if photons in motion have mass and energy why don't they knock stuff over

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Old Man, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. The rhodopsin molecules in the cones take quite a beating.

    Bob Kolker
     
    Robert J. Kolker, Apr 9, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Old Man

    Aladar Guest

    This is when you think that a photon is "electromagnetic plane waves"...

    However, when you realise that we describe the photon - the two
    collision system which self-regenerate itself - by their projections
    into electrical and magnetic properties - indeed you will realize
    that they do knock stuff over...

    The Poincaré quote repeats the Lucretius and Newton understanding
    of 'first beginnings' and of 'substance'... I call the same no-things
    elementary units of existence. There is nothing knowable about them,
    but only about their collision events, 'relations' (blows for Lucretius,
    'constituting space and time' for Newton, for me, the self-regenerating
    collision sytems are the 'relations', knowable).

    Cheers!
    Aladar
    http://stolmarphysics.com
     
    Aladar, Apr 9, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Old Man

    Tom Kirke Guest

    They do. A recent ( last year? ) NOVA had a segment about a guy
    in New Mexico who blasted aluminum disks about 20 meters straight
    up using a laser DOE had left over from fusion research. He could
    keep them up as long as the laser was on and the disk was in the
    laser beam.

    Because of the inefficencies of the process it takes a lot more
    than a few mW laser to do this.

    Also simple glass-bulb radiometers demonstrate photon momentum.

    tom
     
    Tom Kirke, Apr 9, 2004
    #23
  4. Old Man

    briggs Guest

    If he was doing that in air, he wasn't using photon pressure.

    Assume photon pressure is responsible.

    Assume a 1kg aluminum disk. That's 1 kg * 9.8 m/sec of momentum
    per second. Divide by 2 because that aluminum better be a damned
    good reflector. E = pc. So you have 1 kg * 9.8 m/sec / 2 * 3 * 10^8
    meters /sec ~= 7*10^8 joules every second = 700 megawatts of light power
    hitting an aluminum disk massing 1 kg.

    Assume 99.99 reflectivity. That's 70 kilowatts of heating power.
    Divide by 4.2 to get calories/sec, multiply by 10 because the
    specific heat of aluminum must be pathetic, divide by 1000 because
    it's one kilogram and you have around 150 degrees Celsius per
    second temperature rise, back-of-the-envelope.

    Note that disk mass factors out of the result. The bigger the
    disk, the bigger the mass, the more power you need and dividing
    out the thermal mass leaves you back where you started.

    Poof goes the aluminum disk, inside of ten seconds.

    I imagine you could pull the trick off by ablating aluminum. That'd
    cut your power requirements quite a bit and take care of the cooling
    concerns at the same time.
    Actually, they demonstrate the opposite. They demonstrate that
    whatever photon pressure there might be is inadequate to offset
    the temperature and pressure effects induced by those same photons.
    They spin the wrong way.

    John Briggs
     
    briggs, Apr 9, 2004
    #24
  5. Old Man

    OhBrother Guest

    Indeed, the real philosophy we should strive toward is the 'nothingness of
    all'. In it, all aspects of the universe are one-ness, and each element of
    the universe is but a projection of all other elements into that particular
    space of nothing-ness and relative nothing-ness.

    Let me tutor you a little bit on Buddhist philosophical thought.

    Existence then is a function of the fourfold states of matter's "existance",
    JO-JU-E-KU, JO (pronounced "Joe") being birth and increase, JU (pronounced
    "Joo") being stability, E (prounouced "eh") being decrease and KU
    (pronounced "Koo") being nothingness or the rest state.

    Every "thing" in the corporeal universe then is merely a transcient
    projection of KU (nothingness) which in fact is actually the realm of "true
    potential existance" possessing all aspects of everything, and since is KU
    is nothingness, it is everywhere "things" are not. It is all potential.
    Read a little bit about the probability event wave and quantum universes.
    Then you 'might' understand why photons don't poke your eye out as
    effectively as a RedRyder BB rifle will.

    And so, I guess your little philosophical point is then lost in the face of
    Nothingness, since all points are made when nothing is said. Get the point?

    O'
     
    OhBrother, Apr 9, 2004
    #25
  6. Old Man

    OhBrother Guest

    When I was younger and thought I knew everything, I felt that anything that
    didn't reek of contemporary thought was obsolete and of no value.

    Many years later, and a lot of ass-kickings by life, it dawned on me that
    the problem was one of perspective. If you strap shot glasses on your eyes,
    the view you get is 'new', and it also gives you lots of 'interesting
    images'. Nevertheless, like any other mind-set, it is limiting. The
    greater secrets are in the quieter truths.

    After reading a lot of what you've written Jonathan, I think it's time to
    take the shot glasses off your eyes and recognize your own myopia. Any
    mind-set which requires the wearer to twist and distort things to fit it's
    suppositions, may not be a tool, but in fact may be that wearers rider.

    Lot's of better souls than yourself have wrested our current levels of
    'wisdom' from chaos, so I wouldn't be too quick to abandon them with only
    the thin garments of your 'philosophikal' constructions.

    O'
     
    OhBrother, Apr 9, 2004
    #26
  7. Old Man

    Tom Kirke Guest

    Much too heavy, this was a highly polished Al disk about
    20cm x 1mm:

    10cm^2 x 0.1cm x Pi x 2.7 gm/cc ~ 84 gm = 0.084 kg.

    It was in fact a whopping BIG laser, DOE had used it
    in fusion research. Also since this is a reflection
    effect you multiply by 2, not divide.
    What pressure effects, they're in a vacuum. If you
    mean the pressure of the photons, then you agree that
    they have mass.

    tom
     
    Tom Kirke, Apr 9, 2004
    #27
  8. Old Man

    mmeron Guest

     
    mmeron, Apr 9, 2004
    #28
  9. Old Man

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    You're thinking of Mariner (Mars and Venus, as noted in my earlier post) --
    Voyager has a different configuration. <http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/>

    In <> on Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:47:15 -0500, Don
     
    John Navas, Apr 9, 2004
    #29
  10. Old Man

    FrediFizzx Guest

    | Well, that's a common misconception: actually, photons are knocking things
    over
    | all the time.

    Yep, all you have to do is push on something unstable. Over it goes. With
    nothing but photons between your hand and the object.

    FrediFizzx
     
    FrediFizzx, Apr 10, 2004
    #30
  11. skrev
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8ystein?= Olsen, Apr 10, 2004
    #31
  12. Old Man

    OhBrother Guest

    [snip self-servitude]

    Um, stochastics by nature are unpredictable so I'd suggest you not use the
    stock market as a test of your theory. Or else, do it, become incredibly
    rich as a result and then tout your wisdom. There are as many stock
    stochastic theories as there are theorists.

    Insofar as my not 'getting it', perhaps you are the one who isn't 'getting
    it'. Since you've done the 'math' then you've seen the appearance of
    trends, their maturation and decline, but do you see the disappearance and
    reappearance and the thread of continuity in each? Simply because you can
    count the marbles on the playground doesn't mean you can predict the
    trajectory of each trivial move of each.

    Of course, since you're agenda has not been laid wide open I guess I've done
    my part. Your post was more to publicize your 'new and wonderful theory'
    than it is to 'discuss an interesting aspect of the universe'. Sigh! Back
    to the pit with you...

    O'
     
    OhBrother, Apr 10, 2004
    #32
  13. The glass spheres lift with few mW because they have only
    10um diameter in this case.

    Rene
     
    Rene Tschaggelar, Apr 10, 2004
    #33
  14. Old Man

    jonathan Guest


    I see from the responses that everyone ...completely... missed
    the most important point.


    They talk of forces and equations, fields and quantities. Yet
    a single pedestrian aspect of photons, such as one
    striking the eye and causing it to move, effects almost
    every moment of all our days.

    What is important is not what things are, their weight, size
    or speed, but what they ....do. What their effects and
    relationships are to other things. It is the connections
    between things that matter most, not what they ...are.

    Behavior matters most.

    We must unlearn our backwards methods of objective reductionism and
    embrace subjectivity and holism. We must strive to expand our
    scales of observation first, while turning subjective judgments
    into a science.

    We must embrace the future and dispense with the Dark Age
    mentality that still infects every corner of this world and even
    this ng.



    Jonathan




    "PERCEPTION of an
    Object costs
    Precise the Object's loss.
    Perception in itself a gain
    Replying to its price;
    The Object Absolute is nought,
    Perception sets it fair,
    And then upbraids a Perfectness
    That situates so far"



    By E Dickinson



    s
     
    jonathan, Apr 11, 2004
    #34
  15. Old Man

    jonathan Guest


    "The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists
    in their simplicity imagine, but the relations among things; outside
    these relations there is no reality knowable."

    Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905


    I am talking on-topic. You simply can't recognize that fact
    since you're so out of date. Tell me, what's it like living at
    the turn of the nineteenth century?

    Jonathan

    s
     
    jonathan, Apr 11, 2004
    #35
  16. Old Man

    jonathan Guest


    What I "get'' is that you don't understand what I'm saying, that is
    not the same as it being meaningless. Unlike the double talk
    above my philosophy is not based on whim or dreams, but
    on the latest non-linear mathematics. You see, I can test
    my philosophy. I can take it out for a spin in the real world
    and see if it works. For example, I use the same concepts
    to create a stock trading system as a test, to see if the
    ideas hold against the cold and unforgiving marketplace.

    Go to e-trade and click on the ten day charts of the two
    stocks I played last week, abcx, and cpth. My 'philosophy'
    told me to buy each last Wednesday morning first thing, I
    still don't know what each company sells or their full name.
    Such deterministic details are irrelevant.

    How did I know when to buy, because complexity science
    tells me how to model a thunderstorm abstractly.
    When a far from equilibrium system is about to undergo
    a phase change. You see, far from equilibrium systems
    display universal behavior at the edge of chaos. It doesn't
    matter if one is talking about a religion, or a stock chart.
    All 'interesting' order in the universe exists far from
    equilibrium, things such as life, galaxies and intelligence.

    Objective science requires steady states, repeatability.
    Such conditions are far from reality and far from what
    truly effects or improves our lives.

    I can use these concepts for Mars, religion or the market
    as they are interdisciplinary, universal. They work everywhere
    and for everything. Click the following links and see for
    yourself. I'm not making this stuff up, I only preach them.


    I've done the homework.


    http://chaos.ph.utexas.edu/
    http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
    http://www.pscs.umich.edu/
    http://www-chaos.umd.edu/

    http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
    http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Investigations.html
    http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm




    Jonathan

    s
     
    jonathan, Apr 12, 2004
    #36
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.