Powered by Invision Power Board


Forum Rules Forum Rules (Please read before posting)
  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Absolute Vs Relative Concepts, for time,light,etc
Jman
Posted: March 24, 2017 09:53 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Member
****

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 103
Member No.: 39,924
Joined: September 14, 2015




Hi guys,
I was stucked behind electron microscope devices and their physics,
and got that we consider two aspect for concept or behaviour of light, 1- particle 2-wave.also we can consider that the first aspect is absolute aspect and second is relative one for light.
actually,we use electrons to discover the absolute aspect of light as a refrence in case of this device!

for the absolute aspect we can assume that there'd not be any dialation,stretch and other relational shifts for sure in any irregular space-time situation or even humanistic observer error then.

BTW that I want to say that we can expand this categorization for other concept such as "Time",
and so there must be a similar device or experiment for the "Time" as electron microscope for "light"?! blink.gif
For example Time as a particle or as a wave in any specification experiment?

well, it'd be pleasured to know about such devices and experiments for the Time or other subjects you might have read about and so on. thumbsup.gif
thanks
PMEmail Poster
Top
Sch3mat1c
Posted: March 25, 2017 10:57 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20,538
Member No.: 73
Joined: July 24, 2002




Time isn't just another particle, it's the dependent axis of all 3-dimensional wave theories.

Time is another general spacial dimension, in General Relativity, but there are no particles in GR.

Tim


--------------------
Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess, would put them in the "answering" category.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Jman
Posted: March 25, 2017 01:56 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Member
****

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 103
Member No.: 39,924
Joined: September 14, 2015




QUOTE (Sch3mat1c @ March 25, 2017 10:57 am)
Time isn't just another particle, it's the dependent axis of all 3-dimensional wave theories.

Time is another general spacial dimension, in General Relativity, but there are no particles in GR.

Tim

That's right,
I just remember they used to assume particle for the Time in the earliest history of physics.
And as a point of view than GR it'd be sensible because we've used to assign every concepts to a measurable and materialized quantic stuff.
for example in an Hourglass we can assume sand seeds as a quantic particle for time.
Besides,in many case we consider Electron as an errorless observer to measure quantized concepts to ditch humanistic hazards and stuff.And maybe Mr Electron has been still the most truthful and cotrollable known observer in our world somehow.
So who knows that in the future whether they find a more truthful particle or not?! And maybe it'd be even known as that related imaginary particle of Time! wacko.gif
thanks
PMEmail Poster
Top
Sch3mat1c
Posted: March 26, 2017 08:43 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20,538
Member No.: 73
Joined: July 24, 2002




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

Discrete time concepts might be used in some present theories, but only in a similar way that discrete time is used in other fields of study: as a computational necessity, to be able to calculate an evolving system, step by step. The step size is given by some lower bound of the resolution of the problem: in essence, the step needs to be small enough that it "looks continuous".

This is relevant from the lowest levels of physics (computational chromodynamics), to chemistry (computational quantum mechanics), electronics (whether it's done whole, with an electromagnetic field solver, or in the abstract, as a circuit in SPICE), and more.

An hourglass is a clear anti-example because the sand particles fall randomly, presumably at at expected rate. They would not fall independently (Poisson statistics), because there is a limit to how many grains can fall at a given time, and there is a tendency for many grains to be falling at one time (though it is possible for the falling to cease for an arbitrarily long time, if the grains happen to get stuck against each other in the neck).

Indeed, even the volume or rate is not quantized, because a sand grain crosses the threshold between bulbs in a smooth and continuous fashion; the volume of sand grows, not stepwise, but with a smooth transition as the body of each grain passes into that threshold. If the rate is very small, and you zoom out, yes, it looks stepwise, but it is no more stepwise than any staircase in the real world: there is always a vertical (rising) surface accompanying each horizontal (tread) surface, it doesn't simply jump instantaneously.

Tim


--------------------
Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess, would put them in the "answering" category.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Jman
Posted: March 27, 2017 10:56 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Member
****

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 103
Member No.: 39,924
Joined: September 14, 2015




well,In addition of your tips,I think in many cases it's sensible to determine flow of quatic elments and not necessarily getting stuck in complex statistics of just one particle or element.
for example we've used to measure a flow of photons as flux/intensity or flow of electron as current or even a flow of sand seeds as time flow ,etc. rolleyes.gif wacko.gif
however in my imaginary model,I want to use both side of absolute and relative side of a concept in one notation. maybe as a complex symbol like : A+jr or somthing like wink.gif
PMEmail Poster
Top
Sch3mat1c
Posted: March 27, 2017 04:59 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20,538
Member No.: 73
Joined: July 24, 2002




Reality doesn't care about wave or particle; it just is.

"Wave" and "particle" arise out of two kinds of simplified perspectives. Particle is what you observe as a function of time; wave is what you observe as a function of frequency.

The analysis method that goes between these is called the Fourier transform.

Analytical tools exist that serve a middle ground between these extremes. Wavelet analysis, for example.

The main downside is, there is a continuum of wavelet transforms possible (at least, I don't think there is an unambiguous one, that can be applied to a problem, in the easy way the Fourier transform can).

The duality is given by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is the simple tradeoff that arises between the two sides of a Fourier transform; you use the same property, more directly, in a wavelet transform.

Tim


--------------------
Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess, would put them in the "answering" category.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Jman
Posted: March 27, 2017 07:59 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Member
****

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 103
Member No.: 39,924
Joined: September 14, 2015




Oh...thanks for useful info Tim.
Maybe just one thing is pushing me into trouble about this realization.for example in light case, they always say that no experiment has observed both particle and wave behaviour of light at the same time though I think most of the interactive experiments between photon and electron are covering both aspects somehow,maybe just because the physics of that interaction is not well identified as a mathematical model yet?! blink.gif
PMEmail Poster
Top
dmg
Posted: April 25, 2017 11:52 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 1,265
Member No.: 36,860
Joined: June 06, 2012




actually i think even odern sciense has far too huge problems with time..
i mean we can observe time passing by, but i don't think there is any definition for it.
surely there are currently accepted way to deal with it,
however do consider that god creating everything in a week or so , and a flat earth, along with a sun orbiting earth where verry accepted concepts.

so i would not be so sure that any of our compley models of "things around us" are even remotely close to reality.
the tools we have need quite a lot to enable us going forward..
mathematics for example. still clueless on how to deal with separation of properitys and values. (like infinite is not a value, its a lack of being finite, and mathematics is not doing well dealing with infinitely long series in many cases, allso zero may one day be recognised not as a number, but a separator of negative and positive values. )

sciense is just scratching the surface. nothing more yet.
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 


:: support us ::




ElectronicsSkin by DutchDork & The-Force