Re: Do photon's obey "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force"?

On Jan 29, 6:01 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:34 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 27, 7:39 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 27, 3:49 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The question would be, without F = ma, how would you build a
mathematical model of the photon's motion?

This is my first attempt.

define class photon as custom
   energy_to_deliver = 1
   energy_storage = 10000000000
   position_x = 0

   function Move
      this.position_x = this.position_x + energy_to_deliver
      this.energy_storage = this.energy_storage -
this.energy_to_deliver
   endfunc
enddefine

You seem to be under the impression that uniform motion consumes
energy.

I'm under the impression that Hubble's Limit is an observed
phenomenon.

The standard explanation is that Hubble's Limit occurs when expansion
over takes the speed of light.

In other words, light can't travel any farther because that's how
space works.

I'm suggesting light can't travel any farther cause it has nothing
left to give, because that is how light works.

However, this is inconsistent with a fairly rigid test of the 1/r^2
nature of Coulomb's law. Light expiring by virtue of energy exhaustion
would be easily detectable on scales much smaller than the Hubble
limit. AFAIK, experimental results are inconsistent with that.

We detect it as cosmological redshift.

When light can't be redshifted anymore, that's the Hubble limit.

Let me reiterate something. A model has to fit the *body* of
experimental evidence, not just selected evidence. Your model is
consistent with the Hubble limit, but it is inconsistent with the
measured 1/r^2 nature of Coulomb's law. Consistency with one datum and
inconsistency with another datum is a flag *against* a model, not for
it.


I assume light is finite.

You assume light is infinite, in a finite Universe. The Greeks
wouldn't ignore such a paradox so lightly.

No, I don't assume light is infinite. Light is finite. There is no
consumption of energy associated with uniform motion. This is true for
peas and pebbles as well as for photons.

That is the standard line of thought.

But perhaps that is a classical concept that doesn't belong in QM and
makes it awkward? Seems like a valid question.

I don't see any awkwardness invoked by it. We have no evidence that it
is ever violated. Moreover, a strict rule in QM is that all quantum
behaviors reduce to classical behaviors in the continuum limit. Your
conjecture would not support that.


The fact that a pebble will
travel *forever* without slowing down in the absence of any external
forces does not imply that there is anything infinite about the
pebble.

Can you describe that aspect of a pebble's motion mathematically
without assuming anything like infinity?

Sure. dK/dt = 0. No infinities in there anywhere.

You seem to not understand energy conservation very well. Did you take
physics on your way to your engineering degree?


You also seem to be a computer engineer of some kind. Didn't you have
to take physics in school? Didn't you learn about energy conservation?

As long as the macroscopic objects obey the energy conservation law
consistent with observation,

And as long as photons not cosmologically redshifted travel at c
(which they do according to my formula v = c- Hd), and deliver a
constant amount of energy, such an algorithm should be entirely
consistent with the conservation law in that limited domain.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what is the relation between force and energy?
    ... > distances between electrons and nucleons, which increases energy). ... Having no temperature, VPs have no motion of their own, ... >> involve time, although in my opinion it does, because gravitation ... energy with more distance from a gravitational source, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Any kind of energy should involve mass and motion. ... momentum is another property of a physical system. ... more objects at constant velocity wrt each other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... That would correspond to the motion reflecting ... W is energy transformation ... means finite mass still. ... Actually I learned classical physics better than the relativistic ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: More evidence of negative curvature
    ... >> That mass goes in but energy comes out? ... That of mass breaking down into ... > There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an ... > measured in terms of their motion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Conservation of momentum (and a weird space drive)
    ... > planet with mass M having a tall tower. ... The energy in a coherent bulk motion in one direction isn't there, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)