Hi, does anyone know if Physical constants would change/be different is parallel universes??
I've asked loads of people but no-one seems to have ideas so far.
~
Inka x

Probably because 'parallel universe' is a sci-fi term.

There is a version of Inflation theory that allows differing parts of the Universe to have different properties. Differnent constants I suppose. Another allows for a never ending series of continuous inflation events. Both probably allow for differing constants as the 'bubbles' don't know about each other.

difficult question.
offcourse there are the same physics rules.
and the constants must be in a certain proportion, else this universes wouldn't exist.

I think the constants are the same too...masses of electrons and proton stuff must be the same, I can not imagine how it could be something else. And to keep this atoms stable....the forces must be the same to, if the mass is the same.

so yeah, I quess rules and constants are the same.
Differences are possible in density and accelaration of the universes though.

Hi Inka,

As thed said, "parallel universes" are mostly science-fiction, but I do think that there could be different values for elementary constants like e, h, c, ... Recently a book was published (I forgot the title but it believe it was called 'the six magic numbers' or something along those lines) that describes the delicate balance between six elementary constants in physics and whether or not a universe could exist (or give rise to life) depending on the values of those constants.

I never read it however, but perhaps this gives you something to look for on google :).

Bye!

Crisp

I'm not too sure but these might be the numbers (could be wrong, they were given to me many years ago over a discussion about "how many parallel worlds exist".

1 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 26

As to wether a parallel is fiction or not, people only perceive it to be fiction, as to observe a universe filled with parallels from a multiworlds perspective would take you to split yourself like schrodingers cat.

As apt at parallel processing as the human mind might be, I don't think it was ever sculptured to take in multiworlds in any other form than mathematics on paper.

For instance the perception that some writers might place on parallels is the fact that at some point a timeline diverges due to some choice that for some reason it took both choices.

(A bit like turning right and left at a junction)

This reasoning is absurd because any decision you make for taking that turn is in a forwards motion along the timeline. So when you decide to take right, you do actually turn right, and don't take left ever.

The only time a parallel is actually created is when a message from the version of you that turns right is sent back to before you made the choice, and you manage to tell yourself to turn left.

You now have two parallels, but they both operate in the same frame up until the deviation. This is where people have been sinical about what occurs.

From the perspective put forwards by the legendary Schrodingers Cat Experiment, there is a possibility of a wave collapse. Since you turn right, your wave formations throughout your quantum entangled self shift to the "right" universe.

And the same can be said with the "left" universe, this means at some point when the split occurs a full loss of wave functions can occur, and a version of you drops dead. (unless paramedic is standing by).

So now we have a three way fork at that T junction, one of you when right, the other left, and the very unlucky one dropped dead. (if your lucky the split wouldn't make you drop dead, but just make you feel real uncomfortable while it occurs, afterall your "whole" quanta is now split in two.)

Now I mention a quanta split, admittedly I say two, but due to quantum entanglement there is no way of truly knowning how many splits occur throughout your body to pull of such a split.

You might be asking, if I'm not 50% or 33% my previous quanta, why can't I walk through walls... Well the whole universe has been split that amount too, so in relativity (relation to your universe) you have the same quanta you had as when you started.

Now people can't get their heads around how an atom can be split, but as I mentioned in a previous post my understanding is that atoms are "photonic matrix's" Highly sped photons from the highest region of the spectrum.

My understanding I think coincides with Schrodingers mentioning of Wave formations, and explains that our universe is "holographic". (deduced without reading Talbot)

I mentioned about the split of a parallel, but I didn't explain fully that it wouldn't occur fully without SPACETIME folding through the use of Super-conductors or Quantum jumping machines.

I would detail more on that subject, but there's always and air of unreadiness when it comes to that discussion.

One thing I will mention about parallels is "Ghosts", the ghosts I'm refering to are parallels that exist in such close proximity to our own that at times we get a glimps of them.

For instance if I walked past a bench and on another world loads of events had made a homeless man sit there, but on my world that homeless man has died through some "event".

I might walk along and pretend to not notice him as many might do (or just not notice walking to my destination), I turn my head to one side and glimps someone sitting their, and as I continue... I realise no one is there. (because he's on another world, and I only saw him because I existed as an observer of a multiworld state at that position before Iwalked on.

I hope you have waded through all that and manage to gain some clue of the answers you are looking for.

Edited:
=====

I had a conversation with someone that mentioned that he ahd heard that we are only 3 seconds away from a alternate universe, Think of it a bit like a frame on an old fashioned movie reel, those 3 seconds is the frame in front, the frame that went right and the frame that has been known to try and make the one below it go left.

Personally I wouldn't want to detach myself from a timeline.

Hey i was wondering (in responce to c and stuff being changed) could Pi be changed like that and what would be the effects?

i was reading a scifi book (can't think of the name) and out a potato astoried that has this 7 chambers and in the 7th theres this freaky tunnel that bends geometry and i couldn't really rap my head around it when they are talking about changing things like Pi

Well, Pi could easily be changed, all you'd have to do is change the geometry of the universe. :)

I think this is true anyways, I forget whether or not Pi stays the same for different geometries... and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Consider a “flat” circle with a diagonal line. Define Pi as the ratio of the circumference to that diameter. Now “push” on the center of the circle, stretching the diameter while leaving the circumference fixed. Pi decreases.

Is Pi the same for all circles in this curved space? Small areas in curved space (except near discontinuities) are nearly flat. So measuring Pi using very small circles gives the standard “flat” value. Pi would vary depending on the curvature of space and the size of the circle. (Or one could define Pi as the value derived using “flat” space. In that case, Pi is a universal constant that does not depend on spatial curvature but could no longer be used as the ratio of circumference to diameter for large circles.)

It seems I was right in that post about hamster wheels ;)

I think it was in a book by Paul Davies (professor in astrophysics) where i read that our universal constants are so precisely tuned that if they were nudged by only one part in a million then the universe as we know it "would not work".

This should imply that there would have to be an immense number of tries before finding a universe that works.

I'm a little annoyed by how people talk about paralell universes or bubbles in some super universe. This can't be shown threw any experiments or empirical evidence since it is beyond our limits and thus does not belong in the realms of physics but metaphysics. And weather we see these different universes as being alongside each other in a super universe or totaly alone makes no differnce at all. I think every universe should just be seen as a random event that is not influated by any other universe or force.

Now im REALLY confused

I just can't visulise how you could change the diamter without the curcumfrance

Thanks for trying though

Recently a book was published (I forgot the title but it believe it was called 'the six magic numbers' or something along those lines)

"Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees.

Another good one is "The Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin.

Asguard,

I think our Hamster friend meant pushing down on the centre to create a funnel. (well a dip.)

Yep. Might help to imagine that one is an ant crawling on the surface with the circle. The ant can’t “see” any difference when the diameter passes over the dip. However the ant can measure that the diameter is longer than when the circle was flat.

Just as a two dimensional surface can curve in three-dimensional space, three-dimensional space can curve in higher dimensional spaces. The 3-D inhabitant may not notice the curvature as all the reference standards for “straight” such as light beams and rulers curve with the space. However certain measurements can show the space is curved.

Well you could note that just as the Gravity of the sun keeps the planets in orbit (okay they too have their own gravity but not too such an extent)

I tend to believe that the gravity of the sun is a form of spacial collapse through multiple time layers to give it such gravity, while planetary gravity is just shaped by the sun as it's distortion axis.

This would mean that all solar bodies through the galaxy and our universe would have their own time dialations.

Untill that last post i actually understood what you were talking about

Sorry I have a nasty habit of trunkating sometimes. (leaving bits off and not explaining what I "See".)

This usually hapens between a mixture of coffee, late nights trying to do things with some computers or gaming, a small amount of insomnia and a buch of people with a nasty habit of interupting me.

Quite simply I was looking at how the gravity of the sun doesn't let it's material (gases) escape, if they are on a trajectory away from the sun, they get to a point where they lose momentum and start heading back towards the sun gainnig momentum.

A bit like us throwing a ball in the air, and having it come back down.

Now due to the suns intense size, all these gases doing this in a spherical area, cause a great amount of friction as they dance through knocking each other, causing friction and even fission nearer the centre (and possibly fusion).

I was mentioning the time dialation, because the way I see these molecules shifting around, there is a probability that sometimes they accelerate enough to puncture a hole through the fabric of timespace at the suns point, giving it an overlay of gravities through mutliworlds.

I suppose this in a awy mirrors steady state, but just localised to the sun.

Hang on

Solar flares play with the earths magnetic field making the Aura

So they escaped, didn't they?

Thats just a slingshot effect to make it escape, as for it being electromagnetic, it means that's higher than normal lightspeed.

Im going to sound stupid but light is electro-magnetic isnt it?
(i haven't done this stuff since school a cople of years ago)

Yes electromagnetics can be perceived as light, especially when you look at wave formations like X-rays and microwaves as they cause electromagnetic disturbances.

"Yes electromagnetics can be perceived as light, especially when you look at wave formations like X-rays and microwaves as they cause electromagnetic disturbances."

Electromagnetic waves IS light by definition, and it always travels at light speed, duh.

Itchy,
Thats a bit of 'tude I suspect. Light speed is only a constant to that set point on a spectrum, Your talking of the speed of electromagnetics in comparison to say the light in your room. Both travel at different speeds, although both a form of light.

"light in your room"

I thought the light of a bulb sends out Em waves of all frequencies (it's a white colour)

Clarification. They are ALL electromagnetic waves and they ALL travel at light speed. The only difference is in the frequencies (energy).

Q,

Don't you get tired of explaining trivial facts to teenagers who think they know everything?

There are too many people here who don't realise their level of education and who should be a little more humble when presenting their ideas and be able to accept certain facts.

If I have an idea I say "I think that..", I don't say "This is how it is.."..

Getting tired of this forum.

Take care all.

i noticed you didn't post YOUR age

But then your old so YOU know everything

I think Q is wkd - and one of the few people who writes things others can understand. Unlike a lot of people who make everything too complex in a futile attempt to look smarter than they are.

So Thanx-Q for not being egotistical and explaining things for those of us with lesser intelligence (and spelling).

Going back a bit - i don't think Pi can be changed coz its mathematically defined and if it were different it would be called something else wouldn't it??
Love Ink x

PS. How do you put those little pictures by your name - i've been trying for ages and cant do it!!

Thats easy

Read the anoucement section

Oh and as for my spelling, Ive ecused it in enough threads and explaned the reason why i can't spell

and it has nothing to do with itellegence by the way

This is where you and I look at the universe a little different. Where you see a constant speed, your not truly looking at the speed but a Distance (namely that metre per seconds)

Now this is all well and good but it doesn't actually take the very frequency into account, thats what I look at.

If you check the attached inage you will see a very small, but crudly drawn diagram, with an A frequency and B frequency of waves that "simulate" real wave forms in the sense of measurement.

In whole they both travel the same distance (I haven't written the measurement down), but they both have a different number of Helixes. My Measurements are from Helix to Helix in comparison.

This is noted when you look at frequency modulation and realise it can be used to adjust the true length that is travelled (by this line that people draw as a wave) since light and sound is 3 dimensional and wavvers)

If looked at this way, it's more understandible for time dialations and spacial folds. Especially when oberving the universe as in space, afterall different frequencies occur in different parts of the universe, although some occur from the same source.

Edit:

Actually here is an addition. If your travelling along in a car with your headlights on (That are supposedly travelling a constant speed) the light is traveling at "Lightspeed" as you mention, but isn't it also travelling with the speed of the car as an addition.

So the frequecy of the light stays the same in this instance, but travels faster.

If your travelling along in a car with your headlights on (That are supposedly travelling a constant speed) the light is traveling at "Lightspeed" as you mention, but isn't it also travelling with the speed of the car as an addition.

No. The speed of light will remain constant regardless of what speed the car may be traveling. A stationary observer will measure this constant speed the same as the observer in the car. The car might be traveling near the speed of light but the light propagating from the headlights will remain constant to all and any observers.

So the frequecy of the light stays the same in this instance, but travels faster.

The frequency (or energy) of the light will change. A stationary observer standing in front of the oncoming car will see a frequency shift to the blue spectrum (blueshift) and a stationary observer standing behind the car that is moving away will see a frequency shift to the red spectrum (redshift).

The speed of light however will not change.

The mor I learn about the laws of science, the more it seems like things are the way they are because that's the only way they could be.

I will still disagree with you Q,

For instance, if light can SLOW DOWN, it must mean it can SPEED UP. At least to your observation. In reality it could be moving the same rate, but then universe looks a bit.... "Hey Mr Soft..."

As for another small example, Place an infra red buld in a torch at night and shine it, the light only carries such a distance and then it can no longer been seen. If you were to use a normal bulb, it creates light throughout he frequencies, some of which carry further.

If the energy that was used to propell the infrared was applied to a higher scale frequency, it would propell faster across a given distance and for further, since the infrared would disperse sooner (running out of energy and momentum)

Light travels at C divided by the material it is passing through. This does not change due to the motion of the light's emitter. If a car travelling at twice C puts on its headlights, it will simply outpace its light. The light can still only travel a certain speed. This is not to say the car itself can not go faster than C; I will leave that to the arguments about FTL theory and such. But the fact remains that electromagnetic signals travel at a given speed in any given material.

Stryder

I will still disagree with you Q

This place wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed.

For instance, if light can SLOW DOWN, it must mean it can SPEED UP.

But light doesn't slow down or speed up. When it propagates from its source it does not speed up to its constant. Light is instantaneously moving at its constant. This concept is a little hard to wrap your head around because we are so used to objects accelerating to certain speeds. Light however is not an object, it has no mass.

At least to your observation.

It remains constant to all observers.

Adam,
Atleast that still doesn't disprove that their is changes in speed because of the materials. I will still suggest that light does travel faster, as that is why I suffer light blindness during nighttimes, because the light is at an intensity from two cars moving past each other with the full beam on.

I will still suggest that light does travel faster, as that is why I suffer light blindness during nighttimes, because the light is at an intensity from two cars moving past each other with the full beam on.

That has nothing to do with the speed of light. Adding more light does not increase its speed.

I wasn't suggesting more light, as the light still outputs the same as what it did at a standstill. I was suggesting that the light can cause an EM that pushes it faster, making it a higher frequency that what was being emitted. (especially in the relationship of two cars)

I was suggesting that the light can cause an EM that pushes it faster, making it a higher frequency that what was being emitted. (especially in the relationship of two cars)

Can you expand on this? How would it "push it faster?"

Because it's source is accelerating in my direction.

the more I think about the postulate of the constant speed of light, the crazier it sounds

photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)

=> okay, there's only momentum and no mass
so in theory they could absorb momentum from their source

maybe the observation here is as with the particle acceleraters a WRONG interpretation
btw, maths ARE an interpretation of an observation (some people here don't seem to understand this)

Hi c'est moi,

"photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)."

You formulated the answer in your own post:


btw, maths ARE an interpretation of an observation

Very well said!

Bye!

Crisp

c'est moi,

"photons are particles like any other particle
why would they follow special rules??? they just ignore mechanics which ALL other particles follow and NOBODY explains how this is possible (if so, please explain this to me)"

I have a weird idea about photons and why they travel at c.

Almost all the matter in the universe posesses a uniform unipolar gravitational field. In other words, all matter has a single gravitational pole surrounding it, but unlike the electric/magnetic interactions, similiar gravitational poles attract each other.

On the other hand, photons are different. They have a bipolar gravitational field: gravity facing forward, antigravity facing backwards. The repulsion force at the back of the photon, and the attractive force at the front of the photon, along with it's small mass, allows it to accelerate to c very quickly.

Although this idea is strange, it would explain why the photon's "natural" speed is c. It would also mean that the gravitational field of a photon is at right angles to it's electric, and it's magnetic field. In other words, there is a force for each dimension, and in a three dimensional world there are only three fundamental forces: electric, magnetic, and gravitational, and they are all at right angles to each other. Of course, the more dimensions there are, the more fundamental forces exist.

Before anyone laughs at me and says my idea is stupid, please give me your idea of why photons travel at c.

Tom

Some facts are just facts and cannot be explained further. There were various possible explanations for the Michelson/Morly experiment (about 1888) which led to relativity theory and belief in the constancy of the velocity of light. The earth is stationary, which seems absurd and has never been considered as an explanation. It is interesting to note that if the experiment had been done several hundred years earlier, the church would have been delighted & who knows what would have happened to science.

The velocity of light is constant.

Various ideas about the size of objects being distorted by the drag effect of the ether, causing erroneous measurements. None of these ideas seemed as plausible as the assumption about the constancy of the velocity of light.Why is the velocity of light constant? Why is gravity attractive instead of repulsive? These and other questions might not have answers. They seem to be observation facts on which we base theories about how the universe works. Perhaps like axioms for logical systems, they just have to be accepted as true.

There are various theories about the constants of physics being different in other parts of the universe or in parallel universes. While we can never be sure, it seems reasonable to assume that the constants and the laws of physics are the same everywhere. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why not make that assumption?

As for Pi, e, and various constants of mathematics, it seems absurd to assume that they could ever be different in some other time or some other place. The ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle is not the only property of Pi, so more than geometry would be involved in its having a different value.

Thank you Dinosaur for those wise words.

The reason people have trouble understanding the constant speed of light postulate is that they are treeting time as an absolute measurement. Time is NOT absolute, it is relative. This means that time is different for observers in different reference systems. THIS is why light always seems to travel at the same speed.

I will just ignore those last two posts I guess
I'm amazed how some people are able to miss the point completely
particles involve mechanics
if a particle, ONLY ONE type of particle in this case, follows different rules this must be explained
science's purpose is to explain
we know photons have momentum
why don't they absorb momentum from the source from which they are emitted, that is a question that needs to be answered by quantum physics
prosoothus, it's not really clear
maybe you should work it out more

I had time to do a bit of a hit around for Data, and came up with these two links to sites that have information on the subject at hand.

Ritz on the Optics of Moving Bodies
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/rtz-mir.htm
(In French and English)

The Doppler Effect
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node106.html

From what is said in general:

There is a mention that light is suppose to travel at C when emitted from a moving source, How ever during it's emmision there is a form of quantum compression that changes the frequency of the light.

This means that I originally was write, but really pretty crap at explainations. lol

If you read my original statement I was trying to explain about the compression with helixes, which can be perceived as frequency change.

c'est moi,

"why don't they absorb momentum from the source from which they are emitted, that is a question that needs to be answered by quantum physics"

When photons are emmited, momentum is conserved. It has been found that atoms recoil as they emit photons, just like a gun when it fires a bullet. This is one of the reasons that convinced me that photons DO have mass.

Tom

Prosoothus,

Photons can behave like that without mass, it just means that a photon bears a portion of electromagnetic frequency in it's makeup. This can explain how a photon can keep it's velocity.

It is claimed that photons have a rest mass of zero, which is slightly weird since they can never be stationary.

I thought they had mass related to kinetic energy, which would allow them to have momemtum & act like particles except when somebody tries to measure their wave properties, under which circumstances they act like waves.

Stryderunknown,

There are two ways to measure mass:

1. By it's gravitational effect
2. By it's inertial effect

If you were to test a photon using these two methods, you would find that photons qualify as mass.

1. Photons are effected by gravity because their paths curve as they pass massive objects.

2. Atoms recoil as they emit photons and photons exert a force on objects that they hit. Both of these effects prove that photons have inertia, which is the second property of mass.

Some people claim that photons have mass when they are traveling at c, but have no rest mass. Kind of a weird conclusion since no one has ever witnessed a photon at rest.

:bugeye:


I say if it looks like chicken, smells like chicken, and tastes like chicken, it's chicken.

If photons possess all the qualifications of mass, then they have mass.

Tom

"When photons are emmited, momentum is conserved. It has been found that atoms recoil as they emit photons, just like a gun when it fires a bullet. This is one of the reasons that convinced me that photons DO have mass."

no, it can't per relativity
for example the light emitted from a car whether it is moving or not, doesn't matter
light remains at the same speed when it is emitted from that car
but a photon does have momentum
a car that is moving has momentum
photons should take that momentum with them
nobody explains this (at least you tried)

the issue mass or no mass is just about rest mass only
recoiling would be caused by interial mass
it does not proof the rest mass though I have to follow you on the chicken issue :)

Stryderunknown

I was led to believe that, in darkness, the pupil dialates to take in more light to increase the ability to see at night. When an oncoming car with headlights approaches at night, then, I would think that the associated 'blindness' would be a result of a large amount of light entering the pupil due to the increased surface area, not due to the increased speed of the light because of the car's movement. But, that's just my opinion.



Chris

Tre,

The pupil does dilate, but I was mentioning that light blinds me more with moving vehicles. I could be standing in a flood-lit street and still be blinded by a car passing me.

Prosoothus,

If light had mass at rest, our universe would hardly have any space left.

If you were standing in a floodlit street, your eyes would be adapted to that level of light. At night with moving cars, your pupils are dilated and the light is a sudden effect, too much light pouring in before your pupils can contract.

My question about parallel universes is this: Take a look at a diagram explaining Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Space-time is depicted as a 3-d plane in which large masses create a 'dent', causing such things as gravitational orbits. I assume that a parallel universe would then exist outside of our space-time, in it's own plane - but, if that plane existed, would it have to be parallel to ours, or could that plane eventually intersect with the one that we are in? And what would occur at such an intersection?


And a final answer to the matter of light having mass:

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

p is momentum, so, when m=0, momentum still exists. Also, according to this law, mass and energy are just different forms of the same thing, so a photon does have mass at rest but not when it is pure energy (when it is moving at light speed).

The easiest way to explain universal quanta and parallels is Smale's Horseshoe.

Basically if a parallel is created from a timeline, at that instance the quanta of the two universes becomes 1/2 it once was. As a person existing in either of these universes you will notice no quanta change, but if you were standing from a multiworld perspective (In the universe that both parallels exist in) you would be able to see the differences as the universes diverge.

Now as I've mentioned before, if a parallel was created tomorrow from this universe, then that parallel would have existed before it's creation but not intersecting, it's intersection only occurs on it's creation and possibly for a while afterwards.

If two universes collide or intersect depending on how mellowdramatic you want to be, you might find that universal changes cause "Quanta spikes", where two atoms might be entangled differently while occupying the same space.

There is also the possibility that if a universe was to lose mass in comparison to a parallel that it would cause a gravitational Bump, where the now lighter in weight universe could be intersected with one of a higher weight.

(The above piece explains how Schrodinger's cat would exist in both an alive and dead state. It's alive self would be a universe with more weight than the dead self and this paradox would cause the dead universe to intersect with the live one and cause the cat to exist as a multiworld state.)

If you feel this wrong in anyway, please feel free to correct.

That would mean, essentially, that each universe would diverge so much that eventually nothing would exist in any of them - be it mass or whatever else. (?)

Also, I've done some research on light/photon nature, and I've learned that light always has a constant frequency, so even when the speed changes it is only the wavelength that will change. Hope that can spark a new train of thought on the issue...

Tre

Thanks for mentioning that, it allows me to point something I missed out.

When parallels are created they eventually diversion away from the their "Intersection". Now according to my belief of how the universe can be "split" again and again through quantum folds.

I neglected to mention that the universe itself is like the surface of water, where a universe is split it's like a circle of waves eminating from a point where a pebble is dropped.

At first the immediate problem is how you stated, but overtime the entrapy of the whole universe causes the preverbial water to become still again.

The only time something would disappear into nothing, would be if at the instance of the parallel split, it made multiples of parallels (in it's thousands) and all of them coincided with each other.

(Of course this could cause something to disappear, or on the otherhand burst into a bunch of flames depending on how their parallel quanta entangles.)

Yep. Might help to imagine that one is an ant crawling on the surface with the circle. The ant can’t “see” any difference when the diameter passes over the dip. H\owever the ant can measure that the diameter is longer than when the circle was flat.

Just as a two dimensional surface can curve in three-dimensional space, three-dimensional space can curve in higher dimensional spaces. The 3-D inhabitant may not notice the curvature as all the reference standards for “straight” such as light beams and rulers curve with the space. However certain measurements can show the space is curved.

Pi is measured using flat spaces, and by "dipping" the center of the circle, you are creating a dome. The circumference and diameter are still connected with 2piD =c because you are only using it to measure the flat base of the dome. In order to find the distance across over the hump, you would need to know the arc measure of the dome in relation to the sphere it was taken from and then use that in relation to the diameter of the sphere. I'm a sophomore in high school so if anything there sounds wrong please feel free to argue with me, but im confident that it is correct. :)

but a photon does have momentum
a car that is moving has momentum
photons should take that momentum with them
It does - just too little to make you feel a backlash every time you turn your headlights on ;)

Many scientists have been forced to say that they agree that light is electromagnetic.

I personally am willing to be easy-going and refuse to argue about spelang it "electro-magnetic".

I am too lazy to read all of the posts to this thread. Sorry if the following is redundant.

Why the speuclation about the laws & constants of physics being different in other universes, other eras, and/or in other locations in our universe?

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that the best point of view is to assume that the laws/constants are the same everywhere & everywhen.

Dinosaur, if you go back one page, you'll see that you have been participating in this thread a long time ago ;)

C'est moi: One page & over two years. I guess my long term memory is as bad or worse than my short term memory.