Cavediver: I am aware of this as this is the consequence of the increasing and decreasing density of spatial curvature. It would seem to me that all things traveling at constant speeds are actually traveling in straight lines, it is simply the fact that the space they are traveling through is more or less dense, making their trajectory appear to be curved due to the way in which we perceive space.What confuses me about this idea though, is with this increase in density of space around an object with mass, why does your speed increase when you have to traverse more space? I’ll clarify; if you are traveling at a constant velocity, I assume this means that you are flowing through a certain number of spatial units per unit time and this ratio is constant, regardless of an increase in spatial density (I don’t want to misuse the term metric-field, but perhaps this is what it is). If you approach an object with mass, this number of spatial units is becoming more numerous and there are more “lines of magnitude” of a metric-field, I suppose.This would seem to tell me that your motion relative to this object from a third observer would appear to decrease as you approach this object since you are having to move through more and more spatial units the closer you get (after all, you are moving at a constant velocity through curved space). This seems counter to the idea of gravity since gravity should increase this ratio of spatial units per unit time. It seems that either I have it backwards, meaning the density of space decreases around an object with mass so that from a third observer your velocity increases, or I am just thinking of it incorrectly.Of course using this approach, you would still think you are traveling at a constant velocity the whole way, and so would the object you are moving toward. Is this freefall? Maybe this is where my confusion arises; is the distance between two objects a measure of the amount of spatial units between them, or is there some other standard of measure that is independent of spatial density?I will digest the rest of your last post regarding the link between mass and curved space for a bit longer before I reply, I’ll leave you with this for now.

This may be a quantum question, and not GR, but I'll ask and see. GR's always using light, so...If the frequency of light is really just a statement about it's probability amplitude, then how is it that light's energy is related to it's frequency? It seems pretty straightforward to say that light's energy is then related to it's probability amplitude (and how often that little complex vector is spinning). Why would faster spinning of that little vector mean higher energy?Thanks!
Ben

quote:

---

What confuses me about this idea though, is with this increase in density of space around an object with mass, why does your speed increase when you have to traverse more space? I’ll clarify; if you are traveling at a constant velocity, I assume this means that you are flowing through a certain number of spatial units per unit time and this ratio is constant, regardless of an increase in spatial density (I don’t want to misuse the term metric-field, but perhaps this is what it is). If you approach an object with mass, this number of spatial units is becoming more numerous and there are more “lines of magnitude” of a metric-field, I suppose.

---

It does. You perceive time to slow down in a gravitational field or, more appropriately, a 3rd observer from afar would see your clock ticking a bit faster than theirs.This makes sense up to items crossing an event horizon of a black hole, where a 3rd observer would see you fall in, but you would never perceive reaching it.

I'm sure you meant to say "a bit slower" Likewise, I'm sure you meant to say that a 3rd person would never perceive you reaching the event horizon, but to you, you would simply fall in.

Bah
Where did I get that mixup from!?Anyways, GPS satellites already have to correct for this difference.

quote:

---

You are now effectively moving wrt your light-cone. You have also accelerated to get there, and if you think about this in SR-terms, you are going to experience a real time-dilation. It is quite possible that you are not now moving wrt a distance observer. But you are still moving wrt to your light-cone. E.g. stood on the earth, where you light-cone is pointing inwards towards the centre of the earth (actually, slighlty to the side becasue of the rotation) Thus you would expect to see a real time-dilation wrt someone who isn't fighting their light-cone so hard.

---

I'm trying to think about this in terms of the "Clock Postulate" of special relativity. The problem is, I can't see where the symmetry is broken between the two relatively stationary observers.If two observers are accelerating at different magnitudes, and we want to know how they view each other's clock rates at a given instant, we just take the instantaneous velocity and find gamma. They will both view each others clocks as slowed down by that factor. Is this a correct consequence of the "Clock Postulate"?If it is, where is the symmetry broken when two people are at different heights in a gravitational field? Even though they are fighting their world lines differently, wont there still be an instantaneous velocity (using their accelerations with regard to their respective world lines) between them and wouldn't special relativity imply a symmetry in how they view each others clocks?Where am I going wrong?

Xeriar: Regardless of how a third observer perceives my motion relative to theirs, I would experience time just the same, right? Perhaps that's what the "more appropriately ..." was about. If my clock were ticking slower, and I were traversing fewer spatial units per these slower ticks (from 3rd observer's perspective), perhaps they would cancel? But if they cancelled, there would be no revelation, and they would only cancel if they were inversely proportional, which they aren't. So, if apparent motion slowed more than time dilates, (one slowed down tick allows me to traverse less space) my apparent motion through space would decrease, which wouldn't match observation. Conversely, if time dilated more than my apparent motion slowed (one slowed down tick allows me to traverse more space), there would be a resultant apparent increase in my motion relative to the 3rd observer which matches observation. Does this seem to make sense?By the way, thanks for the insight cavediver and xeriar!Edited to clarify previously potentially indiscernible post.This message has been edited by madeofstarstuff, 09-21-2005 02:32 PM

Hi Ben,
I believe that amplitude of a light wave is a description of the "brightness/Intensity" of the light. Intensity of light does not give a measurement of the lights energy but the amount of photons hitting a measuring device or eyeball. An example would be the low intensity light of Xray which has more energy than the luminous halogen lamp. The frequency of the wave describes the classification of light or electromagnetic energy being measured and it's associated energy. ie: Cosmic radiation--->Gamma--->Visable spectrum..Infrared. etc...frequency being the amount of waves 'hitting'. Like trying to stand in the 'white wash' on the North shore in Hawaii, the sheer number of waves hitting over a period of time "frequency" will depend on whether you get out to the point break or flounder in the wash sampling the taste of the reef. This may be over simplistic and unsafisticated..or out and out wrong. Perhaps some resident QM gurus have insight?

I don't think that intensity of light and energy of a photon have anything to do with each other because energy is merely an attribute frequency, not intensity. As for answering Ben's question, no clue here, good one though.This message has been edited by madeofstarstuff, 09-21-2005 05:00 PM

Totally Off Topic. You know better than this. One more such post and you will be banned again.

​

Do not reply to this message!

Einstein recklessly exposed his GTR to falsification attempts....per what true pioneering scientists do.ToE avoids and evades falsification attempts....the mark of dogma.Henry Herpeton the ReptileThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-21-2005 05:40 PM

quote:

---

Re: Light and Energy
I don't think that intensity of light and energy of a photon have anything to do with each other because energy is merely an attribute frequency, not intensity. As for answering Ben's question, no clue here, good one though.

---

do you know nothing of chemistry or physics? intensity of light produced by any reaction has a direct relation to the amount of energy given off.

I think madeofstarstuff is correct on this RL.The intensity of light is a measure of the number of photons arriving in unit time. The energy of each one is dependent on the frequency of each photon. I may have a very, very low intensity beam of xrays with a photon or 3 arriving per second and a very, very intense beam of yellow light with gajillions of photons arriving each second. However the energy in one xray photon will be several (don't remember the ratio) times that of one photon.

---

I have no problem with God; It's some of his fan club that I find irritating.

quote:

---

The intensity of light is a measure of the number of photons arriving in unit time. The energy of each one is dependent on the frequency of each photon.

---

therefore the intensity of light has a direct correlation to the energy of a photon.

quote:

---

I may have a very, very low intensity beam of xrays with a photon or 3 arriving per second and a very, very intense beam of yellow light with gajillions of photons arriving each second. However the energy in one xray photon will be several (don't remember the ratio) times that of one photon.

---

the energy, or wavelength, of a photon determines the frequency of the light. the frequency of light determines the intensity of how we see that light. but the higher or lower the frequency doesnt always mean a more or less visible intense light. it entrails a more or less actual intensity. there are other aspects to light than what we see with our own eyes. photons all move at the speed of light. but depending on the wavelength of the photon, we see it differently. there is a small spectrum of light that we can view, everything else is invisible to us. that is why an x-ray would appear to be weaker, but is in fact very intense.File:Atmospheric electromagnetic transmittance or opacity.jpg - Wikipedia

Roy,There are two concepts of intensity; one is independent of US, independent of our ability to SEE the light with our very own eyes. That is the sense in which intenisity is being used here (we are, after all, talking physics here). You're talking PSYCHOPHYSICS. PSYCHOPHYSICS is different, Roy. This thread is not about General Relativity in Psychophysics. It's about General Relativity.Light intensity - Wikipedia
Psychophysics - WikipediaWith that said, Ned got this wrong: The intensity of light is a measure of the the number AND ENERGY of photons arriving in unit time. At least, as far as I can tell.Anyway, let's drop it. The original question still stands; all these mistakes and corrections simply obscure it. Let's talk some real physics!

Did you read my post?First off no one knows what energy is.
Secondly the energy is a result of the affects the photons have on matter. IE: electrons making quantum jumps within the valances. The greater the frequency the greater the excitation of atoms, which gives off the energy as heat and light.
The element affected will determine what jumps and this will determine what color the light is.
Amplitude will determine how bright this light is.
Of course this could all be wrong as I am drawing on 30 year old information.