|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 21:48:52 GMT -5
Not really. For example, if it weren't for the fact that ice is less dense than water -- which is unusual as for most elements the solid form is more dense -- then lots of fresh water life wouldn't have evolved the way it did. It's just an observation of an appearance, and one that of course involves looking back at the past of a process over time. The point of the scientific method is to suspend the question of the origin of the rules in order to determine what the rules are and how they relate to one another. Irrespective of my orientation (or lack thereof) toward the idea of the primacy of consciousness (that matter appears within consciousness and not vice-versa), the science of Physics is only applicable to that idea through an inferential speculation. What the collective work of Physicists demonstrates is that if skeptical objective rational investigation is done using quantitative tools over time, then the investigation will eventually reveal the fallacy of the underlying assumption of objectivity. To base any conclusions on reasoning beyond this point is to build a foundation on a puff of smoke. If the word real is defined in terms of objective physical phenomenon, then the word consciousness has no real meaning. It's that chegg thingy that tends to upset froggy tummies. I'm not saying science isn't doing it's job right. I'm saying it's actual role is part of creation itself rather than objective observer. I'm saying the rules match the end result because the conditions that define the rules are no less a creation than the life that apparently emerges from that process. No set conditions were actually required for life to apparently appear on this planet. (God didn't need his ducks all lined up before he could go into production) The conditions are not the cause of creation. The conditions ARE creation happening. I can't argue with the foundation of your statement here but there is a but, and to get at it I have to pull what you wrote apart a bit. By way of disclaimer, it's a conceptual structure that I'm not fond of because it can and has (in the form of several different past and current scientific consensuses) devolve into taking absence of evidence for evidence of absence. --- The conditions are not the cause of creation. The conditions ARE creation happening. There's simply no arguing with that. --- No set conditions were actually required for life to apparently appear on this planet. In terms of the distinction between life and non-life, from what we can tell at present, life is relatively rare by the low probability of finding it within a given volume of space. As part of this overall uncaused happening you reference it seems to us, from our limited sample of exactly one instance, that life won't appear on an airless rock with no protection from the radiation of the Sun or the near absolute zero of the void. It's sort of a contextual thing: no, the conditions here weren't the cause, but if you draw a circle around the solar system and start a clock from when the Sun fired up, then it makes contextual sense to start conceiving of a series of caused events that we name evolution -- and not just of life, but of the system as a whole, including several sub-movements within that system that branch off in a sort of fractal nature. By that I mean, for instance, how the planets and their systems of moons form is very similar to how the entire system eventually reached it's current steady state. Within that framework, it seems that there are certain conditions necessary for the evolution of a segment of the Universe to support that movement of evolution we differentiate as life. We have no evidence that life can develop without them. It always occurred to me as rather profound and awesome to consider that the early solar system was this largely undifferentiated ball of dust and rock, and that the stuff that has made up my body over time had this incredibly low probability of winding up where it was, where it could become part of ... .... well, for sentiments sake let's call it the "sensory apparatus of the conscious Cosmos". It struck me in my hyperminding days that this is a sort of atheist metaphor for the idea of "God's love". There seems to be less of it anywhere in the solar system other than Earth.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2014 23:17:02 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. So I'm really interested in wavicles at a fundamental level. Is the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation reconciled by a superposition of particles such that they aren't actually moving as a wave at all? Does that make sense? In the context of the DS, there's motion in either case, either of the wavefront or the particle. By my understanding, no, the superposition of the various possible paths of the particles summing to the wave function isn't related to the idea of the relative motion of a photon/light wavefront. One thing to keep in mind about the frame of reference of a photon is that it isn't available to an observer. This implicates the idea of the mass of the photon. The closer to the speed of light an observer made of matter would get, the greater their mass would become, and the speed of light is an impossibility because to maintain it would take infinite energy. In a sense, the frame of reference of a photon or a wavefront of light is an idealized absolute to which the concept of time doesn't apply. E, what you seem to be after is the scientific look at the non-dual world? A motionless non-differentiated void of infinite potential? Physics hasn't gotten there. Many things point to what's beyond the limits of science, but physicists are afraid to go there, they don't know how to get from here to there.. Virtual particles, the Casmir effect, the quantum vacuum, zero point energy, dark matter, dark energy. They don't even understand repeatedly verified experiments, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, teleportation (of information). Physicists are like the magician who cuts the lady in half, but don't know how the trick works. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 30, 2014 0:40:59 GMT -5
So a detector at the output of the double slits is an extension of consciousness, though only if the data is recorded? Up till now I've responded in the context of the conceptual structures that Physicists use. The bottom line is that there's a faulty assumption in your question that there is an actual divide between the detector and what it is that interprets the data. If you remember that Tom Campell video on the topic he made the claim that not collecting data from a powered-up detector toggled the pattern on the screen but he later had to retract that, and I don't know of anyone who's performed that experiment. If the question can be framed as "does an inanimate object qualify as a quantum observer?", that's a topic of metaphysical controversy but there are two simple ideas that put that to rest for me. I'd say there's a divide between the appearance of a physical object, in any configuration, (a detector) and a conscious observation of the data collected. If observing a pattern on a target collapses the wave function, does observing it in a mirror do any less? What about watching it on closed circuit TV? What about playing it back later from a recording? I say the collapse occurs, in every case, when the observing occurs and not necessarily when the supposed event occurs. If that's so, how does one devise an experiment to prove it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 30, 2014 0:51:31 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. So I'm really interested in wavicles at a fundamental level. Is the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation reconciled by a superposition of particles such that they aren't actually moving as a wave at all? Does that make sense? In the context of the DS, there's motion in either case, either of the wavefront or the particle. By my understanding, no, the superposition of the various possible paths of the particles summing to the wave function isn't related to the idea of the relative motion of a photon/light wavefront. One thing to keep in mind about the frame of reference of a photon is that it isn't available to an observer. This implicates the idea of the mass of the photon. The closer to the speed of light an observer made of matter would get, the greater their mass would become, and the speed of light is an impossibility because to maintain it would take infinite energy. That's precisely why I've been asking these rudimentary questions and prying at the notion that photons don't actually move until the wave function is collapsed. Okay. How can time not apply to a wavefront? Isn't that an integral function?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 30, 2014 5:17:16 GMT -5
Does the hyperminding if/then theoretical explanation of what is happening actually describe what is happening?.. can the current human understanding reliably and without revisions based on future happening reveal all of everything?.. each successive generation assumes they have 'it' figured out, and the descendant generations are generally amused at the misconceptions of their ancestors.. I am a huge fan of science, it's role in mitigating ambiguity is priceless, but.. i have come to realize that the most meaningful and accurate understandings have been revealed in intervals of still-minded awareness..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 30, 2014 7:51:05 GMT -5
In the context of the DS, there's motion in either case, either of the wavefront or the particle. By my understanding, no, the superposition of the various possible paths of the particles summing to the wave function isn't related to the idea of the relative motion of a photon/light wavefront. One thing to keep in mind about the frame of reference of a photon is that it isn't available to an observer. This implicates the idea of the mass of the photon. The closer to the speed of light an observer made of matter would get, the greater their mass would become, and the speed of light is an impossibility because to maintain it would take infinite energy. That's precisely why I've been asking these rudimentary questions and prying at the notion that photons don't actually move until the wave function is collapsed. Okay. How can time not apply to a wavefront? Isn't that an integral function? The key word here is idealized. That's gonna mean speculation, not anything we have seen in nature. Photons in nature are a sort of currency of the exchange of energy. For a photon to stop it would cease to be a photon, the energy would change into something else (for instance, you get a suntan from photons from the sun when enough of them hit your skin). In nature, time always applies, photons never have mass. I don't understand the point laughter was making concerning the rest mass of photons. The very definition of a photon involves it having no mass. This is why the 1919 observation of stars adjacent to the sun during a solar eclipse was so important in proving Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The gravity of the sun itself could not displace the light from the stars, because gravity would have no effect on massless photons. The stars were displaced because the mass of the sun bent the space adjacent to the sun proving Einstein was right, mass warps space (gravity is the warping of space, from objects with mass). He became world-wide famous overnight. You can stop thinking about photons not actually moving. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 30, 2014 9:17:40 GMT -5
That's precisely why I've been asking these rudimentary questions and prying at the notion that photons don't actually move until the wave function is collapsed. Okay. How can time not apply to a wavefront? Isn't that an integral function? The key word here is idealized. That's gonna mean speculation, not anything we have seen in nature. Photons in nature are a sort of currency of the exchange of energy. For a photon to stop it would cease to be a photon, the energy would change into something else (for instance, you get a suntan from photons from the sun when enough of them hit your skin). In nature, time always applies, photons never have mass. I don't understand the point laughter was making concerning the rest mass of photons. The very definition of a photon involves it having no mass. This is why the 1919 observation of stars adjacent to the sun during a solar eclipse was so important in proving Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The gravity of the sun itself could not displace the light from the stars, because gravity would have no effect on massless photons. The stars were displaced because the mass of the sun bent the space adjacent to the sun proving Einstein was right, mass warps space (gravity is the warping of space, from objects with mass). He became world-wide famous overnight. You can stop thinking about photons not actually moving. sdp Yes, Googled a bit about photons last night and they're strange non-critters fer sure. Formed at velocity by a mass/energy conversion such that we somehow have a new non-mass mass traveling zero distance in zero time at the speed of light. (Ha! Fun stuff) This comment hints at what I was asking about superposition: "– The photon does not experience elapsed time and can cover any distance in zero time. In effect, a photon can be everywhere at once. " A photon that does not experience elapsed time and and can be everywhere at once is not actually moving. My mindless blog entry would be that it's not actually actual either.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 30, 2014 9:40:39 GMT -5
Up till now I've responded in the context of the conceptual structures that Physicists use. The bottom line is that there's a faulty assumption in your question that there is an actual divide between the detector and what it is that interprets the data. If you remember that Tom Campell video on the topic he made the claim that not collecting data from a powered-up detector toggled the pattern on the screen but he later had to retract that, and I don't know of anyone who's performed that experiment. If the question can be framed as "does an inanimate object qualify as a quantum observer?", that's a topic of metaphysical controversy but there are two simple ideas that put that to rest for me. I'd say there's a divide between the appearance of a physical object, in any configuration, (a detector) and a conscious observation of the data collected. If observing a pattern on a target collapses the wave function, does observing it in a mirror do any less? What about watching it on closed circuit TV? What about playing it back later from a recording? I say the collapse occurs, in every case, when the observing occurs and not necessarily when the supposed event occurs. If that's so, how does one devise an experiment to prove it? I'd say that the initial divide/collapse occurs as soon as the idea arises that there is an observer observing something. That's the point at which the Whole imaginatively divides Itself into parts. The sage lives in a state of infinite superposition of potentiality--the void/emptiness/sunyata--because she gives no weight to the act of distinction, and doesn't mistake distinctions with the living truth. All of the secondary distinctions arise following the initial divide. A tree, a rock, (or a subatomic particle) and an observer are a unified isness until imagination creates a cartoon-like model of what appears to be happening. Amazingly, QM has come full circle and accurately pointed, via math, toward the initial misunderstanding about what the physicist is doing, and who the physicist IS. Ironically, 99.9% of physicists haven't understood what the math is saying because they have accepted the current paradigm without questioning the primary distinction upon which that great intellectual edifice is erected. As E. notes, science is primarily in the business of creation--the creation of models. Even the distinction between life and non-life is imaginary, and anyone who has had a deep CC experience realizes that the entire cosmos is alive. This sort of realization instantly frees a person from the fear of death. The cosmos appears to give birth to life, but, in fact, It, Itself, is alive and infinite. That which is not born does not die. The ZM, Bankei, spent his whole life after realization preaching about "The Unborn." As a humorous side note, a student once asked ZM Seung Sahn, "What happens after you die?" ZMSS replied with a laugh, "I'm already dead!" The student did not understand. Ramana answered the same question somewhat differently. He asked, "How could I possibly die?" Ha ha. Same state of mind, but two different ways of saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 30, 2014 12:13:54 GMT -5
The key word here is idealized. That's gonna mean speculation, not anything we have seen in nature. Photons in nature are a sort of currency of the exchange of energy. For a photon to stop it would cease to be a photon, the energy would change into something else (for instance, you get a suntan from photons from the sun when enough of them hit your skin). In nature, time always applies, photons never have mass. I don't understand the point laughter was making concerning the rest mass of photons. The very definition of a photon involves it having no mass. This is why the 1919 observation of stars adjacent to the sun during a solar eclipse was so important in proving Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The gravity of the sun itself could not displace the light from the stars, because gravity would have no effect on massless photons. The stars were displaced because the mass of the sun bent the space adjacent to the sun proving Einstein was right, mass warps space (gravity is the warping of space, from objects with mass). He became world-wide famous overnight. You can stop thinking about photons not actually moving. sdp Yes, Googled a bit about photons last night and they're strange non-critters fer sure. Formed at velocity by a mass/energy conversion such that we somehow have a new non-mass mass traveling zero distance in zero time at the speed of light ( from its own perspective, note sdp). (Ha! Fun stuff) This comment hints at what I was asking about superposition: "– The photon does not experience elapsed time and can cover any distance in zero time ( from its own perspective, note sdp). In effect, a photon can be everywhere at once. " A photon that does not experience elapsed time and and can be everywhere at once is not actually moving. My mindless blog entry would be that it's not actually actual either. OK, the key here is, from a photon's own perspective. When we're dealing with photons we're observing from our perspective, not theirs. That "a photon can be everywhere at once" does not compute for me (?) I don't have a reference for it but I'm sure I read that near the end of his life Einstein said that he still did not understand light. sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2014 12:28:27 GMT -5
Up till now I've responded in the context of the conceptual structures that Physicists use. The bottom line is that there's a faulty assumption in your question that there is an actual divide between the detector and what it is that interprets the data. If you remember that Tom Campell video on the topic he made the claim that not collecting data from a powered-up detector toggled the pattern on the screen but he later had to retract that, and I don't know of anyone who's performed that experiment. If the question can be framed as "does an inanimate object qualify as a quantum observer?", that's a topic of metaphysical controversy but there are two simple ideas that put that to rest for me. I'd say there's a divide between the appearance of a physical object, in any configuration, (a detector) and a conscious observation of the data collected. If observing a pattern on a target collapses the wave function, does observing it in a mirror do any less? What about watching it on closed circuit TV? What about playing it back later from a recording? I say the collapse occurs, in every case, when the observing occurs and not necessarily when the supposed event occurs. If that's so, how does one devise an experiment to prove it? That's one of those two simple ideas that I alluded to: how could we ever prove or disprove, by observation, if an inanimate object can collapse the wave function? The answer is that you can't, because any data that an experimenter evaluates entangles consciousness into the events as a whole. That's the exact point of the Wigner's Friend Paradox. The other simple idea that for the life of me just seems impossible to miss is that the wave/particle is interacting with two inanimate objects in the system that don't collapse the wave function: the barrier with the slits and the screen on which the image forms. IOW: if "physical" interaction with the field with no subjective component were causal to collapse we'd never see an interference pattern. This is, in fact, what our experience with the classical world would lead us to expect, which is why the result was such a game changer to science and ultimately, the rest of the culture as well. The science of Physics can't resolve this controversy because what is referred to as the "Quantum Observer" isn't a physical phenomenon. We have the appearance of what is observed and the observer and there's no separating the two, but it can be inferred that the observer is not the observed by the various natures of the observed (particle or wave) in either the presence or absence of the observer on the special condition of a physical interaction at a fine enough granularity. It's simply the end of the line for objective physical reality, but it says nothing about the nature of any nonphysical component other than it is not physical. Since this component can't be observed it isn't subject to skeptical, quantitative inquiry. Science ends there, and it's just as big a mistake to use the collapse of the material assumption as the basis for a non-scientific theory of the non-physical as it is to spin up various metaphysical escape hatches to salvage an objective physical reality. The DS and all post QM Physics simply calls for metaphysical silence. ... and that's what Bohr, Heisenberg and the rest of their crew offered the world back in 1928: their interpretation was that Heisenberg's mathematical formulation did not describe reality apart from the point observation of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2014 12:37:48 GMT -5
In the context of the DS, there's motion in either case, either of the wavefront or the particle. By my understanding, no, the superposition of the various possible paths of the particles summing to the wave function isn't related to the idea of the relative motion of a photon/light wavefront. One thing to keep in mind about the frame of reference of a photon is that it isn't available to an observer. This implicates the idea of the mass of the photon. The closer to the speed of light an observer made of matter would get, the greater their mass would become, and the speed of light is an impossibility because to maintain it would take infinite energy. That's precisely why I've been asking these rudimentary questions and prying at the notion that photons don't actually move until the wave function is collapsed. Okay. How can time not apply to a wavefront? Isn't that an integral function? The movement of the wavefront is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. If an observer could assume the frame of reference of a photon to her it would seem as if time had stopped, which is of course entirely paradoxical in the case of a photon heading for your eye as that photon will eventually encounter the event of stimulating your optic nerve and changing form from photon to electrical impulse in your brain.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2014 12:50:21 GMT -5
That's precisely why I've been asking these rudimentary questions and prying at the notion that photons don't actually move until the wave function is collapsed. Okay. How can time not apply to a wavefront? Isn't that an integral function? The key word here is idealized. That's gonna mean speculation, not anything we have seen in nature. Photons in nature are a sort of currency of the exchange of energy. For a photon to stop it would cease to be a photon, the energy would change into something else (for instance, you get a suntan from photons from the sun when enough of them hit your skin). In nature, time always applies, photons never have mass. I don't understand the point laughter was making concerning the rest mass of photons. The very definition of a photon involves it having no mass. This is why the 1919 observation of stars adjacent to the sun during a solar eclipse was so important in proving Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The gravity of the sun itself could not displace the light from the stars, because gravity would have no effect on massless photons. The stars were displaced because the mass of the sun bent the space adjacent to the sun proving Einstein was right, mass warps space (gravity is the warping of space, from objects with mass). He became world-wide famous overnight. You can stop thinking about photons not actually moving. sdp Photons are a form of energy and as mass and energy are equivalent it can't be said that they have no mass, just no "rest mass". Bear in mind that it is only gravity that keeps a photon from going beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The concept of a photons mass became relevant because the point that any particle other than a photon traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass became relevant. The bottom line is that the speed of light is not only a limit, it is only available to light and no other phenomena, because an infinite mass isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2014 13:01:59 GMT -5
I'd say there's a divide between the appearance of a physical object, in any configuration, (a detector) and a conscious observation of the data collected. If observing a pattern on a target collapses the wave function, does observing it in a mirror do any less? What about watching it on closed circuit TV? What about playing it back later from a recording? I say the collapse occurs, in every case, when the observing occurs and not necessarily when the supposed event occurs. If that's so, how does one devise an experiment to prove it? I'd say that the initial divide/collapse occurs as soon as the idea arises that there is an observer observing something. That's the point at which the Whole imaginatively divides Itself into parts. The sage lives in a state of infinite superposition of potentiality--the void/emptiness/sunyata--because she gives no weight to the act of distinction, and doesn't mistake distinctions with the living truth. All of the secondary distinctions arise following the initial divide. A tree, a rock, (or a subatomic particle) and an observer are a unified isness until imagination creates a cartoon-like model of what appears to be happening. Amazingly, QM has come full circle and accurately pointed, via math, toward the initial misunderstanding about what the physicist is doing, and who the physicist IS. Ironically, 99.9% of physicists haven't understood what the math is saying because they have accepted the current paradigm without questioning the primary distinction upon which that great intellectual edifice is erected. As E. notes, science is primarily in the business of creation--the creation of models. Even the distinction between life and non-life is imaginary, and anyone who has had a deep CC experience realizes that the entire cosmos is alive. This sort of realization instantly frees a person from the fear of death. The cosmos appears to give birth to life, but, in fact, It, Itself, is alive and infinite. That which is not born does not die. The ZM, Bankei, spent his whole life after realization preaching about "The Unborn." As a humorous side note, a student once asked ZM Seung Sahn, "What happens after you die?" ZMSS replied with a laugh, "I'm already dead!" The student did not understand. Ramana answered the same question somewhat differently. He asked, "How could I possibly die?" Ha ha. Same state of mind, but two different ways of saying the same thing. Hmmm ... I seem to have misplaced something .. (** carefully checks each pocket for existential angst **) ... (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 30, 2014 13:28:22 GMT -5
The key word here is idealized. That's gonna mean speculation, not anything we have seen in nature. Photons in nature are a sort of currency of the exchange of energy. For a photon to stop it would cease to be a photon, the energy would change into something else (for instance, you get a suntan from photons from the sun when enough of them hit your skin). In nature, time always applies, photons never have mass. I don't understand the point laughter was making concerning the rest mass of photons. The very definition of a photon involves it having no mass. This is why the 1919 observation of stars adjacent to the sun during a solar eclipse was so important in proving Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The gravity of the sun itself could not displace the light from the stars, because gravity would have no effect on massless photons. The stars were displaced because the mass of the sun bent the space adjacent to the sun proving Einstein was right, mass warps space (gravity is the warping of space, from objects with mass). He became world-wide famous overnight. You can stop thinking about photons not actually moving. sdp Photons are a form of energy and as mass and energy are equivalent it can't be said that they have no mass, just no "rest mass". Bear in mind that it is only gravity that keeps a photon from going beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The concept of a photons mass became relevant because the point that any particle other than a photon traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass became relevant. The bottom line is that the speed of light is not only a limit, it is only available to light and no other phenomena, because an infinite mass isn't possible. To say that mass and energy are equivalent is not to say that photons have mass, it means you can convert mass to energy (atomic bomb one example) and energy to mass (happens every day in particle accelerators). I'm confident enough about that so as not to look it up. By definition photons can't have mass because to accelerate them to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. But photons automatically travel at the speed of light, (so they can't have mass). I thought long and hard about the fact that even light cannot escape black holes (thus the name) and if light has no mass, why does the gravity of the black hole keep light from escaping? But what is gravity according to Einstein? Gravity is the curvature of space. It's not that light cannot escape black holes because of the "force" of gravity. Light cannot escape a black hole because the mass of a black hole curves the space to such an extent that light can't escape the curvature. (I've never looked it up to check on myself). sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2014 13:59:32 GMT -5
Photons are a form of energy and as mass and energy are equivalent it can't be said that they have no mass, just no "rest mass". Bear in mind that it is only gravity that keeps a photon from going beyond the event horizon of a black hole. The concept of a photons mass became relevant because the point that any particle other than a photon traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass became relevant. The bottom line is that the speed of light is not only a limit, it is only available to light and no other phenomena, because an infinite mass isn't possible. To say that mass and energy are equivalent is not to say that photons have mass, it means you can convert mass to energy (atomic bomb one example) and energy to mass (happens every day in particle accelerators). I'm confident enough about that so as not to look it up. By definition photons can't have mass because to accelerate them to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. But photons automatically travel at the speed of light, (so they can't have mass). I thought long and hard about the fact that even light cannot escape black holes (thus the name) and if light has no mass, why does the gravity of the black hole keep light from escaping? But what is gravity according to Einstein? Gravity is the curvature of space. It's not that light cannot escape black holes because of the "force" of gravity. Light cannot escape a black hole because the mass of a black hole curves the space to such an extent that light can't escape the curvature. (I've never looked it up to check on myself). sdp Yes, underlying the force of gravity is the change in path due to curvature of space, so the distinction of whether it's the curvature of space or the force of gravity that captures the photon on the far side of the event horizon is one without a difference. Just google it if you don't believe me: " mass of a photon". The photon's speed can be slower than the speed of light in a vacuum but that energy doesn't vary with the velocity of the wavefront and is only dependent on the wavelength of the light because the photon has no " rest mass", which is the mass that an observer in the same frame of reference would measure of an object. The concept of the effective increase in mass due to speed is one that is available to our common experience by imagining the effects of a head-on collision. That's the effect that doesn't apply to the photon. Relativity plays as much havoc with the concepts of time, space and mass as QM does with materiality.
|
|