Einstein is wrong! Faster than light speed proved! [Archive]

mischief

Oct 4, 2002, 10:37 AM

This is where it gets ugly:

All objects, by definition of their substance have mass. The sticky bit is that objects are an illusion of frame rate..... that is: the only difference between an insubstantial photon and a "substantial" proton in terms of their substance is that (so to speak) a proton has a higher frame rate.

The only reason we continue to cling to particle theory is that a). it's easier to grasp the concept and b). we are limited to equipment that cannot observe continuously, with a high enough frame rate to isolate the standing oscillation that is commonly thought of as the "surface" of a SA particle.

With that said: If every standing oscillatory point that represents what we think of as SA "objects" has observable mass-interaction (gravitational presence) except the two least substantial than the logical conclusion is that those two are not exceptions but merely have unobservably slight mass. After all.... If photons had no mass they would not be effected by gravity.

The only conclusion is that the velocity/force/mass equation in E=mc^2 is fundamentally flawed because even with infinetessamally (sp?) small mass, acceleration to what is considered functionally infinite velocity would result in nearly infinite potential energy... BTW: Ever notice that E=mc^2 is just the Newtonian calculation for discovering the potential force-at-impact calculation for a given mass?

mischief

Oct 4, 2002, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Light does have mass. Everything that exists has mass. In fact, Scientists have just been able to measure distances at 10^-35, which is the smallest quanta possible. The reason why light moves so quickly is because it has so little mass-- anything else that is very light could be accelerated to similar speeds. However, gravity effects the laws of physics and time/space. It has been proven that a signal can be sent faster than the speed of light-- but that's not because a particle went from point A to point B by shooting it out of a cannon. It's because time/space was warped with immense magnets (to simulate gravitational effects) that altered the physical distance needed to travel. The signal, thusly, arrived BEFORE it was sent. On a large scale, Black holes allow for this time/space folding to occur. Think of it like a rubber band: if you compress the band the distance is short to travel around the circumference. The opposite is true if you stretch it. Yet, it is the same surface you are traveling on.

There is an excellent issue of Scientific American than discusses the concept of time. The whole issue is devoted to it. Should be on news stands now.

Signals can also be sent "faster than light" by way of sending them over a standing wave as a secondary, harmonic oscillation. The secondary signal is sympathetically generated in the reciever nearly instantly . Ask Duke about Tesla, NASA communications and standing-wave data transmission.;)

boom-boom

Oct 4, 2002, 04:25 PM

If light particles didn't have a mass then it would not be affected in a black hole and the hole would not be black.

e-coli

Oct 4, 2002, 04:41 PM

If light did have a mass, then it would, itself, disprove einstein's own theory. The baseline cannot disprove the theory it is the constant for.

light has no recordable mass. I don't know where you're reading this that light has a mass. That's the whole debate over light as a wave or as a particle. It exhibits properties of both. If it had mass, it would be a particle. A wave (e.g. a photon) has no mass. The substrate has the mass.

This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not used much today.

e-coli

Oct 4, 2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by boom-boom
If light particles didn't have a mass then it would not be affected in a black hole and the hole would not be black.

yes, that would be true, if light were a particle; which it isn't.

sturm375

Oct 4, 2002, 04:51 PM

If a beam of light is aimed at earth (speciffically you on earth). And at the time, earth is moving (relative to the light source) toward the light source. How fast is the light moving to you (the one the beam is aimed at)?

It all depends on your frame of referance. To the person "receiving" the beam of light, it appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light. However, an observer outside this system, would see that the light is moving at the normal 3.0*10^8 m/s (approx.).

Doctor Q

Oct 4, 2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Stike
For example, two clocks run synchronous. Bring one of them now into orbit, and one stays on earth. Later, the clocks show a difference, because the time in orbit proceeds slower. Hence a human living in orbit would live much longer COMPARED to the people on earth.

This effect has been demonstrated, but I think the word much is mistaken. I think the human living in orbit would live slightly longer.

scem0

Oct 4, 2002, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by medea
sorry to burst your bubble hvsfl, but if that were possible, then you would have already seen that happen in 1996......

Maybe it did happen, but the person from the future is now in an asylum because people don't believe him.... Doubtful but it could have happened..

madamimadam

Oct 4, 2002, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
If a beam of light is aimed at earth (speciffically you on earth). And at the time, earth is moving (relative to the light source) toward the light source. How fast is the light moving to you (the one the beam is aimed at)?

It all depends on your frame of referance. To the person "receiving" the beam of light, it appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light. However, an observer outside this system, would see that the light is moving at the normal 3.0*10^8 m/s (approx.).

I'd just be happy to be able to measure/track light with my naked eye
;) ;)

peter2002

Oct 5, 2002, 06:11 PM

Ok, I already. You think you are really smart? What is the speed dark? Ah hah!

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Peter

peter2002

Oct 5, 2002, 06:33 PM

Ok all your Nobel smarty pants. If there is really such things as black holes and that nothing can escape from a black hole than how did the Universe start? The Big Bang Theory must be false too since nothing can escape from a black hole. Even if there was a "big bang", the gravity around the first super black hole where everything started would have been so intense, the "big bang" would have sucked everthing back in a nanosecond.

Think about it.

Peter

Quark

Oct 5, 2002, 07:08 PM

#1. Light doesn't have mass. Light Doesn't Travel -- it is a constant, it is the "speed of space" that gives it the illusion of travelling.

#2. Before beginning a thread like this, be sure you know a little about the content.

#3. Einstein never said that travelling faster than the "speed of light" was impossible. He said accellerating mass to the "speed of light" was impossible.

#4. When referring to CNN reporting that Einstein was proven wrong, read the article. They say nothing even remotely close to that.

Now, back to mixing drinks for my "paying" customers, like Morn.

Quark

elfin buddy

Oct 5, 2002, 08:11 PM

sturm375:

Ummm....yeah it seems that your last post should be true, but I'm pretty sure I read that the speed of light is a constant everywhere. It is the same to all observers, regardless of whether you're moving at at 10 km/h or 1000000 km/h.

peter2002:

Geez....you're really bent on bringing down the scientific community, aren't you?

Who said the universe really ever started? Maybe it always existed, just in different states.

Normally, I would argue for the big bang, but I've had a long and tiring day so I don't really feel like digging up a bunch of information to give you an explanation. ;)

DarkNovaMatter

Oct 5, 2002, 08:57 PM

Quark is right on #3, Einstein never said going faster than light is inpossible- only accelrating a mass to the speed or near speed of light (nearing infinite energy or being infinite and the mass of an object when it increases in speed). There now thats out of the way, has anyone heard of the Higgs Boson? Its a theoretical particle that is thought to give mass or influence mass (for all you Trek people like me, think of a tractor beams graviton). The reasoning behind why photons have no mass is because the higgs particle (I think they explained it as a particle) hardly "socializes" with photons and other types of energy, while with matter and other items it "socializes" a lot. Might as well ad a link for the article

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,188294,00.html

madamimadam

Oct 5, 2002, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by peter2002
Ok all your Nobel smarty pants. If there is really such things as black holes and that nothing can escape from a black hole than how did the Universe start? The Big Bang Theory must be false too since nothing can escape from a black hole. Even if there was a "big bang", the gravity around the first super black hole where everything started would have been so intense, the "big bang" would have sucked everthing back in a nanosecond.

Think about it.

Peter

Sorry, I have COMPLETELY missed the link between the Big Bang and black holes

cleo

Oct 5, 2002, 09:58 PM

Um, guys, can we just lose the geek-talk and get back to what's really important - "traveling to distant stars to make love with hot babes like in Star Trek"?

:D :D :D

alex_ant

Oct 5, 2002, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by peter2002
Ok all your Nobel smarty pants. If there is really such things as black holes and that nothing can escape from a black hole than how did the Universe start? The Big Bang Theory must be false too since nothing can escape from a black hole. Even if there was a "big bang", the gravity around the first super black hole where everything started would have been so intense, the "big bang" would have sucked everthing back in a nanosecond.

Think about it.
OF COURSE! How could all current cosmologists have missed something so blindingly obvious?!?! Macrumors is home to one of the sharpest intellectuals since Einstein himself! Stop the presses! Rewrite the textbooks! Double Nobels to you for the sheer magnitude of your discovery, fine sir.

Durandal7

Oct 5, 2002, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by peter2002
Ok all your Nobel smarty pants. If there is really such things as black holes and that nothing can escape from a black hole than how did the Universe start? The Big Bang Theory must be false too since nothing can escape from a black hole. Even if there was a "big bang", the gravity around the first super black hole where everything started would have been so intense, the "big bang" would have sucked everthing back in a nanosecond.

Think about it.

The big bang created the Universe with such force that gravity could not slow it until several nanoseconds afterwards. Because of the enormous force exerted, by the time the Universe stopped expanding there was no longer a central point of matter and thus no central point to collapse back onto.

Zeke

Oct 5, 2002, 10:52 PM

This is in response to sturm375. The post about light looking faster when you're headed towards it is exactly wrong. The whole theory of special relativity came from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment which measured the speed of light from space every day for a year (which you could see would have the effect posted that earth would be moving into and away from the incoming light beam) but the whole apparent paradox was that it always moved relative to the observer at the constant speed of light 2.998E8 m/s. Up until you reach the speed of light, if someone shines a flashlight at you, the light you see coming towards you will be measureable at the speed of light. Time dilation is the effect of time changing with increased velocity. As far as the aging astronaut goes, you can calculate that an astronaut orbiting Earth for a year will only experience something like 1 second difference from a reference on earth. Relativistic effects don't become apparent until very large velocities on the order of the speed of light. We are never going to achieve the speed of light, it is impossible. Our hope of exploration lies in warp technology. Where is Zephram Cochran? Relativity says nothing about going through space, or connecting two normally distant points.

MacAztec

Oct 5, 2002, 11:45 PM

Well, I remember I was riding in the car one day, and my dad told me about something he read in Popular Science. I thought he said something like...in atoms, the gluons are always moving away from "xxx", but "xxx" is pulling them back, and the speed at which they are coming back is faster than the speed of light.

My dad also believes in other dimensions. He is pretty smart, and I don't understand alot of the stuff he says, but when I talk to him about it, he blows my mind.

And I DO believe it is possible to have some sort of Gravity Machine like in that one movie (kinda old but scary) where you can actually fold space. The guy says:

"Whats the fastest way from point A to point B?"

"A strait line?"

"No, you fold space and bla bla bla bla..."

Choppaface

Oct 6, 2002, 12:32 AM

since gravity waves propogate at the speed of light, it's possible to communcate with another body before you feel the effect of their mass?

beatle888

Oct 6, 2002, 01:31 AM

i never understood this stuff :( wish i did,
it sounds so cool. stephen hawkens (sp) couldn't
even explain it to me :)

vniow

Oct 6, 2002, 01:43 AM

I know how you feel beatle888.
The only post here I understood was cleo's.;)

shadowfax

Oct 6, 2002, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by sturm375
If a beam of light is aimed at earth (speciffically you on earth). And at the time, earth is moving (relative to the light source) toward the light source. How fast is the light moving to you (the one the beam is aimed at)?

i seem to recall from the 5 minutes we spent on relativity &c that light is constant no matter how you move as you perceive it. so, as you move, light appears to be going at its constant speed. now you stop completely (not possible i know, but let's say so for kicks). light still appears to be going the same speed, and it is. it's not like when you are on the highway, where if you drive 70 like everyone else, they all appear to not be moving at all, while the people on the other lane look like they are going at -140... light is so weird.

Choppaface

Oct 6, 2002, 01:52 AM

ya it moves at the same speed, but it changes color depending on what direction it's heading

scem0

Oct 6, 2002, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by cleo
Um, guys, can we just lose the geek-talk and get back to what's really important - "traveling to distant stars to make love with hot babes like in Star Trek"?

:D :D :D

Hot babes????? Ugly aliens.... With rinkles in their foreheads :D.

MacBandit

Oct 6, 2002, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Choppaface
since gravity waves propogate at the speed of light, it's possible to communcate with another body before you feel the effect of their mass?

You just hit on a theory I've been wanting to reasearch for the last few years. How do you know gravity travels at the speed of light. Know one has a way of measuring the speed of gravity from what I know. Also I think gravity is the ultimate power and some day if we learn to harness it will be the answer to all our problems.

Okay on the misguided theory of matter not being able to escape the original black hole. Well they have recently discovered that black holes can explode. It's like they take in too much matter too fast or something and they just go kabloooiiee.

To help everyone else out I think what he is thinking about with the original black hole and all is the time before the big bang. If you believe in the yo-yo universe theory in which all matter will come crashing back down you will understand at the middle of all this incoming matter must be a black hole.

scem0

Oct 6, 2002, 02:10 AM

It would make a really interesting movie. One about a black whole swallowing the universe. And for once it will be the geeks that save us!

boom-boom

Oct 6, 2002, 04:41 AM

Ok if the speed of light is a constant how come it changes direction when it enters a different medium? It is slowing down and when it exits it speeds up!

Choppaface

Oct 6, 2002, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

How do you know gravity travels at the speed of light.

so says one of my now favorite books, "The Search for Gravity Waves" by P.C.W. Davies
however its a 22 year old book so the info might be outdated (although in the context that it's presented it seems that they have research to back it up)
one thing I remember from the book is that in order to create 5 watts of gravitational power, you'd need these huge 30-odd meter long 1.5 meter diameter solid steel rods rotationg rather quickly, and you'd need like a few billion of them I think....in other words, gravity is pretty weak, so it's really hard to research the effects of gravity waves.

Ok if the speed of light is a constant how come it changes direction when it enters a different medium? It is slowing down and when it exits it speeds up!

when light hits molecules, the photons cause the electrons in the atoms to go through energy transitions. the electrons absorb the photon's energy, and then release as a photon, which then hits another atom, and another energy transition occurs, etc etc... basically the average speed of light decreases when it travels through a medium, but the speed of light is, as far as we know, constant. the light still travels at the same speed between the molecules, which is a vacuum; its just the electrons' energy transitions that take more time. at least that's how it's been explained to me....

sturm375

Oct 6, 2002, 08:02 AM

In my previous post, I believe some of you missed something. I did not mean to say that the beam of light would actually be travelling faster that light. It would appear to be traveling faster, only to the person being hit by the beam of light.

madamimadam

Oct 6, 2002, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Choppaface

when light hits molecules, the photons cause the electrons in the atoms to go through energy transitions. the electrons absorb the photon's energy, and then release as a photon, which then hits another atom, and another energy transition occurs, etc etc... basically the average speed of light decreases when it travels through a medium, but the speed of light is, as far as we know, constant. the light still travels at the same speed between the molecules, which is a vacuum; its just the electrons' energy transitions that take more time. at least that's how it's been explained to me....

If I remember my old physics references correctly, the speed of light is references as a speed "in a vacuum". It is not so much that the speed of light is a constant generally speaking but that it is a constant within a particular medium and since it is SO much easier to do studies when there are no error factors, studies are conducted in/based on a vacuum.

beatle888

Oct 6, 2002, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by edvniow
I know how you feel beatle888.
The only post here I understood was cleo's.;)

:p now that i understand :)

shadowfax

Oct 6, 2002, 12:39 PM

originally posted by Sturm375
In my previous post, I believe some of you missed something. I did not mean to say that the beam of light would actually be travelling faster that light. It would appear to be traveling faster, only to the person being hit by the beam of light.

that's exactly what i am responding to, sturm. no matter how fast you're going, light cannot even appear to move faster than light speed--no matter your reference, light speed appears to be going the same speed. that's what's so mind-boggling.

Doctor Q

Oct 6, 2002, 08:21 PM

That's funny. I thought the universe began on January 24, 1984 (http://www.redlightrunner.com/lib/redlightrunner/1984.mov).

madamimadam

Oct 6, 2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Q
That's funny. I thought the universe began on January 24, 1984 (http://www.redlightrunner.com/lib/redlightrunner/1984.mov).

No, no no, you've got it all wrong; that was life.

Get a life, get a mac.

mischief

Oct 7, 2002, 10:35 AM

Steven Hawking needs to get out more and so do the rest of you. Light doesn't have a speed. Light is more like a discharge than little thingys hurtling along.

The simple, comprehensive reason there is no observable speed greater than light is that "C" is the highest available speed for this Universe: that is, Because the physical components of our instruments all rely on "C" as the basis of their speed of observation they can't possibly be expected to observe anything quicker.

I return to my original arguement that the whole particle thing is a misconception. Particles are an illusion of persistence of vision compounded by the physical limitations on framerate of the equipment being used. Not to mention the fact that it's just more convenient to or simian brains to keep it all to "rock breaking" physics. :rolleyes:

alex_ant

Oct 7, 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by mischief
Steven Hawking needs to get out more and so do the rest of you. Light doesn't have a speed. Light is more like a discharge than little thingys hurtling along.
+1 bonus for mentioning "discharge" and "little thingys" in the same paragraph. :D

boom-boom

Oct 7, 2002, 11:39 AM

The speed of light like the speed of sound is stated in books as being in a certain environment eg in a vacuum or at room temp (what is the boiling point of water? 100 degrees celsius right!?! only at sea level and a particlular atmospheric pressure! same with light and sound)

alex_ant

Oct 7, 2002, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by boom-boom
The speed of light like the speed of sound is stated in books as being in a certain environment eg in a vacuum or at room temp (what is the boiling point of water? 100 degrees celsius right!?! only at sea level and a particlular atmospheric pressure! same with light and sound)
The boiling point of light and sound is 100 degrees celsius at sea level and 1 atm?!? Whoooooa there, you lost me on that!

boom-boom

Oct 7, 2002, 11:55 AM

Hey give me a ****ing break. It has been a long day and I don't speak English that well.

boom-boom

Oct 7, 2002, 11:56 AM

You DO know what I mean don't you?

alex_ant

Oct 7, 2002, 11:57 AM

Sorry. Smiley intended

mischief

Oct 7, 2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by boom-boom
You DO know what I mean don't you?

But it's not quite so finely sliced. Light's key factor isn't the local medium but the average (key) resonant frequency of spacetime in this universe . C represents the highest harmonic resonance possible derived from that key frequency. C isn't a speed so much as it's a resonance beyond which we have no possible way to measure because, by definition we would have to occupy a higher ambient-resonance universe to detect and observe it.:D

Is that clear?:)

madamimadam

Oct 7, 2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by mischief

But it's not quite so finely sliced. Light's key factor isn't the local medium but the average (key) resonant frequency of spacetime in this universe . C represents the highest harmonic resonance possible derived from that key frequency. C isn't a speed so much as it's a resonance beyond which we have no possible way to measure because, by definition we would have to occupy a higher ambient-resonance universe to detect and observe it.:D

Is that clear?:)

Yeah, as clear as my ability to work out my girlfirend
;)

madamimadam

Oct 7, 2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by mischief
higher ambient-resonance universe

????????????

I find this stuff SSSSSOOOOOOO interesting but I would be blown if I can understand it.

Durandal7

Oct 7, 2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by mischief
Not to mention the fact that it's just more convenient to or simian brains to keep it all to "rock breaking" physics. :rolleyes:

Particles are an illusion of persistence of vision compounded by the physical limitations on framerate of the equipment being used.
Heh, you just invented a new term mischief :D

The framerates on current equipment is horrific, in actuallity we have only rarely observed a single particle. The electron orbitals are moving at such a speed that atoms appear as spheres and nothing can image small enough to see individual photons or quarks. So we really don't know much anything.

mischief

Oct 8, 2002, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by madamimadam

Yeah, as clear as my ability to work out my girlfirend
;)

Stop trying to understand or please her and you will begin to see.;)

The more accomidating and whipped you become, the less appealing you will become.:confused: :rolleyes: :cool: ;)

Just be you. If she's being a pain in the ass, be honest.... she doesn't get to play the big headgames unless you've married her (plenty of women around bubba).;)

madamimadam

Oct 8, 2002, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by mischief

Stop trying to understand or please her and you will begin to see.;)

The more accomidating and whipped you become, the less appealing you will become.:confused: :rolleyes: :cool: ;)

Just be you. If she's being a pain in the ass, be honest.... she doesn't get to play the big headgames unless you've married her (plenty of women around bubba).;)

Thanks Mischief.... or should I say, Mr. Love God???
;)

I think I overexaggerated my post to help make a more humorous situation... I understand her... she is just crazy
;) ;) ;)

Durandal7

Oct 8, 2002, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by madamimadam

Thanks Mischief.... or should I say, Mr. Love God???
;)

That deserves a spot in your sig mischief. :p

elohim01

Oct 8, 2002, 06:54 PM

Sorry if someone has already stated this, but my inherient laziness prevents me from reading the entire thread.

Einstein's theory says absolutely NOTHING about things going faster than light. His theory neither proves nor disproves this ideal. It only states that nothing can accelerate faster than light.

madamimadam

Oct 8, 2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by elohim01
Sorry if someone has already stated this, but my inherient laziness prevents me from reading the entire thread.

Einstein's theory says absolutely NOTHING about things going faster than light. His theory neither proves nor disproves this ideal. It only states that nothing can accelerate faster than light.

Unfortunately, it has been said but that is ok because it gives me a chance to ask one of the questions I do not understand.

How can something travel faster than light if it never accelerates to that speed?

beatle888

Oct 8, 2002, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by mischief

I return to my original arguement that the whole particle thing is a misconception. Particles are an illusion of persistence of vision compounded by the physical limitations on framerate of the equipment being used. Not to mention the fact that it's just more convenient to or simian brains to keep it all to "rock breaking" physics. :rolleyes:

and you came across this information, how?

beatle888

Oct 8, 2002, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by mischief

Is that clear?:)

oh i understand that. thanks....but is it true?

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 10:57 AM

RE: Accelleration. Light doesn't accelerate. It doesn't really travel per se either. It just kind of is. I'm not particularly awake this morning..... Perhaps Duke can expound on this one for me...

RE: How I came upon this information. I am one of those freaky people that collects data and is constantly comparing new data to the existing catagorical set to determine where the paradoxes in logic are. I came to the conclusion a while back that there is ZERO good, direct science to prove Particle over Resonance theories. I also feel that the "best evidence" for Particle Theory is inconclusive in disproving Resonance theory because you get exactly the same results if you use a standing-wave resonance in place of each "particle". Resonance theory actually fills in a number of holes: SAP "decay" and Heisenberg for example.

RE: Truth. It's true for me. Due to relativity, relativism and web-time/perspective-based Universe theory U could believe the whole Universe is Tomato-based and function fully on that theory with no problems if you fully believed in the model.;)

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 11:48 AM

I have no idea why light doesn't accelerate, but there has been some talk recently of light actually slowing down (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp) over the course of the history of the universe - which would seen to indicate that its not a physical property, but something else.

And when you start dealing with Quatum Physics it really gets frustrating, because its not really intuitive.

"Any one who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not fully understood it." Niels Bohr

"The more success the quantum theory has the sillier it looks." Einstein

"If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science." Albert Einstein

"I think I can safely sat that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
I have no idea why light doesn't accelerate, but there has been some talk recently of light actually slowing down (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp) over the course of the history of the universe - which would seen to indicate that its not a physical property, but something else.

And when you start dealing with Quatum Physics it really gets frustrating, because its not really intuitive.

That's exactly why I decided that for my own drive to have a sensible personal model for the Universe I had to "dump" quantum theory entirely in favor of revised resonance theory.

BTW: there's another possibility that's being ignored: Light isn't slowing down.... the local ambient resonance is speeding up. More energy coming in through stars than going out through black holes creating a higher "top end". If this is the case we may observe something faster than light soon. Call it "hyper light" if you like.

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 12:36 PM

Well, I'm glad you have your own theory - don't know if I agree with it or not. But I do know that we're far from understanding what the hell is going on. We're just making observations, basically, and trying to classify them. And with Quantum theory, well, making an observation sort of works against you.

If the speed of light is slowing down, what other 'constants' can change with it? Imagine if PI was something different......

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 12:48 PM

The assumption that physics is uniform and homogenous over all of creation is only that: an assumption.

It would invalidate Astronomy as a science if it were commonly accepted that they're making their theories up based on an arbitrary assumption. Therefore nobody has bothered to mention that they're basically stretched so thin with theories based on theories that essentially they don't know dick about what a given star is doing or made of except that it's x colour and has y elemental bands present (which could be caused by matter in inter-stellar space mind you!).

I just threw up my hands at one point after cross-examining my Astronomy prof. and decided to go back to Newton and seek other Data to try to piece together a theory that wasn't just a hodgepodge of ego-based patches to a decaying model.

Quark

Oct 9, 2002, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by elohim01
Einstein's theory says absolutely NOTHING about things going faster than light. His theory neither proves nor disproves this ideal. It only states that nothing can accelerate faster than light.
First sentence in this Quote is true.

Second sentence, you're missing a basic understanding of what a "theory" is -- theories, neither prove nor disprove. Once proven or disproven, it is no longer a theory.

Third sentence is absolutely false. His theory did NOT state that nothing can accelerate faster than light. It stated that nothing can accelerate up to the "speed of light".

Quark

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by mischief
The assumption that physics is uniform and homogenous over all of creation is only that: an assumption.

I just threw up my hands at one point after cross-examining my Astronomy prof. and decided to go back to Newton and seek other Data to try to piece together a theory that wasn't just a hodgepodge of ego-based patches to a decaying model.

Well, I wouldn't throw it all out. And its also *assumed* the physics at the beginning of the universe was quite different during the first part of the big bang - but again, like you said, its all assumption. One of the great things about the new telescope going up is that its going to be able to see even fainter and farther objects, which means older. I'm sure many theories will see some reworking after the NGT goes up.

D

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 01:04 PM

All it's saying is that if anything accelerated even close to the speed of light with more than essentially no mass-at-rest it's force-at-impact with anything else with measureable mass would be astronomical.

In a situation where there's nothing to impact (in a VIOD) U could accelerate whole planets to near-C...... you just couldn't bring them out of said VOID without a tremendous exchange of energy.

This is a theory behind Hyperspace as a concept.

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet

Well, I wouldn't throw it all out. And its also *assumed* the physics at the beginning of the universe was quite different during the first part of the big bang - but again, like you said, its all assumption. One of the great things about the new telescope going up is that its going to be able to see even fainter and farther objects, which means older. I'm sure many theories will see some reworking after the NGT goes up.

D

I've not exactly thrown out ALL of quantum Physics, I've just found a model that eliminates the erratta. I also hold the belief that the Big Bang theory is CRAP. I believe in a homeostatic, dynamic, Infinite-time model wherin there is no beginning or end to time.

In this model the Universe (and many others besides) exist in a constant state of inter-creation in which conservation of energy exists at an extremely large multi-dimensional level allowing for individual Universes to exchange tremendous mass and energy while maintaining homeostasis over the whole system. With an effectively infinite number of Universes this process can get quite exaggerated.

I always figured that the Big Bang theory was more a reaction of Victorian Protestant scientists needing to fill the psychological hole in their finite minds left by Biblical creation than actual good science.

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 01:22 PM

Well, if you think about it, a big bang works a quite a few levels - even yours to a certain point. Considering that there is more than one universe (multiverse), then there might be ways for the different universes to be connected or held within a higher dimensional uber-universe.

Ours came into exsistance and time started, for us. But that would be outside the context of other the universes.

And as for blackholes and wormholes, that opens up all sorts of other questions.

D

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
Well, if you think about it, a big bang works a quite a few levels - even yours to a certain point. Considering that there is more than one universe (multiverse), then there might be ways for the different universes to be connected or held within a higher dimensional uber-universe.

Ours came into exsistance and time started, for us. But that would be outside the context of other the universes.

And as for blackholes and wormholes, that opens up all sorts of other questions.

D

In a "foamy" multiverse that holds water..... where Universes pop in and out dynamically. I just take exception to there being a hard-and-fast start point. I find it rather egotistical for physicists to say: "The Universe is x# of years old". Particularly the idea that it'll all come crashing back at some point.

As to Wormhole/Black hole. Have you seen the "diehold" theory?

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by mischief

In a "foamy" multiverse that holds water..... where Universes pop in and out dynamically. I just take exception to there being a hard-and-fast start point. I find it rather egotistical for physicists to say: "The Universe is x# of years old". Particularly the idea that it'll all come crashing back at some point.

As to Wormhole/Black hole. Have you seen the "diehold" theory?

Haven't seen that theory - actually have read too much about this in a while.

The fun thing with the age of the universe is that they're using the speed of light as a constant to measure it - which if it isn't a constant and changes over time sort of flushes all estimates down the toilet. Even with the big bang, time at the beginning of the universe really isn't something you can practically calculate.

National Geo had a great article about this and the current trend in theories that there won't be a big crunch - that everything will keep getting farther and farther apart and eventually entropy will rule and the universe will be left will black holes and basic particals. Only thing is it will take 100s of billions or trillions of years. Too large a number to even contemplate.

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 02:39 PM

Okay. I'll assume that you get the "average ambient resonance" bit so I'll expand on it a bit:

If observations suggest that the speed of light is getting slower than perhaps it's not that light is slowing down but that the universe is resonating faster and us along with it? this would create the illusion of accelerated universal entropy while creating potential velocities greater than that of C. This would also make the potential energy of light proportionately less over time as higher relative energy levels saturate Timespace.

The Diehold model has 1 major flaw. The guy who came up with it is nuts. He claims to have been a USAF pilot flying experimental craft commonly called UFO's. :rolleyes:

Basically it states that the current model of Fusion based stars has some fundamental mathematical flaws: namely that there's not enough energy available and Stars would burn out too fast.

The Diehold is a concept wherby each mass is a point of manifestation... a point of entry for both spacetime and energy. The largest of these points are the celestial bodies, all of which are the "parent" points of the associated smaller ones which exist as both echoes and eddies in relation to the bigger ones.The smallest are individual atoms which exist as standing waves that oscillate at their elemental frequency (see also Atomic Weight).

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 03:20 PM

Ah, one thing I'm not sure you're getting - the speed of light changes, but its universally done at the same time - so a photon created 5 billion years ago doesn't end up with a speed fast than the current speed of C, its just slowed down itself. So nothing is going faster and we're not perceiving things different.

It was all determined by looking at Quasars and very, very distant objects.

Which if it has anything to do with 'resonance' would make sense, since it would cause even more problems if you had light travelling at different speeds - that would be a mind blower.

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 04:29 PM

This is what I get for posting while on the phone....:D ;)

I was kinda thinking aloud. Of course it would all change at once but for light already generated...... kind of a universal redshift if U like.... But consider the ramifications of even being able to make that observation. It implies that C is a constant only relevant to any given moment if you're looking from a big enough scale and that implies that the "potential" or energy threshhold of the universe is changeing. Hmmm....... I suppose the most directly effected principal would be entropy. Cuz if it's a change in fundamentals and not just that the light slowed down because it was succumbing to entropy......:eek:

Gandalf

Oct 9, 2002, 05:18 PM

Have you ever considered the Intelligent Design theory? :rolleyes:

mischief

Oct 9, 2002, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf
Have you ever considered the Intelligent Design theory? :rolleyes:

I've considered the "God's on Peyote and we're just observing His hollucination from the inside, each as a POV for the Almighty tripper" Theory.;) :D :rolleyes:

Durandal7

Oct 9, 2002, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf
Have you ever considered the Intelligent Design theory? :rolleyes:
I don't see any relevance. The big bang and physics fit in with the intelligent design theory.

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf
Have you ever considered the Intelligent Design theory? :rolleyes:

Well considering its complexity and how every bit we figure out pretty much makes us ask more questions, maybe you'd be better off calling it the Super Intelligent Design theory. I don't think there's much of an argument about this aspect of it.

I'm still blown away by the awesomeness of it all just by sitting on my back on a cloudless night and looking up into the sky at the stars and Milkyway.

D :D

MrMacMan

Oct 9, 2002, 06:13 PM

Nothing execpt time is a constant, and which time always loops into itself time is never a constant, if I get the theory correct. :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson

Oct 9, 2002, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
Nothing execpt time is a constant, and which time always loops into itself time is never a constant, if I get the theory correct. :rolleyes:

ah, if you ever go really fast, say fractions of C, you'll be experiencing time in a different context - even the Russian Cosmonaut that spent the record setting year+ in space time travelled a second or two into the future compaired to the rest of us on the planet.

So time can't be used as a constant because of its relativistic nature.

000111one111000

Oct 9, 2002, 11:32 PM

I think it was 60 Minutes I was watching, but, some physicist (forget his name) has basically found out that the universe isn't slowing down at all, it's actually speeding up.

So, that kinda rewrites the big bang theory. Not the whole theory obviously, but just the part about everything crashing back in the middle eventually.

Enoch

Durandal7

Oct 10, 2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by 000111one111000
I think it was 60 Minutes I was watching, but, some physicist (forget his name) has basically found out that the universe isn't slowing down at all, it's actually speeding up.

So, that kinda rewrites the big bang theory. Not the whole theory obviously, but just the part about everything crashing back in the middle eventually.

Enoch
It's been known for a long time that the universe is accelerating. There have been theories on both sides that take this into account. The "Big Crunch" theory was never actually part of the Big Bang theory in the first place either.

Mr. Anderson

Oct 10, 2002, 08:54 AM

The idea has been around for at least 20 years - I couldn't find the original article where I read about it, but here's a good one.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0425_020425_universe.html

I had forgotten that if a blackhole is given enough time, it too will evaporate - weird, eh? So after trillions of years, there isn't going to be anything in the universe - scary and quite anti-climactic...

D

mischief

Oct 10, 2002, 11:48 AM

If the speed of light is increasing and we know that older light from more distant sources is slower, does it not corrolate that it would also have a lower frequency (redshift) relative to the observer? Thus the expansion model loses integrity to the model above..... and mine. ;) :D

Gravity

Oct 10, 2002, 02:38 PM

Okay, call this a "hypothesis." Theory suggests peer reviewed papers and doctoral theses. I've neither!

Basically, I see all quantum particles (quarks, etc.) being comprised of smaller, coiled strings of "singularities". I term these strings "gravitons." Everything in nature (matter & energy) breaks down to these coiled strings. As a quantum particle moves through space, it sheds these coiled strings toward its direction of travel.

The gravitons travel outward, at the speed of light until they meet with a remote object. When a graviton meets another quark, it "uncoils" behind the quark, giving it a small PUSH toward its vector of origin. This used, uncoiled string then becomes a permanent piece of the fabric of space. (Space itself is a frothy, rolling foam of singularities.) The process of Gravity, then, is responsible for the expansion of the universe.

Everything sheds gravitons...even energy (photons, etc.). So yes, energy itself decays...it's just that theoretical physics doesn't have a model like this yet...nor has this effect been observed in a laboratory. It takes so long that conservation of energy APPEARS to be absolute to us. It is not. Everything will die out, eventually. We are like icebergs melting in a vast ocean.

This model support general relativity, but not any notions of time travel to the past. I believe superluminal flight will one day exist, but not until we conquer inertia (mass).

MrMacMan

Oct 10, 2002, 04:52 PM

NEW THEORY: You will never understand what the universe is intill it folds into it self such as a universal black hole will such everything and anything up which will happen in an expanding universal trend which basically means you need to undstand that everything is a loop and that time will repeat itself, too bad the in doing so the theory is flawed because it doesn't execpt that there will be another 'big bang' in which the universe is made and before that happened it was sucked up in a huge black hole like object.
Oh yes Since Black Hole are made of I belive 'dark matter' that goes faster than the speed of light hence sucking everything into it and releasing it or destroying it sending it to _____ .
Ah Another GREAT THEORY WITH 110000000 flaws.

And you understand that I understand this and I'm only in mostly regular classes for 9th grade. :eek: :eek:

mischief

Oct 10, 2002, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
NEW THEORY: You will never understand what the universe is intill it folds into it self ........

And you understand that I understand this and I'm only in mostly regular classes for 9th grade. :eek: :eek:

Well kiddo. I understand MY universe JUST FINE. If yours is more fatalistic I advise you get therapy.;) :rolleyes:

Gravity

Oct 10, 2002, 05:54 PM

The universe's expansion has already been proven to be accelerating...and considering its present age, this is proof that it will expand forever...until it is extinguished. It is NOT going to collapse in on itself, and time is not "looping."

Time is measured (on the quantum level) by the expansion of gravitons into spatial fabric. That is the ONLY engine that drives everything in the universe. Ultimately, everything that happens breaks down to the processes of quantum gravity.

When all the matter and all the energy in the universe has completed "melting" into spatial fabric (a loose soup of singularities), then that's it. No time will exist. Why no time? Nothing will exist to measure it. That's exactly the same thing as NO TIME.

Gravity

Gelfin

Oct 10, 2002, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by mischief
If the speed of light is increasing and we know that older light from more distant sources is slower, does it not corrolate that it would also have a lower frequency (redshift) relative to the observer? Thus the expansion model loses integrity to the model above..... and mine. ;) :D

Er, evidence suggests the speed of light is decreasing over time rather than increasing. The rate of expansion of the universe is what's increasing, and some findings have suggested the reason to be that the value of G, the universal gravitational constant, which is the value that relates mass and distance to gravitational force, is decreasing. If this is the case, the expansion of the universe is accelerating because over time things are relatively less massive.

And with regard to your redshift speculation, you've misunderstood the findings. The value of c is still a constant at any given time. There is no such thing as "old light" from quasars that arrives at Earth traveling slower than photons generated from our own sun. All light everywhere in the universe still has the same base velocity at any given moment, no matter its origin. Photons generated in the sun were traveling at c when they were generated, and c when they strike the Earth. Photons generated in quasars are traveling at c when they strike the earth, but when they were generated they were traveling at c' where c' > c. At that time every other photon light was traveling at c' as well. Besides which, the velocity of light has nothing to do with its color (wavelength). Doppler shifts are a separate phenomenon which would happen independently of the velocity of light. A higher value of c just means that photons at a particular wavelength would be more energetic (have a higher frequency) than they do currently.

The interesting thing is that, whenever data suggest that the speed of light isn't cast in stone, everyone leaps to say that Einstein was wrong and that E=mc^2 is falling apart and such. But this isn't necessarily the case. The universe is a closed, conservative system. At the bottom line, there is a constant value of E for the whole universe, which, if there was in fact a single creation event, must be equal to the total energy released in that event. The velocity of light is therefore inextricably linked to what proportion of the total energy of the universe is tied up in forms which exhibit mass. In short, you have a bunch of variables which change over time at different rates, but which are related to each other, and if you could come up with the single really nasty differential equation that relates them all, you'd be a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize, you know, because you would have come up with the Grand Unified Theory.

mischief

Oct 10, 2002, 06:47 PM

If you go back through the thread you'll find a number of observational instances that blow some holes in it.

Not to mention the premise that led me away from conventional physics: Namely the KISS principal. If a Theory has to get more complex after every observation than the theory is fundamentally flawed.

I have no issue with Einstein, HIS stuff works OK, I take issue with the "scientists" that came after him and perverted a simple equation of potential energy into a commanding Law of the Universe. When so many people base ALL their observations on ONE equation and assume that NONE of the variables in it are, in fact VARIABLES their work is only as valid as those variables at their supposed value. The beauty of E=mc^2 is that it's simple and flexible by only presuming the relation of the parts presented.Grrr..

I also take issue with people like YOU who act as if it's all not only true but infallible. The FIRST rule of bringing science and philosophy together for **** like this is to keep in mind that the theories only present a model. That model must be continuously revised TO IT"S CORE to mesh with new data. Until somebody comes up with an idea that literally creates another universe in the act of presenting the theory IT"S ALL SUPPOSITION. The only wrong thing to say in these discussions is "you're wrong" because none of us really know.:p

Okay, end of rant.....;)

Gelfin

Oct 10, 2002, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by mischief
I also take issue with people like YOU who act as if it's all not only true but infallible.

I missed the part where I did that, or anything like that.

Until somebody comes up with an idea that literally creates another universe in the act of presenting the theory IT"S ALL SUPPOSITION. The only wrong thing to say in these discussions is "you're wrong" because none of us really know.:p

Well, I certainly can say you're wrong if you make claims that do not jibe with the facts in evidence. In fact, I probably wouldn't say the former. I would say the latter, and the former would just be implied.

And I don't know exactly where you get this fanciful notion of an idea that "literally creates another universe." Well, that's never going to happen any more than imagining a really comfy recliner will cause one to suddenly pop into existence. You're making a classic appeal to ignorance, claiming that since the knowledge provided by the scientific community is not absolute, that there is some intellectual equivalency between their research and whatever flight of fancy you have selected. Many of your conclusions read to me as being more mystical than scientific, and if you're upset that your beliefs are being questioned, then you probably shouldn't have phrased them as science.

I mean, I didn't want to turn this into an adversarial thing, but when it comes down to it, here's what I see:

On the one hand:
OBSERVATIONAL DATA => SCIENTISTS => CONCLUSION

On the other hand:
OBSERVATIONAL DATA => SCIENTISTS => JOURNALS => POP SCIENCE MEDIA => MISCHIEF => CONCLUSION

Science being a pursuit involving the creation of theories that satisfy as much available data as possible, I'm far more likely to believe the first conclusion than the second, which depends upon taking watered down expressions of the first conclusion and on that basis declaring the first conclusion wrong, then stating a different conclusion which does not even jibe with the small subset of observational data available to you. The direction you are taking is not physics, but metaphysics.

diorio

Oct 11, 2002, 08:40 AM

Wow this thread is going up in smoke.

mischief

Oct 11, 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Gelfin

Well, I certainly can say you're wrong if you make claims that do not jibe with the facts in evidence. In fact, I probably wouldn't say the former. I would say the latter, and the former would just be implied.

And I don't know exactly where you get this fanciful notion of an idea that "literally creates another universe." Well, that's never going to happen any more than imagining a really comfy recliner will cause one to suddenly pop into existence. You're making a classic appeal to ignorance, claiming that since the knowledge provided by the scientific community is not absolute, that there is some intellectual equivalency between their research and whatever flight of fancy you have selected. Many of your conclusions read to me as being more mystical than scientific, and if you're upset that your beliefs are being questioned, then you probably shouldn't have phrased them as science.

I mean, I didn't want to turn this into an adversarial thing, but when it comes down to it, here's what I see:

On the one hand:
OBSERVATIONAL DATA => SCIENTISTS => CONCLUSION

On the other hand:
OBSERVATIONAL DATA => SCIENTISTS => JOURNALS => POP SCIENCE MEDIA => MISCHIEF => CONCLUSION

Science being a pursuit involving the creation of theories that satisfy as much available data as possible, I'm far more likely to believe the first conclusion than the second, which depends upon taking watered down expressions of the first conclusion and on that basis declaring the first conclusion wrong, then stating a different conclusion which does not even jibe with the small subset of observational data available to you. The direction you are taking is not physics, but metaphysics.

Okay. I'll make it less adversarial for you. I feel that the current model is too complex and contradictory to survive. Like the original Crystal Spheres model that was clung to until the end of the Catholic stranglehold on belief this model has gained complexity to explain it's shortcomings. That is a warning flag. If a model has to gain an ever increasing number of exceptions and highly bizzarre arcanum to cover the observational evidence that would otherwise challenge some more fundamental piece of the theory, it's time to step back and re-examine the fundamentals.

I've been discussing this with Duke on and off for a year now and I have been sniffing around new data as I find it and I've been attempting to keep up with the accepted model for about ten years. What I've noticed is that common sense has very little to do with what the academic community does with new data. It's like watching the Cardinals madly babbling to each other in Rome about Galileo's new Data being just another of God's mysteries rather than stepping back and asking "so what has to give?".

I have 2 sets of beliefs. I have my scientific model which is based on resonance and inter-dementional crossflow of energy, and I have a Spiritual model based on Observational Manifestation. I have specifically AVOIDED cross-seeding the two in my own mind though I have argued both here depending on the spin of the post I was responding to which is understandably confusing.

My fundamental problem with the existing model is the people interpreting the data. Rather than attempting to resolve logical Newtonian physics with the new evidence to extract a better model for the extremes of scale (large or small) there is a strong tendency to just amend a pet theory and tack it onto ideas that are not only outdated but quaint and based on hypotheses put foreward by much more intelligent and insightful minds.

Einstein made a beautifully simple observation. He observed that the potential energy of even a very small mass travelling at extreme velocities was astronomical. He made some excellent insights in regards to velocity and time. But he also said many times that the theory was not complete and observed that a Unified Theory would take a leap of insight he was unable to make. This means that any hypotheses based on these two observations must not use them to the exclusion of previous observation-based physics like Newton's set but must be somewhat superceded by the older set because they are more complete and more proven.

This was not the course chosen by the scientific community. They chose instead to write off older observations in pursuit of lucrative government (often millitary) contracts. Their model works OK for designing essentially brutally crude devices like Atomic bombs and particle accellerators but it has failed to produce the leaps in technology so many minds should be able to produce if the level of understanding claimed is functionally correct. Show me Fusion outside a Bomb and outside a Star where, I might add it can't really be observed and I'll be less critical.

Most advances in technology and therefore society have not come from academic physics but from application of electrical engineering, the Quantum equivalent of plumbing for chrissakes!! If it's obviously the technicians and not the researchers learning anything useful WHAT DOES THAT SAY????!!!?!?!??!

Einstein was the last Physicist I can think of that had a theory that produced any actual results that changed technology and how we interact with the universe. He's been turned into the poor schmoe that M$ bought DOS from. That's right you're defending M$ Universe..... 6 Billion lines of code and a very bad interface.

Cappy

Oct 11, 2002, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by diorio
Wow this thread is going up in smoke.

Yes, but do we really know what the speed of expelling smoke upwards is? ;)

I will say that this has been an interesting and entertaining thread to read.

It's been years since I've studied physics and essentially have forgotten much of it but from what I recall acceleration is a measurement of the change of velocity. Knowing this and the fact(until disproven) that light moves at a constant speed, shouldn't that mean that light has an acceleration of zero?

mischief

Oct 11, 2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Cappy

Yes, but do we really know what the speed of expelling smoke upwards is? ;)

I will say that this has been an interesting and entertaining thread to read.

It's been years since I've studied physics and essentially have forgotten much of it but from what I recall acceleration is a measurement of the change of velocity. Knowing this and the fact(until disproven) that light moves at a constant speed, shouldn't that mean that light has an acceleration of zero?

Several things are assumed: That light is a travelling particulate, that light has a constant velocity, that gravitational FX have no effect on said velocity and that over extreme distances there is no effect on light by entropy.

One would think that in order for something to have velocity it must, at some point have accellerated. Modern physics academics will tell you that Photons are generated from the release of energy in the change of energy level of an electron and that this reaction generates photons that have instant velocity inherent in their generation.

Has anyone stopped to calculate the exponential nature of that supposed reaction considering that a very large number of particulate photons must be generated to explain the wave-like diffusion of observably generated light from such an event?

Would not then the photons at some point also be far enough apart that from some angle at a large enough distance the event would be unobservable?

I'm not questioning the relation of release of energy from an atom corrolating to the generation of light. I'm questioning the physical format given to photons as I have seen it explained.

mischief

Oct 11, 2002, 12:47 PM

A quick potshot to jumpstart a slowed thread:

Steven Hawking is the Bill Gates of Physics.

Flame away......:D

sturm375

Oct 11, 2002, 01:52 PM

Mind you I am not a scientist, although I had asperations at one time.

What if photons (packets of energy) were like white light(consists of all the EM Spectrum), and when these photons strike an object (electron, proton, quark), that object vibrates (for lack of a better word) forming the wave lengths we observe as different colors/X-Rays/Gamma Rays etc.

Seeing as how in order to observe light, it must react with something. This would make it very hard to "see" the photons

BTW, speaking of Popular Science, I remember reading that they had actually stopped light, then re-started it. Essentially creating a "Light Capacitor"

They used two lasers, 90 degrees from each other. Shown the primary through a bose-something-or-other gas, while shining the other at the same gas. While the secondary laser was on, the primary laser continued through the gas. They then turned the secondary laser off, the primary laser no longer penatrated the gas. Turned the Primary laser off, then while the primary laser was off, turned the secondary laser on again. The primary beam, which presumably had been stored in the gas, resumed it's path. If this technology is refined, we might soon see a light based computer, instead of electrons. Smaller, cooler chips, and circuits.

Cool Stuff:)

diorio

Oct 11, 2002, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by mischief

Several things are assumed: That light is a travelling particulate, that light has a constant velocity, that gravitational FX have no effect on said velocity and that over extreme distances there is no effect on light by entropy.

First of all, you know a heck of a lot about chemistry/physics, second of all, as far as I know light travels constant at 3 X 10^8 m/s. Other than that, you lost me.

sturm375

Oct 11, 2002, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by diorio

First of all, you know a heck of a lot about chemistry/physics, second of all, as far as I know light travels constant at 3 X 10^8 m/s. Other than that, you lost me.

3.0x10^8 m/s is in a vacuum only. The prisim effect can be explained by light slowing down as it enters a new medium (air->crystal). Also gravity can bend light like with a black hole.

diorio

Oct 11, 2002, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

3.0x10^8 m/s is in a vacuum only. The prisim effect can be explained by light slowing down as it enters a new medium (air->crystal). Also gravity can bend light like with a black hole.

Would any of those involve the entropy he was talking about?

sturm375

Oct 11, 2002, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by diorio

Would any of those involve the entropy he was talking about?

I don't think so:

en·tro·py Pronunciation Key (ntr-p)
n. pl. en·tro·pies

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

From www.dictionary.com

The observations I noted before are orderly, and repeatable, I don't think you can attribute it to entropy.

mischief

Oct 11, 2002, 03:34 PM

If you are referring to the refraction of white light into spectra it's not so much slowing light down as bending and "fanning"the light out as it passes through the regular silicate structure and oblique facets of the prism. Higher frequencies take on a differing angle of refraction than lower frequencies and so U get a spectrum layed out along the axis of refraction defined by the 2 facets involved.

IE: white light is a composite and by bending it just right you can lay all it's component colour/frequencies out.

No single object other than something extremely massive would have a lensing effect and gravitational influence strong enough to effect entropy upon a beam of light. Assuming that gravitational influence implies mass and mass implies being subject to entropy.

Cappy

Oct 11, 2002, 04:21 PM

Frankly I keep hearing people refer to gravity affecting light thus possibly slowing it. It is apparent that we do not fully understand how all of this works because it seems that many people here are drawing up these ideas based on tangible experience with gravity in the physical world as they know it. With gravity essentially being energy(very weak energy at that actually) I see no reason to suspect that gravity would affect light in the exact same manner that gravity affects tangible physical objects.

My guess is that as scientists begin better understanding how gravity and light really work that we're going to find that they interact on other levels not yet detected.

samiam

Oct 11, 2002, 04:38 PM

"Velocities greater than that of light have -- as in our previous results -- no possibility of existence." A. Einstein, in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905.

Sorry Trekkies. You can cling to the hope of warp speed, but not to the fiction that Einstein never denied the possibility.

I love the argument Trekkies use for the inevitability of warp speed: experts were wrong about breaking the sound barrier too. By this argument, denying the possibility of something, automatically makes it possible. So if experts say it's impossible to make something immovable, then it must be possible, or perhaps it must be movable... this is enough to make Kirk's computer go up in a puff of infinitely looping smoke...

=======

Photons have zero rest mass, although they have energy and momentum. Light is bent by gravity because gravity warps space-time, just like an accelerating reference frame does -- the equivalence principle.

==========

Did someone say no physicist since Einstein has contributed to technology? Look up the inventors of the transistor and the laser, if you've heard of these technologies. All physicists. BTW, what technology did Einstein contribute to. (OK, his work on stimulated emission was pivotal to the much later development of the laser.)

mischief

Oct 11, 2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by samiam
"Velocities greater than that of light have -- as in our previous results -- no possibility of existence." A. Einstein, in "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905.

Sorry Trekkies. You can cling to the hope of warp speed, but not to the fiction that Einstein never denied the possibility.

I love the argument Trekkies use for the inevitability of warp speed: experts were wrong about breaking the sound barrier too. By this argument, denying the possibility of something, automatically makes it possible. So if experts say it's impossible to make something immovable, then it must be possible, or perhaps it must be movable... this is enough to make Kirk's computer go up in a puff of infinitely looping smoke...

=======

Photons have zero rest mass, although they have energy and momentum. Light is bent by gravity because gravity warps space-time, just like an accelerating reference frame does -- the equivalence principle.

==========

Did someone say no physicist since Einstein has contributed to technology? Look up the inventors of the transistor and the laser, if you've heard of these technologies. All physicists. BTW, what technology did Einstein contribute to. (OK, his work on stimulated emission was pivotal to the much later development of the laser.)

The Transistor was reinvented by a physicist. It was originally called a "Germanium valve" which is accredited to Nikola Tesla.

The LASER is basically a matter of linear compression and somebody would have figured it out just by refining optics sooner or later. Perhaps I should have qualified that no Academic Physicist has contributed to technology since Einstein.

As to assuming anyone here who questions the conventional theory is a Trekkie disputing FTL: Think again. FTL is not feasable, (possible or not) just on conservation of energy principals. U can't possibly carry enough fuel to even approach C let alone PASS it.

Photons have zero mass at rest because they are never at rest. Has a photon ever been observed at rest?

Now back to my original point: Has the evolution of Quantum Physics resulted in anything useful other than Tennure for a few thousand Professors and the construction of a few very expensive labs? Not to my knowldege.

sturm375

Oct 11, 2002, 04:53 PM

Durandal7

Oct 11, 2002, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by samiam
Sorry Trekkies. You can cling to the hope of warp speed, but not to the fiction that Einstein never denied the possibility.

I love the argument Trekkies use for the inevitability of warp speed: experts were wrong about breaking the sound barrier too. By this argument, denying the possibility of something, automatically makes it possible. So if experts say it's impossible to make something immovable, then it must be possible, or perhaps it must be movable... this is enough to make Kirk's computer go up in a puff of infinitely looping smoke...

Actually Warp Drives are supposed to operate on a concept similar to the "hyperspace" mentioned above. Only difference is that Star Trek has portable generators and calls it "subspace"

benixau

Oct 12, 2002, 10:20 AM

actual FTL wont happen because you need infinite energy to move infinite mass.

Folding of space may. To do so requires only an imense gravitational force to affect the curvature of space. Ok, given that this would have to be one hellofa magnet but still .....

MacBandit

Oct 12, 2002, 10:32 AM

So you can't actually travel faster then light. If you can fold space or time or both and get to your destination faster then light what's the difference. The measurement of speed is the distance divided by time. So what if your ship didn't actually travel 8 light years if the end destination was 8 light years away and you got there in a year then you traveled 8 time faster then light. This all goes back to another Einstein theory that I find is the most useful that of relativity.

Cappy

Oct 12, 2002, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
So you can't actually travel faster then light. If you can fold space or time or both and get to your destination faster then light what's the difference. The measurement of speed is the distance divided by time. So what if your ship didn't actually travel 8 light years if the end destination was 8 light years away and you got there in a year then you traveled 8 time faster then light. This all goes back to another Einstein theory that I find is the most useful that of relativity.

Your reasoning is flawed.

Distance travelled must remain in the context of the argument if you're going to use those measurements. If you fold space to essentially take a shortcut through space, you are travelling that distance which is used to measure the speed. Basically if space folding or whatever ever becomes a method of transportation, a new form of measurement will likely need to be utilized and it probably won't be something as simple as Warp 1, 2, 3...8,9.

Mr. Anderson

Oct 12, 2002, 01:44 PM

Using wormholes (folding space, etc.) you move from one side to the other, there is not time spent in 'hyperspace' - so the distance travelled would be the irrelevant. The time it would take you using conventional means from one wormhole exit to the destination would be the issue.

And we won't be seeing that anytime soon.

But one thing you're forgetting is gravity. A gravity drive can do some funky stuff - if the field is strong enough, you can capture light (black holes) so that poses some interesting posibilities. But again, we need to have a little more work done there, and we're still trying to observe gravity, it hasn't happened yet.

D

benixau

Oct 12, 2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
So you can't actually travel faster then light. If you can fold space or time or both and get to your destination faster then light what's the difference. The measurement of speed is the distance divided by time. So what if your ship didn't actually travel 8 light years if the end destination was 8 light years away and you got there in a year then you traveled 8 time faster then light. This all goes back to another Einstein theory that I find is the most useful that of relativity.

no, if i travel at 150kph for one hour, and travel 8ly in actual straight line distance, has my speed been 8ly/hour???

no. i have exerted the same amount as it takes to begin a chase witht the cops. Remember the pencil example -

shortest distance between A & B is -zip-. The spped you refer to is a straight line basis. We cannot understand changing the curvature of space because we fail to recognise that when we look ina staright line we are looking along a curve .....

MacBandit

Oct 12, 2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Cappy

Your reasoning is flawed.

Distance travelled must remain in the context of the argument if you're going to use those measurements. If you fold space to essentially take a shortcut through space, you are travelling that distance which is used to measure the speed. Basically if space folding or whatever ever becomes a method of transportation, a new form of measurement will likely need to be utilized and it probably won't be something as simple as Warp 1, 2, 3...8,9.

Actually I do understand the first person measurement of the speed. That based on being on board you aren't actually going very fast because you are not travelling very far. This is why I put in the stuff about relativity. The actual measurement of speed for all objects is actually all relative and MPH is actually a 3rd person measurement. For example if you are travelling down the freeway at 55MPH it doesn't actually look to you like your car is doing 55MPH because you can't see it from the outside all you know is that the scenery directly in front of you is approaching you at 55MPH. So which is really moving? That's why the measurement process is actually a 3rd person thing. To a person standing along the road you are approaching them at 55MPH and they are standing still so in this instance the car is the object traveling. This is where the Light Speed factor comes in. Lets say you just bent time and space and traveled for 1 year to go the distance it takes 8 years for light to travel. To a 3rd person who observed the event it would appear that you traveled 8 times the speed of light. So in all respects you actually did travel 8 times the speed of light.

samiam

Oct 12, 2002, 11:35 PM

> The Transistor was reinvented by a physicist. It was originally
> called a "Germanium valve" which is accredited to Nikola Tesla.

I thought it was a Moray valve invented by Moray, and I thought he never actually demonstrated transistor action (i.e. amplification).

Doesn't matter. Nothing much happened with transistors for a decade after Moray's claim. When Shockley and company demonstrated amplification, explained the physics, wrote the standard manuscript so that others could benefit, practical devices became feasible, and the field took off. Whether or not he benefitted from Moray's work, and regardless of who gets the label "inventor of the transistor", that's a hell of a contribution to technology. Enough to get a Nobel prize, which is given for conferring benefit on mankind.

> The LASER is basically a matter of linear compression and
> somebody would have figured it out just by refining optics
> sooner or later.

Well no, the laser is not an extrapolation of ordinary optics. How do you get stimulated emission from refining optics?

Anyway, if what you meant to say was that no physicist since Einstein has made a contribution to technology that an engineer wouldn't have made eventually, then it's not possible to dispute. But it's not what you said, is it?

> Perhaps I should have qualified that no
> Academic Physicist has contributed to technology since Einstein.

Both Shawlow and Townes were academics most of their lives, each spending about a decade at Bell Labs. Townes was at Columbia when he did the work on the maser, with no connection to Bell. He was also at Columbia when he later collaborated on the laser with his former research associate, Townes, who was at Bell. Townes got the Nobel prize for "fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser-laser principle", along with two Russian academic physicists. Later, when Shawlow was at Stanford, he shared the Nobel prize for laser spectroscopy with a Harvard physicist.

> As to assuming anyone here who questions the conventional theory
> is a Trekkie disputing FTL: Think again.

I made no such assumption.

> FTL is not feasable, (possible or not) just on conservation of energy
> principals. U can't possibly carry enough fuel to even approach C
> let alone PASS it.

Not even with one of them space-to-energy converters your engineering heros, Moray and Tesla, were so enamored of? Actually you *approach* the speed of light every time you accelerate.

> Photons have zero mass at rest because they are never at rest.
> Has a photon ever been observed at rest?

No. What's your point? A particle doesn't need to be at rest to define a rest mass, zero or otherwise. Neutrinos have not been observed at rest, and the question of its rest mass is still open. People were claiming photons had mass. I was simply trying to be more definite. If by mass, one means rest mass, which is the case by default, then photons do not have mass. If by mass, you mean momentum divided by speed, or energy divided by c^2, then it has mass. This "relativistic mass" is infrequently used now.

> Now back to my original point: Has the evolution of Quantum Physics
> resulted in anything useful other than Tennure for a few thousand
> Professors and the construction of a few very expensive labs?
> Not to my knowldege.

That's because your knowledge is lacking. Now, relativity, and certainly general relativity, is more or less irrelevant to everyday life, including the use of modern technology. But an understanding of quantum mechanics is pivotal to the development of just about all modern technology, including the transistor and the laser. Since physicists study fundamentals and theories, and engineers apply them, it's natural that you have more difficulty making the connection back to contribution of physicists. And while it's difficult for anyone to see the connections of particle physics (accelerators) to everyday life, the vast majority of physicists, academic or otherwise, are working on much more applied subjects, like the physics of materials, and development of spectroscopies, but quantum mechanics is important in all of it. Whether it's the development of superconductors, or NMR spectroscopy, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (which uses superconductors), or CAT scans, or positron emission tomography (PET), or electron microscopes, or tunneling microscopes, or liquid crystal displays, ion trapping technology used by pharmaceutical companies, and on and on, they all involve quantum mechanics, and they all involve important contributions from physicists, engineers, doctors etc, many of which are recognized by Nobel prizes.

cr2sh

Oct 13, 2002, 02:23 AM

I hate the idea of a supreme speed limit, I mean really, what fun is left after that?

I spent sometime last year in Windsor, Canada at the casino gambling - I sat down one night at the roulette table. 17 straight spins came up red and I'll be damned I lost everything I gambled at that table. I tell you, I got up and walked away because I was dumb-founded... the beauty of probability.

I can't have a discussion of quantum physics without bring up statistics and more importantly, outliers. So I'm very tempted to point at modeling and distribution - Measure a distance twice, simultaneously. Entropy is something we see every goddamn day, and it is completely contradictory of the supreme speed limit.

to indulge on the earlier mischief comment about the very basis for speed of light measurement being light itself... i love that argument. to me it lends brilliantly to sample rate comparisons & discrete time - digital audio for example: if the frequency operates at 22050Hz and we sample at that exact frequency what do we get? Nothing more than a goddamn constant...

One last thing, I kinda picture Newton as being the M$ of physics... archaic, misguided, and completely ****ing wrong! :)

my opinions are just as stupid as everyone elses, quite possibly more so!

mischief

Oct 14, 2002, 12:49 PM

you're cheating on a technicality. MASERS were invented first. I don't recall exactly why they were looking at columnating Microwaves but seen from that prespective I can certainly understand your logic.

However: the function of 90% of LASER generation devices is essentially a resonant gaseous solution like Neon in a container with an inherent mirrored inner surface and a partially mirrored aperture at one end. Usually a fully mirrored surface is opposite the aperture to more fully "focus" the effect. You seem to think that the resulting beam is some magical thing. It's just a very tight beam; given enough distance it will fan out just like any other beam of light and stop being true "LASER" light.

Being that the process of columnation is a result of mirrored surfaces I see it as an effectively optics issue.

If a chemist had invented the piston engine would you argue that a knowledge of chemistry was essential to cars? I think not. What personal attatchment do you have to the existing beaurocracy of physics?

BTW: You're ignoring the most interesting questions I've posed in favor of personal attacks because it's easier to say "he doesn't know what he's talking about" than it is to think outside the box. It's annoying. Stop it.

samiam

Oct 15, 2002, 10:08 PM

> you're cheating on a technicality. MASERS were invented first.
> I don't recall exactly why they were looking at columnating
> Microwaves but seen from that prespective I can certainly
> understand your logic.

The longer the wavelength, the easier it is to achieve coherence. So coherent microwaves were produced first, then light, and lately x-ray and gamma-ray lasers.

The development of the laser was a direct by-product of maser development. The essential principle of both is stimulated emission, which was first demonstrated with microwaves, and later with light. That's why the Nobel prize was given for developments in quantum electronics leading to the maser/laser, and why it was given to Townes, who was at Columbia, but not Shawlow at Bell, who only became involved after masers were demonstrated.

So, there's no cheating. It is not disputable that academic physicists, doing quantum mechanics, played a pivotal role in the development of lasers. Live with it.

> However: the function of 90% of LASER generation devices is
> essentially a resonant gaseous solution like Neon in a container

Actually Neon by itself won't lase. You need the right combination of stable and metastable states to produce a population inversion. You're probably thinking of He-Ne.

> with an inherent mirrored inner surface and a partially mirrored
> aperture at one end. Usually a fully mirrored surface is opposite
> the aperture to more fully "focus" the effect. You seem to think
> that the resulting beam is some magical thing. It's just a very tight beam;

Where on earth do you get this from? It's not magic of course, even though mirrors are involved, but it is very different from ordinary light, and something very close to magical happens to produce it.

Did you ever wonder why there are no lasers that are only a little bit better than conventional light sources... why even the cheapest laser pointers are orders of magnitude more directional than any other light source... why the old, heavy light pointers, the size of your right arm, made arrows about a foot long, and had to be focused for a certain distance, and the first laser pointers made specks less than a cm without focusing??

Both are electromagnetic waves of course, or beams of photons, but the resemblence ends there. Laser light is coherent, ordinary light isn't. To be rigorous, laser light is more coherent than ordinary light, but the leap is so enormous, that it's like night and day, only moreso.

Coherent waves are produced when the source is much smaller than the wavelength. So a single cork bobbing up and down in water at a constant frequency produces coherent water waves, where the water height is strongly correlated from place to place, or time to time, and predictable by a simple formula. On the other hand, hundreds of corks over a few square meters, all bobbing at different frequencies and amplitudes produce incoherent waves.

Considering the wavelength of light, it should be no surprise that the collection of excited atoms which give rise to light is more like the multiple cork situation, and therefore produces highly incoherent light.

The difficulty in producing coherent light is in producing a small enough source that is bright enough. A trick (magic) is needed. And that trick is stimulated emission, in which a photon produced from a certain transition from a certain metastable state of an atom strikes another atom in the same metastable state, causing (stimulating) it to undergo the same transition producing a photon exactly coherent and parallel with the first. Now those two photons can go on and stimulate more coherent emissions, and so on producing after many refections inside the resonator, an intense, highly coherent beam, like nothin ever seen before. All this requires a medium in which you can produce more excited atoms than ground-state atoms (population inversion), and that takes a little knowledge of quantum mechanics.

Laser light is between 100 thousand and 10 million times more monochromatic than light from a discharge lamp (and of course much more than that compared to thermal light sources); the coherence length for a laser is some 100 million times longer (some thousands of kilometers), compared to light from a sodium discharge lamp (fractions of a cm).

It is this *coherence* that allows lasers to be focused to spots on the order of the wavelength of light, and to produce directional beams with less than a mrad of divergence.

> given enough distance it will fan out just like any other beam of light
> and stop being true "LASER" light.

You're right. The coherence isn't perfect, just millions of times better than conventional optics can produce.

> Being that the process of columnation is a result of mirrored surfaces
> I see it as an effectively optics issue.

Except that the critical component is the medium, so it is not just geometrical optics. No collection of mirrors and lenses can produce from a conventional light source, a beam of light with anything close to the properties of laser light. Sorry.

> If a chemist had invented the piston engine would you argue that
> a knowledge of chemistry was essential to cars? I think not.

If a chemist invents the hoolahoop, I'd say chemistry was irrelevant. If he invents teflon, I'd say chemistry was probably important.

In the case of lasers, there isn't any doubt. The principle of the laser was first predicted based on quantum ideas, it was then designed and built and it worked according to prediction. This is a success story of quantum physics.

Anyway, when I started this, I was disputing a very narrow claim about physicists, not about the later claim about the involvement of physics, althought the examples I gave dispute both claims.

> What personal attatchment do you have to the existing
> beaurocracy of physics?

Why do you ask? Having trouble responding to the substance of the argument, and need a reason to dismiss it without thought?

> BTW: You're ignoring the most interesting questions I've posed
> in favor of personal attacks because it's easier to say "he
> doesn't know what he's talking about" than it is to think
> outside the box. It's annoying. Stop it.

Actually, I'm not. I responded at length to all your questions. You are the one ignoring what I said, because it's easier to accuse me of personal attacks than it is to address the issue.

You said you were unaware of contributions of physicists to technology. I said your knowledge was lacking and gave many examples to support my claim, including considerable detail on two rather critical 20th century inventions. It was not a personal attack, I was making allowance for your ignorance.

mischief

Oct 17, 2002, 12:50 PM

Enough. Fine, labrats are relevant to society. Happy now Stimpy?:P

I'm responding from Work so I tend to shoot from the hip. It's been a few years since I studied LASERS (though I did actually study them in depth at one point) so I'm a bit rusty.

In general though I have 2 issues with modern physics:

1. Modern physics does not present an elegant model but a painfully complex kluge with more contradictions than coherence. I firmly believe that if the model gets ever more complex with new data than there's a fundamental problem with the model.

2. The approach of the bulk of research does not seem to be rooted in the quest for knowledge but in the quest for notariety.

For quite some time many of the Scientific fields have been stuck in the rut of allowing their political aspirations in the community pollute their science. Only Anthropology and Peleantology (sp?) have begun to come out of that rut and only because so much data was being glossed over to keep old, bogus theories alive that credibility was suffering and new scientists could easily overturn decades of established belief with a little good research on old finds.

All I'm saying is that there may very easily be a Unified field theory out there but I have a gut feeling that Quantum and Particle physics will NOT be how we get there. The more that is observed about the Universe and it's workings the more it looks like all of it is in existence for no easily explicable reason other than: It really wants to. This, of course scares the willies out of Rationalist physicists who prefer a model where they can keep assuming that if they look small (or big) enough and write calcs long enough eventually they will discover a logical basis for manifestation of matter and energy.

Effectively these guys are looking for their own Math-God. What I've been saying is that U can't do that from inside the thing you're analyzing with only the tools created there-in. You can't really tell what ANY of it is using equipment where the highest possible frequency of sampling isn't any higher than what you're sampling. You can't see any of it as anything but what it looks like as a woefully inadequate sample.

The very acceptance of Heisenberg should be a clue as to the biggest flaw in the theory: There are no "solids" because it's all points of standing resonance. It's not predictably "there" because the sample rate sux. It all exists and "hums" along "just because" so get over it. Can't the Universe just exist? Need there be EITHER a God OR some magical God-like equation? Why can't the people who we entrust with figuring out how it works just figure out "how" it works and leave the "why" it works alone? Is there so much ego involved that there can be no unified theory untill something glaringly obvious blows away the accepted norms?

samiam

Oct 17, 2002, 04:18 PM

A bit rusty? You say you studied lasers in depth, and yet you thought they were the result of better mirrors? Such a grasp of science and technology does not motivate me to even try to make sense of the gibberish in the rest of your post.

mischief

Oct 17, 2002, 04:41 PM

:p :p :p :p

If you have nothing to say. Shaddap.:rolleyes:

rainman::|:|

Oct 19, 2002, 07:07 PM

allright, i missed this thread entirely, so don't piss and moan about me replying two days late. just my thoughts.

first, you all seem to be missing one point. light isn't simply light, it's dependent on the photonic wavelength it's projected at. theoretically, it would be possible to alter a beam of light to the point where you could *observe* it's motion through space. just tighten the wavelength enough. (or project it through the right medium, i suppose, but i can't imagine what that would be) So the textbook speed of light is one particular speed, as i remember the maximum wavelength (which is the standard form of light in the universe).

secondly, i believe moving beyond the speed of light is not a new concept. a particular type of quark, i think a tacheon particle, has been observed moving beyond the speed of light. however it's still not disproving of the theory of relativity, as many people believe that tacheon particles move negatively through time. if you simplify the theory of relativity to disclude the infinite mass predictions, perhaps under the assumption that this particular particle is the exception to the rule, it makes perfect sense.

and as was said earlier, the time portions of the theory of relativity have indeed been tested. atomic clocks will show discrepancies if one of them is moved at a high speed for long enough-- though most of our equipment is not nearly sensitive enough to detect it.

also, again if i'm recalling correctly, wormholes only occur when space is completely folded in on itself-- subspace is when space is merely bent closer together. so if an object traveled in subspace, it would indeed take time to move from point A to point B. of course, this is theoretical, because even black holes aren't thought to bend space.

BTW, if anyone is interested, scientists now think that black holes, if existant, are actually cone-shaped... moving down to a point of critical mass that's incredibly tiny. i believe stephen hawking himself consulted on this theory.

:)
pnw