces known to us; A Causality-Property.

 

Why don't you try to elect the main idea you want to reach and then Go and Vote. I don't remember what is first, or they are the same .. but; on any adverb , I think force (or operation) is a thing and the particle (the operator ) is rather a very apart thing but linked. Put, the link and you will repel every bad wrong idea.

 

I am going to swimming , chears.

[swansont]

Charges are charges .. created like this man. Are you trying to ask about them in the EYES of GOD, His Almighty? They are basics to us, at least in what is proven to us.

 

Friendly, force carrier particles are not stead to my mind at all. Really!! Scientifically, they are bad solutions and may be wrong properties of halucinations

 

But, they should be quicker than the deliverred itself.a And, it can be proven - with mathematics - in the known domain of properties of forces known to us; A Causality-Property.

 

Why don't you try to elect the main idea you want to reach and then Go and Vote. I don't remember what is first, or they are the same .. but; on any adverb , I think force (or operation) is a thing and the particle (the operator ) is rather a very apart thing but linked. Put, the link and you will repel every bad wrong idea.

 

I am going to swimming , chears.

 

!

Moderator Note

I can't think of any reason that an "EYES of GOD" reference should appear in any physics thread, but especially so after two other moderator notes have appeared in the thread warning about how this discussion if for mainstream science only

[md65536]

No, virtual particles still follow a lot of the same physics as real particles, so virtual photons should travel at "c".

 

 

As per the other thread about FTL...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics:

"In quantum mechanics, virtual particles may travel faster than light, and this phenomenon is related to the fact that static field effects (which are mediated by virtual particles in quantum terms) may travel faster than light (see section on static fields above). However, macroscopically these fluctuations average out, so that photons do travel in straight lines over long (i.e., non-quantum) distances, and they do travel at the speed of light on average. Therefore, this does not imply the possibility of superluminal information transmission."