We all hear/read that the speed of light is the fastest.... What can go faster?
There IS an answer...
... ok, this is killing me... what?
... are you referring to the group velocity (velocity of the changes in the wave's amplitude)?
I have a horrible suspicion creeping up that nothing can go faster than light except..
Tachyon particles, providing they exist. They have no mass therefore have no velocity limit.
space can expand faster than light...
I read that the propagation of gravity, although not instantaneous, is greatly faster than the speed of light....does this count?
I have read the opposite, that gravitation propagated at light speed. Same with a magnetic field.
I'm no physicist, but I was led to believe that massless particles (i.e. photon and the tachyon mentioned above) travel at light speed, as does gravity.
As for the answer to this question, I have no idea.
As for the answer to this question, I have no idea.
Gravity is supposed to 'propogate' at the speed of light. If gravitons exist (gravity waves) they are theoretically supposed to travel at the speed of light. Tachyons are a theoretical/hypothetical particle that do travel faster than light. However, as far as I know there is not really much research theoretically put into this, and has never, and is probably impossible to actually to observe anyways.
We all know (if we know a little bit about optics) that the speed of light slows down from vacuum to water, etc.... This is based on the material's refractive index (v=c/n) where v is the velocity of light in whatever medium you are using. I have read that some scientists have got the speed of light to increase for certain wavelengths of light, but not all of the light. This as far as I know is a purely optical effect, and does not really break relativity anyways (The speed of light in a VACUUM is a constant, equal to c).
We all know (if we know a little bit about optics) that the speed of light slows down from vacuum to water, etc.... This is based on the material's refractive index (v=c/n) where v is the velocity of light in whatever medium you are using. I have read that some scientists have got the speed of light to increase for certain wavelengths of light, but not all of the light. This as far as I know is a purely optical effect, and does not really break relativity anyways (The speed of light in a VACUUM is a constant, equal to c).
Here's an interesting read:
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
In it, the speed of gravity was determined to be 108c(where c is the speed of light)
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
In it, the speed of gravity was determined to be 108c(where c is the speed of light)
Hello all
The speed of light is based on the permittivity and permeability of space. What aspect of space is responsible for the speed of gravity? My own opinion is that permittivity and permeability resist any changing of the field not the field itself. If gravity waves are ever detected then they may propagate at the speed of light.
The speed of light is based on the permittivity and permeability of space. What aspect of space is responsible for the speed of gravity? My own opinion is that permittivity and permeability resist any changing of the field not the field itself. If gravity waves are ever detected then they may propagate at the speed of light.
According to Douglas Adams
QUOTE
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
The experimental evidence for the speed of gravity is mixed. It would be exciting if it traveled faster than light. It would allow for faster than light information transfer. But this is supposed to be impossible.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 2 2006, 06:00 AM)
Here's an interesting read:
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
In it, the speed of gravity was determined to be 108c(where c is the speed of light)
According to my calculations at the speed they say gravity would reach Proxima Centuri in about 22 nano seconds (22 billionths of a second). It would reach the Andromeda Galaxy in about 12 milliseconds. To give an idea of how long that is a good ping on the internet would be 50 to 100 milliseconds.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
In it, the speed of gravity was determined to be 108c(where c is the speed of light)
According to my calculations at the speed they say gravity would reach Proxima Centuri in about 22 nano seconds (22 billionths of a second). It would reach the Andromeda Galaxy in about 12 milliseconds. To give an idea of how long that is a good ping on the internet would be 50 to 100 milliseconds.
galaxies on the fringe of our light cone recede faster than light due to the expansion of the universe.. but no laws are broken.
i;ve mentioned else wheres..
if you had a line of cars parked and you were in back and the road in front of you was expanding at 1mile per hour.. as well as the road in front of the next guy etc..he is expanding away from 1 mile per hour but the guy in front of him is expanding away at 2 miles per hour and so on.. if you had 200,000 the last on would be going faster than light from your perspective
but since there is no way to send a signal.. much like spooky action at a distance... no laws broken.
i also hate when people say the speed of light.. as the speed of light is not the limiting factor of the medium through which it travels..
Light speed is broken often in water of nuclear reactors.. where Hervey articles break the speed of light in water when they hit the water and cause a light boom in the form of Cerenkov radiation.
i believe the universe limits information propagation.. call it the speed of causality.
besides if light was instant but our information rings spread out at the speed of light limiting when you could observe the light.. it would explain why light goes the same speed regardless of how fast you move.
i;ve mentioned else wheres..
if you had a line of cars parked and you were in back and the road in front of you was expanding at 1mile per hour.. as well as the road in front of the next guy etc..he is expanding away from 1 mile per hour but the guy in front of him is expanding away at 2 miles per hour and so on.. if you had 200,000 the last on would be going faster than light from your perspective
but since there is no way to send a signal.. much like spooky action at a distance... no laws broken.
i also hate when people say the speed of light.. as the speed of light is not the limiting factor of the medium through which it travels..
Light speed is broken often in water of nuclear reactors.. where Hervey articles break the speed of light in water when they hit the water and cause a light boom in the form of Cerenkov radiation.
i believe the universe limits information propagation.. call it the speed of causality.
besides if light was instant but our information rings spread out at the speed of light limiting when you could observe the light.. it would explain why light goes the same speed regardless of how fast you move.
QUOTE (JoulesBeef+Feb 3 2006, 07:31 AM)
i believe the universe limits information propagation.. call it the speed of causality.
is this why we can't determine the existance of tachyons? i thought they were nothing more than wishful thinking until i read that Witten referred to their possibility within the scope of string theory. i'm not too quantum-savvy relative to this forum so don't be too abstruse if you reply! thanks.
Thought is faster than the speed of light. Much faster.
QUOTE (Guest_jones+Feb 15 2006, 09:42 AM)
Thought is faster than the speed of light. Much faster.
Actually...
Thought is just a pattern of neurological electrical signals in the brain. Being electrical, they are at most the speed of electical impulses in axons. Further more, your brain needs to interpret these signals so even at optimal speeds, thought procis are slightly slower than electrical.
Actually...
Thought is just a pattern of neurological electrical signals in the brain. Being electrical, they are at most the speed of electical impulses in axons. Further more, your brain needs to interpret these signals so even at optimal speeds, thought procis are slightly slower than electrical.
QUOTE
Thought is just a pattern of neurological electrical signals in the brain. Being electrical, they are at most the speed of electical impulses in axons. Further more, your brain needs to interpret these signals so even at optimal speeds, thought procis are slightly slower than electrical
Just to say, it is actually much slower than electrical (at least 1000 times slower) because of the chemical reactions that must occur to create a synapse and then an elecrtical pulse.
And although its not really "something" (matter or energy), if you had quantum entangled particles and altered a property of one, would the change in the other occur instantly or is it still limited to the speed of light?
QUOTE (PaulBored+Feb 18 2006, 04:54 AM)
And although its not really "something" (matter or energy), if you had quantum entangled particles and altered a property of one, would the change in the other occur instantly or is it still limited to the speed of light?
You need to distinguish between "alter" and "measure." Quantum entanglement does not say you can alter the state of one particle and have any effect on the other one; and as soon as you alter the first, the entanglement will be broken. QE says that when you measure the state of one particle, you know the state of the second. This also breaks the entanglement.
You need to distinguish between "alter" and "measure." Quantum entanglement does not say you can alter the state of one particle and have any effect on the other one; and as soon as you alter the first, the entanglement will be broken. QE says that when you measure the state of one particle, you know the state of the second. This also breaks the entanglement.
Returning to the original question - I use Cerenkov radiation often in my work as a means of counting 32P.
I seem to remember - that Cerenkov radiation is produced when high energy particles (like Beta particles) travel through an optically clear medium faster than light would travel through that medium. The speed of light usually quoted is when travelling through a vacuum. Light travelling through glass is slower - ask a proper physicist for the reason!
Anyway high energy Beta particles as produced when 32P decays produce Cerenkov radiation when travelling through glass or plastic or water.
...does that count?
I seem to remember - that Cerenkov radiation is produced when high energy particles (like Beta particles) travel through an optically clear medium faster than light would travel through that medium. The speed of light usually quoted is when travelling through a vacuum. Light travelling through glass is slower - ask a proper physicist for the reason!
Anyway high energy Beta particles as produced when 32P decays produce Cerenkov radiation when travelling through glass or plastic or water.
...does that count?
ok kiddos! heres how you would break the speed of light
lets just say you had an infinite beam of light going from one part of the universe
to the other and you shot another beam inside it the first beam giving you infinite light access you could not measure its speed because its lost in infinite light. now if you would shine light from one point to the other it would be slower because it would have to break thru all kinds of particles ie.dust,fog,gas,time,ect.but an infinite light source would have done that already giving infinite frictionless movement thus exceeding regular light from our perspective.
lets just say you had an infinite beam of light going from one part of the universe
to the other and you shot another beam inside it the first beam giving you infinite light access you could not measure its speed because its lost in infinite light. now if you would shine light from one point to the other it would be slower because it would have to break thru all kinds of particles ie.dust,fog,gas,time,ect.but an infinite light source would have done that already giving infinite frictionless movement thus exceeding regular light from our perspective.
QUOTE (mr. know it all+Feb 18 2006, 02:12 PM)
ok kiddos! heres how you would break the speed of light
lets just say you had an infinite beam of light going from one part of the universe
to the other and you shot another beam inside it the first beam giving you infinite light access you could not measure its speed because its lost in infinite light. now if you would shine light from one point to the other it would be slower because it would have to break thru all kinds of particles ie.dust,fog,gas,time,ect.but an infinite light source would have done that already giving infinite frictionless movement thus exceeding regular light from our perspective.
So you are saying to use the infinite light beam as the "carrier" or (pardon the expression) "conveyor" for the second beam ? I don't think it works that way.
lets just say you had an infinite beam of light going from one part of the universe
to the other and you shot another beam inside it the first beam giving you infinite light access you could not measure its speed because its lost in infinite light. now if you would shine light from one point to the other it would be slower because it would have to break thru all kinds of particles ie.dust,fog,gas,time,ect.but an infinite light source would have done that already giving infinite frictionless movement thus exceeding regular light from our perspective.
So you are saying to use the infinite light beam as the "carrier" or (pardon the expression) "conveyor" for the second beam ? I don't think it works that way.
You know what goes faster than light?
Your heart.
Your heart.
not thought, but CONSCIOUSNESS.
you can INSTANTLY(within the mentioned chemical 'lag') 'throw' your 'focus' of thought literally ANYWHERE or even NOWHERE(zero as a concept). indeed, within this very thread, we have gone from the molecular level to the edge of the expanding universe, and that's a few infinite light yrs. farther than any light beam is going to get to in a hurry.
you can INSTANTLY(within the mentioned chemical 'lag') 'throw' your 'focus' of thought literally ANYWHERE or even NOWHERE(zero as a concept). indeed, within this very thread, we have gone from the molecular level to the edge of the expanding universe, and that's a few infinite light yrs. farther than any light beam is going to get to in a hurry.
Something bothers me about this speed of light constant thing. I have an easier time thinking that time is the constant and not light, light maybe closely related to the constant but not the constant.
This way you can go faster than the speed of light but not the speed of time. If somehow you broke the speed of time there would be a point of "no time" in which you would be in a stasis if you will. You couldn't move forward or backwards because that would require time.
If light was approaching the speed of time, then there maybe a space between light speed and time speed that other particles may be able to travel without breaking the constant (time).
Or I may just be insane.
This way you can go faster than the speed of light but not the speed of time. If somehow you broke the speed of time there would be a point of "no time" in which you would be in a stasis if you will. You couldn't move forward or backwards because that would require time.
If light was approaching the speed of time, then there maybe a space between light speed and time speed that other particles may be able to travel without breaking the constant (time).
Or I may just be insane.
QUOTE (Tomc+Feb 26 2006, 04:39 PM)
Something bothers me about this speed of light constant thing. I have an easier time thinking that time is the constant and not light, light maybe closely related to the constant but not the constant.
Time dilation and the constancy of c have experimental evidence in their favor, and contradict this.
Time dilation and the constancy of c have experimental evidence in their favor, and contradict this.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 20 2006, 06:39 PM)
not thought, but CONSCIOUSNESS.
you can INSTANTLY(within the mentioned chemical 'lag') 'throw' your 'focus' of thought literally ANYWHERE or even NOWHERE(zero as a concept). indeed, within this very thread, we have gone from the molecular level to the edge of the expanding universe, and that's a few infinite light yrs. farther than any light beam is going to get to in a hurry.
No it wouldent, it would still be the speed of light or slower. The decision to change you're consious awareness comes from many sources and probably a feed-back loop, wich still takes time and being that we're all made of Atoms and electrical made of electrons, its still limited to the speed of light, or speed of electricity.
It just seems instant cause it dont have far to go... hehe. if one Neuron was a million light years from here and made a connection to another one, it would take a million years for them to talk to eachother... if its less than a nanometer, this its rather fast isnt it? Zoom Zoom! Plus we process information in Parallel, so you got lots of info processed in less time, but each peice of information is still limited.
Theres some fun extercises around the net to exploit the speed of thought and auto-matic reations etc..... its much slower than light.
Isn't Gravitiy Instant?? meaning if it did propagate, it would be quicker than the speed of light?
But Even if it didnt, if we could mofiy the fabric of space, like pull it a little, wouldent that pull be instantly measured from almost any distance?
like if you had a huge rope, form Earth to Mars and on earth you pulled it, wouldent the effect of the pull be instant on mars????
Then we could just pull it back and forth to encode bits of information... lol...
Maybe a Large string of carbon nano-tubes would be better? hehe.
you can INSTANTLY(within the mentioned chemical 'lag') 'throw' your 'focus' of thought literally ANYWHERE or even NOWHERE(zero as a concept). indeed, within this very thread, we have gone from the molecular level to the edge of the expanding universe, and that's a few infinite light yrs. farther than any light beam is going to get to in a hurry.
No it wouldent, it would still be the speed of light or slower. The decision to change you're consious awareness comes from many sources and probably a feed-back loop, wich still takes time and being that we're all made of Atoms and electrical made of electrons, its still limited to the speed of light, or speed of electricity.
It just seems instant cause it dont have far to go... hehe. if one Neuron was a million light years from here and made a connection to another one, it would take a million years for them to talk to eachother... if its less than a nanometer, this its rather fast isnt it? Zoom Zoom! Plus we process information in Parallel, so you got lots of info processed in less time, but each peice of information is still limited.
Theres some fun extercises around the net to exploit the speed of thought and auto-matic reations etc..... its much slower than light.
Isn't Gravitiy Instant?? meaning if it did propagate, it would be quicker than the speed of light?
But Even if it didnt, if we could mofiy the fabric of space, like pull it a little, wouldent that pull be instantly measured from almost any distance?
like if you had a huge rope, form Earth to Mars and on earth you pulled it, wouldent the effect of the pull be instant on mars????
Then we could just pull it back and forth to encode bits of information... lol...
Maybe a Large string of carbon nano-tubes would be better? hehe.
JoulesBeef,
Something that must be remembered regarding ur comment of galaxies flying away from us faster then the speed of light is that they arent moving through space faster then the speed of light... space is expanding itself. Therefore... the cosmic speed limit has not been broken... because it only restricts movement through space... not of space itself.
And.... the explanation about Cerenkov radiation... 300mill m/s only applies to light through a vacuum.... when particles exceed the speed of light through a particular medium... it produces a shock front that makes a purdy light... but breaks no laws
Something that must be remembered regarding ur comment of galaxies flying away from us faster then the speed of light is that they arent moving through space faster then the speed of light... space is expanding itself. Therefore... the cosmic speed limit has not been broken... because it only restricts movement through space... not of space itself.
And.... the explanation about Cerenkov radiation... 300mill m/s only applies to light through a vacuum.... when particles exceed the speed of light through a particular medium... it produces a shock front that makes a purdy light... but breaks no laws
true no laws are broken. the biggest point is you cant send any information using empty expanding space.
quantum entanglement is supposedly faster than light. Kind hard to prove as the information that they are entangled is limited to light speed.
I guess the question should be what goes faster than C as all kinds of things can go faster than light in mediums.
Another question is how can light experience time since the Lorentz transform says time doesn't pass for light. Shine a laser from earth to mars and we think it takes 11 minutes to get there, but light says not a second went by before it got there.
WE may think light has a speed limit but light thinks it is instantaneous.
quantum entanglement is supposedly faster than light. Kind hard to prove as the information that they are entangled is limited to light speed.
I guess the question should be what goes faster than C as all kinds of things can go faster than light in mediums.
Another question is how can light experience time since the Lorentz transform says time doesn't pass for light. Shine a laser from earth to mars and we think it takes 11 minutes to get there, but light says not a second went by before it got there.
WE may think light has a speed limit but light thinks it is instantaneous.
Hi All,
People think of light the wrong way. Think of the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other. For instance every atom in your body connects to all the other atoms in your body with tiny forces. Those forces are electromagnetic. when I "press your flesh" I an acting on you with a force. We all know light "propagates" at C but you should think of this generally even in the refractive media. There is a tendency to speak of "speed" but it really a phenomenon that works everywhere and the connection "speed" is C... not 3x10^8 m/s but "C" and this depends on the local velocity in the medium.
If you were to travel at a greater speed than C the wave functions that maintain everything in its place would not be able to communicate forces "conservatively" and this "disconnect" would lead to paradox. I am not against paradox but you can see that you are up against it if you want to travel faster than you are connecting with the rest of th Universe. The expansion of the Universe does make "distant" objects move away from each other at a relative speed greater than light. This does impose what is called a "Rindler Foliation"... light in some circumstances can never travel and connect two different parts of the Universe because the 'spreading" is faster than the propagation speed. In this circumstance not only light but all manner of force "connection" is removed between the two parts of the Universe. Even Gravity which propagates at the same speed of light cannot cross that boundary. For all that the rest of the Universe knows this is the edge of "everything" and there is nothing outside. Yet there is something and this is reasonable, you can stack "Universes" into that void. This is a form of "frame dragging" and this process could be used to travel to places in a short period that would take light a long time to reach (I have written on this topic before). This would be a "shortcut" and would not be at a speed faster than light yet it "scales" the distance between objects via a partial path through "Uberspace"... a shortcut.
Frame Dragging (and some posts forward) Good Elf
Cheers
People think of light the wrong way. Think of the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other. For instance every atom in your body connects to all the other atoms in your body with tiny forces. Those forces are electromagnetic. when I "press your flesh" I an acting on you with a force. We all know light "propagates" at C but you should think of this generally even in the refractive media. There is a tendency to speak of "speed" but it really a phenomenon that works everywhere and the connection "speed" is C... not 3x10^8 m/s but "C" and this depends on the local velocity in the medium.
If you were to travel at a greater speed than C the wave functions that maintain everything in its place would not be able to communicate forces "conservatively" and this "disconnect" would lead to paradox. I am not against paradox but you can see that you are up against it if you want to travel faster than you are connecting with the rest of th Universe. The expansion of the Universe does make "distant" objects move away from each other at a relative speed greater than light. This does impose what is called a "Rindler Foliation"... light in some circumstances can never travel and connect two different parts of the Universe because the 'spreading" is faster than the propagation speed. In this circumstance not only light but all manner of force "connection" is removed between the two parts of the Universe. Even Gravity which propagates at the same speed of light cannot cross that boundary. For all that the rest of the Universe knows this is the edge of "everything" and there is nothing outside. Yet there is something and this is reasonable, you can stack "Universes" into that void. This is a form of "frame dragging" and this process could be used to travel to places in a short period that would take light a long time to reach (I have written on this topic before). This would be a "shortcut" and would not be at a speed faster than light yet it "scales" the distance between objects via a partial path through "Uberspace"... a shortcut.
Frame Dragging (and some posts forward) Good Elf
Cheers
I asked my Physics teacher about this. And she said it's really impossible to have something to travel faster than light. But who knows?
Hi howtothinklikegod,
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod Posted on Feb 28 2006+ 06:16 PM)
I asked my Physics teacher about this. And she said it's really impossible to have something to travel faster than light. But who knows?
In a technical sense she is right. In a more general sense the question is still an open one. There are too many qualifiers and the technicalities are very deep. Science is about finding ways to do stuff. The answers are not "yes" or "no". What you have there is "informed opinion". Even that can be wrong. Just keep an open mind.
Cheers
In a technical sense she is right. In a more general sense the question is still an open one. There are too many qualifiers and the technicalities are very deep. Science is about finding ways to do stuff. The answers are not "yes" or "no". What you have there is "informed opinion". Even that can be wrong. Just keep an open mind.
Cheers
Though this isn't truly violating the speed of light, I wanted to point out that technically someone could subjectively travel to nearby galaxies in a matter of weeks or even days, assuming there was enough energy to power the trip at close to light speed and the accelerations weren't lethal. Time dialation allows motion relative to outside physical references to appear to be many times faster than the speed of light, though a more accurate description would be that as you approached the speed of light, instead of truly traveling faster, time passing in the rest of the universe would appear to increase and you'd still appear to be able to travel great distances in a very short period of time. The drawback of course is that you might believe it only took a week to travel but if you returned to Earth you could come back hundreds or thousands of years in the future. (and of course I'm ignoring many other technical difficulties in travelling so fast but simply wanted to point out that light speeds don't prevent potentially travelling to distant galaxies even within a single generation)
I tend to side with the comment that the speed of light may prove to be less of real problem and more of a universal safety net against things self destructing by a division by 0. We continually find ways of working around limitations we assumed light speed would impose (someday we might have faster than light communication effectively possible by using predictive technology that fills in what you intended to say before you even said it
). Gravity may allow faster than light communication, though because it's a weak force and likely non-directional, there might be issues of sensitivity and noise that limit the bandwith or effectively impose some relatively slow rate of communication. Something to consider is that light speed is defined in a vacuum ... but we're still learning about vacuums.
I tend to side with the comment that the speed of light may prove to be less of real problem and more of a universal safety net against things self destructing by a division by 0. We continually find ways of working around limitations we assumed light speed would impose (someday we might have faster than light communication effectively possible by using predictive technology that fills in what you intended to say before you even said it
). Gravity may allow faster than light communication, though because it's a weak force and likely non-directional, there might be issues of sensitivity and noise that limit the bandwith or effectively impose some relatively slow rate of communication. Something to consider is that light speed is defined in a vacuum ... but we're still learning about vacuums.
I do not want to be too controversal with my first post here-but,do we really know
what light is? well the answer is no we do not!And whatcan go faster that that,well
whatabout thought! Which can be instantanous,and would make a tachyon look
like a snail.
welcome any comments.
kind regards michael.
what light is? well the answer is no we do not!And whatcan go faster that that,well
whatabout thought! Which can be instantanous,and would make a tachyon look
like a snail.
welcome any comments.
kind regards michael.
Thought is actually quite SLOW, due the the frequency at which the brain operates. You can't even compare it to the speed of light.
Tachyons, as stated earlier, are much faster than light, but they only exist in theory.
The speed of gravity brings up some interesting questions:
If gravity travels faster than light, doesn't that mean that our observations of Black Holes are wholly incorect?
If gravity travels faster than light, how would it look like when you would observe an object accelerating to the speed of light? As it gains mass due to its speed, the gravity-field would catch up with photons, distorting our view.
Last, if gravity travels faster than light, how does it behave neat the edge of the universe?
Tachyons, as stated earlier, are much faster than light, but they only exist in theory.
The speed of gravity brings up some interesting questions:
If gravity travels faster than light, doesn't that mean that our observations of Black Holes are wholly incorect?
If gravity travels faster than light, how would it look like when you would observe an object accelerating to the speed of light? As it gains mass due to its speed, the gravity-field would catch up with photons, distorting our view.
Last, if gravity travels faster than light, how does it behave neat the edge of the universe?
In my case, MONEY goes faster than the speed of light. 
Anyway, here is an interesting article published on NewScientist.com from 2002 that seems to apply to this discussion:
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
Any thoughts on this?
Anyway, here is an interesting article published on NewScientist.com from 2002 that seems to apply to this discussion:
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
Any thoughts on this?
Hi Barkley,
It is not a problem. This is a near field effect. In the near field the speed of phenomena can be infinite. However the "information" can be an issue since the near field can be anti-causal, affects can precede causes etc. This is like being inside the radiation field of a Radio Transmitter. There are static charges and magnetic effects and forces there that are hardly mentioned at all in all the standard undergraduate texts. Usually called the "near field" or "evanescent field" it is the realm of "sources". You can imagine that if charges move in the conductors around you for comparatively large distances then you are well inside the "source" and the "field" approaches you quite differently to when you are in the "far field". The phase of the harmonic components is vital in these considerations. The mathematics is usually quoted as being the problem with treating this theory at the undergraduate level. With modern computers I do not think it should be such a problem. In order to truly "understand" the questions posed by quanta you must know what all this is about and how this ties into Schrödinger’s wave Equation or what Circuit QED is etc. I have previously supplied links to many papers on this subject for forum use.
IMHO It is my belief that quanta were adopted to "dispense" with the complexity of the "fields" in early quantum theory. We all must remember that quantum theory developed when the maths had to be worked out on blackboards and this was a terrible inconvenience. Much of the mystery about the quantum is about "not taking care of business" as our understanding improved. Today it is only now becoming possible to simulate some of the complex features about atoms in their "near field". In previous decades NOTHING was known about the time dependent aspects of the quantum because the calculations were "formidable" and the tools were still very crude.
Cheers
QUOTE
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Any thoughts on this?
It is not a problem. This is a near field effect. In the near field the speed of phenomena can be infinite. However the "information" can be an issue since the near field can be anti-causal, affects can precede causes etc. This is like being inside the radiation field of a Radio Transmitter. There are static charges and magnetic effects and forces there that are hardly mentioned at all in all the standard undergraduate texts. Usually called the "near field" or "evanescent field" it is the realm of "sources". You can imagine that if charges move in the conductors around you for comparatively large distances then you are well inside the "source" and the "field" approaches you quite differently to when you are in the "far field". The phase of the harmonic components is vital in these considerations. The mathematics is usually quoted as being the problem with treating this theory at the undergraduate level. With modern computers I do not think it should be such a problem. In order to truly "understand" the questions posed by quanta you must know what all this is about and how this ties into Schrödinger’s wave Equation or what Circuit QED is etc. I have previously supplied links to many papers on this subject for forum use.
IMHO It is my belief that quanta were adopted to "dispense" with the complexity of the "fields" in early quantum theory. We all must remember that quantum theory developed when the maths had to be worked out on blackboards and this was a terrible inconvenience. Much of the mystery about the quantum is about "not taking care of business" as our understanding improved. Today it is only now becoming possible to simulate some of the complex features about atoms in their "near field". In previous decades NOTHING was known about the time dependent aspects of the quantum because the calculations were "formidable" and the tools were still very crude.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 9 2006, 03:09 AM)
Hi Barkley,
It is not a problem. This is a near field effect. In the near field the speed of phenomena can be infinite. However the "information" can be an issue since the near field can be anti-causal, affects can precede causes etc. This is like being inside the radiation field of a Radio Transmitter. There are static charges and magnetic effects and forces there that are hardly mentioned at all in all the standard undergraduate texts. Usually called the "near field" or "evanescent field" it is the realm of "sources". You can imagine that if charges move in the conductors around you for comparatively large distances then you are well inside the "source" and the "field" approaches you quite differently to when you are in the "far field". The phase of the harmonic components is vital in these considerations. The mathematics is usually quoted as being the problem with treating this theory at the undergraduate level. With modern computers I do not think it should be such a problem. In order to truly "understand" the questions posed by quanta you must know what all this is about and how this ties into Schrödinger’s wave Equation or what Circuit QED is etc. I have previously supplied links to many papers on this subject for forum use.
IMHO It is my belief that quanta were adopted to "dispense" with the complexity of the "fields" in early quantum theory. We all must remember that quantum theory developed when the maths had to be worked out on blackboards and this was a terrible inconvenience. Much of the mystery about the quantum is about "not taking care of business" as our understanding improved. Today it is only now becoming possible to simulate some of the complex features about atoms in their "near field". In previous decades NOTHING was known about the time dependent aspects of the quantum because the calculations were "formidable" and the tools were still very crude.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Thanks for your response. If I understand this (even remotely), it is that near field transmission can be be infinite speed but any viable information attempting to be transmitted is pretty much useless, as it would be corrupted. This relating of course, to any sort of communications purposes. I may be WAY off on this, so forgive me if I am, lol.
I understand quite a bit about radiation fields and radio transmitters as I spent years in the RF industry and had to deal with real-life frequency bleedovers, interference from almost every conceivable source, frequency harmonics, etc. I have also experienced and learned quite a bit about radiation/nuclear medicine first hand. I'm somewhat familiar with Schroedinger's work (collapsing wave functions, radioactive decay and stuff) but that portion of my education was self-taught, not in a formal setting. To me, quantum mechanics is fascinating, although I doubt that I could deal with it on a daily basis, lol.
As you have eluded to, I see that the math involved can be very difficult, at least for me at this point. Unfortunately, that right now is my weakest area with regard to physics. The calculations STILL look formidible to me, blackboard or not, lol. I can visualize some things but have much trouble grasping others. I look forward to reading your work on Schroeder among other topics. I am here to expand my horizons as much as humanly possible. Thanks again for your response.
QUOTE
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Any thoughts on this?
It is not a problem. This is a near field effect. In the near field the speed of phenomena can be infinite. However the "information" can be an issue since the near field can be anti-causal, affects can precede causes etc. This is like being inside the radiation field of a Radio Transmitter. There are static charges and magnetic effects and forces there that are hardly mentioned at all in all the standard undergraduate texts. Usually called the "near field" or "evanescent field" it is the realm of "sources". You can imagine that if charges move in the conductors around you for comparatively large distances then you are well inside the "source" and the "field" approaches you quite differently to when you are in the "far field". The phase of the harmonic components is vital in these considerations. The mathematics is usually quoted as being the problem with treating this theory at the undergraduate level. With modern computers I do not think it should be such a problem. In order to truly "understand" the questions posed by quanta you must know what all this is about and how this ties into Schrödinger’s wave Equation or what Circuit QED is etc. I have previously supplied links to many papers on this subject for forum use.
IMHO It is my belief that quanta were adopted to "dispense" with the complexity of the "fields" in early quantum theory. We all must remember that quantum theory developed when the maths had to be worked out on blackboards and this was a terrible inconvenience. Much of the mystery about the quantum is about "not taking care of business" as our understanding improved. Today it is only now becoming possible to simulate some of the complex features about atoms in their "near field". In previous decades NOTHING was known about the time dependent aspects of the quantum because the calculations were "formidable" and the tools were still very crude.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Thanks for your response. If I understand this (even remotely), it is that near field transmission can be be infinite speed but any viable information attempting to be transmitted is pretty much useless, as it would be corrupted. This relating of course, to any sort of communications purposes. I may be WAY off on this, so forgive me if I am, lol.
I understand quite a bit about radiation fields and radio transmitters as I spent years in the RF industry and had to deal with real-life frequency bleedovers, interference from almost every conceivable source, frequency harmonics, etc. I have also experienced and learned quite a bit about radiation/nuclear medicine first hand. I'm somewhat familiar with Schroedinger's work (collapsing wave functions, radioactive decay and stuff) but that portion of my education was self-taught, not in a formal setting. To me, quantum mechanics is fascinating, although I doubt that I could deal with it on a daily basis, lol.
As you have eluded to, I see that the math involved can be very difficult, at least for me at this point. Unfortunately, that right now is my weakest area with regard to physics. The calculations STILL look formidible to me, blackboard or not, lol. I can visualize some things but have much trouble grasping others. I look forward to reading your work on Schroeder among other topics. I am here to expand my horizons as much as humanly possible. Thanks again for your response.
Check out Jerry Nobles theory at http://www.superfinity.com/theory.htm and http://www.superfinity.com/experiment.htm
Hi Barkley,
Sounds like we both "hail" from the same neck of the woods career-wise. I too have been deeply involved with instrumentation, repair and tuning. You confess a lack of maths... well join the club. On the other hand those with the maths seem unaware of the specifics we are both fully cognizant about. I am one to "connect" Schrodinger's Wave Theory and Electromagnetic Wave Theory through the wave equation. This is a very "productive" concept and your "radiation fields" in transmission theory is not that different from the orbitals of atoms and to the action of branes. Too much to go into here but I will leave you with a couple of references...
These links are quite helpful...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen see pages 2 and 3...
and this paper helps too...
Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics This indicates strongly what quanta are in relation to electromagnetic theory.
Williamson et al's paper...
J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark's Topological Photon - Electron Paper
Williamson et al do not ascribe to the higher dimensional ideas that I find quite natural. So be aware of that... Otherwise a very illuminating concept.
Good Elf's ideas...
Quantum Unreality becomes Quantum Reality, Lies, Damn Lies and Quantum Statistics: Good Elf
This last thread shows just where all these ideas are heading... it all seems "very mysterious" to the outsiders but in the end the Quantum Physicists are "discovering" electronics and optics and they want to see that it is couched in their own idiom. Heaven forbid that mere technicians and common folk should understand what they are on about
Maths World: Spherical Harmonics
Cheers
Sounds like we both "hail" from the same neck of the woods career-wise. I too have been deeply involved with instrumentation, repair and tuning. You confess a lack of maths... well join the club. On the other hand those with the maths seem unaware of the specifics we are both fully cognizant about. I am one to "connect" Schrodinger's Wave Theory and Electromagnetic Wave Theory through the wave equation. This is a very "productive" concept and your "radiation fields" in transmission theory is not that different from the orbitals of atoms and to the action of branes. Too much to go into here but I will leave you with a couple of references...
These links are quite helpful...
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory - Jian Qi Shen see pages 2 and 3...
and this paper helps too...
Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics This indicates strongly what quanta are in relation to electromagnetic theory.
Williamson et al's paper...
J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark's Topological Photon - Electron Paper
Williamson et al do not ascribe to the higher dimensional ideas that I find quite natural. So be aware of that... Otherwise a very illuminating concept.
Good Elf's ideas...
Quantum Unreality becomes Quantum Reality, Lies, Damn Lies and Quantum Statistics: Good Elf
This last thread shows just where all these ideas are heading... it all seems "very mysterious" to the outsiders but in the end the Quantum Physicists are "discovering" electronics and optics and they want to see that it is couched in their own idiom. Heaven forbid that mere technicians and common folk should understand what they are on about
Maths World: Spherical Harmonics
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Feb 28 2006, 05:40 AM)
Hi All,
People think of light the wrong way. Think of the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other. For instance every atom in your body connects to all the other atoms in your body with tiny forces. Those forces are electromagnetic. when I "press your flesh" I an acting on you with a force. We all know light "propagates" at C but you should think of this generally even in the refractive media. There is a tendency to speak of "speed" but it really a phenomenon that works everywhere and the connection "speed" is C... not 3x10^8 m/s but "C" and this depends on the local velocity in the medium.
If you were to travel at a greater speed than C the wave functions that maintain everything in its place would not be able to communicate forces "conservatively" and this "disconnect" would lead to paradox. I am not against paradox but you can see that you are up against it if you want to travel faster than you are connecting with the rest of th Universe. The expansion of the Universe does make "distant" objects move away from each other at a relative speed greater than light. This does impose what is called a "Rindler Foliation"... light in some circumstances can never travel and connect two different parts of the Universe because the 'spreading" is faster than the propagation speed. In this circumstance not only light but all manner of force "connection" is removed between the two parts of the Universe. Even Gravity which propagates at the same speed of light cannot cross that boundary. For all that the rest of the Universe knows this is the edge of "everything" and there is nothing outside. Yet there is something and this is reasonable, you can stack "Universes" into that void. This is a form of "frame dragging" and this process could be used to travel to places in a short period that would take light a long time to reach (I have written on this topic before). This would be a "shortcut" and would not be at a speed faster than light yet it "scales" the distance between objects via a partial path through "Uberspace"... a shortcut.
Frame Dragging (and some posts forward) Good Elf
Cheers
Fascinating stuff GE.
Though, my not being much of a "Roman", could you explain Cerenkov radiation when for example high energy beta particles travel through a medium faster than C through that medium? What's actually going on in terms of the above quote? I'm intrigued.
Thanks
People think of light the wrong way. Think of the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other. For instance every atom in your body connects to all the other atoms in your body with tiny forces. Those forces are electromagnetic. when I "press your flesh" I an acting on you with a force. We all know light "propagates" at C but you should think of this generally even in the refractive media. There is a tendency to speak of "speed" but it really a phenomenon that works everywhere and the connection "speed" is C... not 3x10^8 m/s but "C" and this depends on the local velocity in the medium.
If you were to travel at a greater speed than C the wave functions that maintain everything in its place would not be able to communicate forces "conservatively" and this "disconnect" would lead to paradox. I am not against paradox but you can see that you are up against it if you want to travel faster than you are connecting with the rest of th Universe. The expansion of the Universe does make "distant" objects move away from each other at a relative speed greater than light. This does impose what is called a "Rindler Foliation"... light in some circumstances can never travel and connect two different parts of the Universe because the 'spreading" is faster than the propagation speed. In this circumstance not only light but all manner of force "connection" is removed between the two parts of the Universe. Even Gravity which propagates at the same speed of light cannot cross that boundary. For all that the rest of the Universe knows this is the edge of "everything" and there is nothing outside. Yet there is something and this is reasonable, you can stack "Universes" into that void. This is a form of "frame dragging" and this process could be used to travel to places in a short period that would take light a long time to reach (I have written on this topic before). This would be a "shortcut" and would not be at a speed faster than light yet it "scales" the distance between objects via a partial path through "Uberspace"... a shortcut.
Frame Dragging (and some posts forward) Good Elf
Cheers
Fascinating stuff GE.
Though, my not being much of a "Roman", could you explain Cerenkov radiation when for example high energy beta particles travel through a medium faster than C through that medium? What's actually going on in terms of the above quote? I'm intrigued.
Thanks
Hi swimmer,
Cherenkov Radiation is a short range effect due to optical shockwaves in media similar to a "sonic boom" for sound when a "particle" travels faster than the local speed of sound. The particles that are producing this light are traveling "temporarily" in a medium that has a lower velocity than the speed of light in a vacuum, protons for instance. The Bremsstrahlung (Breaking Effect) caused by this change in refractive medium, releases this pretty blue light. The same phenomenon as seen in Atomic Fission Reactors moderated by light or heavy water.
Wikipedia: Cherenkov radiation
Of course what I am speaking about in my posts has nothing to do with this rather short range phenomenon of Cherenkov Radiation.... I am speaking about "Interstellar Travel" in a vacuum and such and higher dimensional travel (as in string theory). Rindler Foliations have nothing to do with Cherenkov Radiation as well, it is related to Special Relativity. This is a process akin to the expansion of our Universe into free space which is a well documented phenomenon and is responsible for the Hubble Shift. There is a reference to Rindler Foliations and "Of Packing Universes in" on this page...
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime
A more local "application" of this linear frame dragging effect could be used to drag synchronized clocks (a la Einstein) and a observation sphere on round trips to the stars "in real time". This would not exceed the speed of light but would be a shortcut through space-time without the need of "Wormholes" or needing to stabilize them. In a limiting case a trip to the distant stars can be made as short as you like in real time without any laws being contravened using straight Special and General Relativity.
Cheers
Cherenkov Radiation is a short range effect due to optical shockwaves in media similar to a "sonic boom" for sound when a "particle" travels faster than the local speed of sound. The particles that are producing this light are traveling "temporarily" in a medium that has a lower velocity than the speed of light in a vacuum, protons for instance. The Bremsstrahlung (Breaking Effect) caused by this change in refractive medium, releases this pretty blue light. The same phenomenon as seen in Atomic Fission Reactors moderated by light or heavy water.
Wikipedia: Cherenkov radiation
Of course what I am speaking about in my posts has nothing to do with this rather short range phenomenon of Cherenkov Radiation.... I am speaking about "Interstellar Travel" in a vacuum and such and higher dimensional travel (as in string theory). Rindler Foliations have nothing to do with Cherenkov Radiation as well, it is related to Special Relativity. This is a process akin to the expansion of our Universe into free space which is a well documented phenomenon and is responsible for the Hubble Shift. There is a reference to Rindler Foliations and "Of Packing Universes in" on this page...
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime
A more local "application" of this linear frame dragging effect could be used to drag synchronized clocks (a la Einstein) and a observation sphere on round trips to the stars "in real time". This would not exceed the speed of light but would be a shortcut through space-time without the need of "Wormholes" or needing to stabilize them. In a limiting case a trip to the distant stars can be made as short as you like in real time without any laws being contravened using straight Special and General Relativity.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 11 2006, 05:26 AM)
Hi swimmer,
Cherenkov Radiation is a short range effect due to optical shockwaves in media similar to a "sonic boom" for sound when a "particle" travels faster than the local speed of sound. The particles that are producing this light are traveling "temporarily" in a medium that has a lower velocity than the speed of light in a vacuum, protons for instance. The Bremsstrahlung (Breaking Effect) caused by this change in refractive medium, releases this pretty blue light. The same phenomenon as seen in Atomic Fission Reactors moderated by light or heavy water.
Wikipedia: Cherenkov radiation
Of course what I am speaking about in my posts has nothing to do with this rather short range phenomenon of Cherenkov Radiation.... I am speaking about "Interstellar Travel" in a vacuum and such and higher dimensional travel (as in string theory). Rindler Foliations have nothing to do with Cherenkov Radiation as well, it is related to Special Relativity. This is a process akin to the expansion of our Universe into free space which is a well documented phenomenon and is responsible for the Hubble Shift. There is a reference to Rindler Foliations and "Of Packing Universes in" on this page...
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime
A more local "application" of this linear frame dragging effect could be used to drag synchronized clocks (a la Einstein) and a observation sphere on round trips to the stars "in real time". This would not exceed the speed of light but would be a shortcut through space-time without the need of "Wormholes" or needing to stabilize them. In a limiting case a trip to the distant stars can be made as short as you like in real time without any laws being contravened using straight Special and General Relativity.
Cheers
Very interesting, GE.
I wasn't saying Cerenkov radiation was equivalent or analogous in any way to your post - rather I was asking, in a ham fisted way, if your description "...the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other...", could be applied? i.e what is happening at the quantum level?
Either way, I've obviously got some reading to do - thanks for the Cerenkov link. Though I thought Bremsstrahlung was a different phenomenon - but as I say i have some reading to do - particularly on phase velocity and group velocity.
Cherenkov Radiation is a short range effect due to optical shockwaves in media similar to a "sonic boom" for sound when a "particle" travels faster than the local speed of sound. The particles that are producing this light are traveling "temporarily" in a medium that has a lower velocity than the speed of light in a vacuum, protons for instance. The Bremsstrahlung (Breaking Effect) caused by this change in refractive medium, releases this pretty blue light. The same phenomenon as seen in Atomic Fission Reactors moderated by light or heavy water.
Wikipedia: Cherenkov radiation
Of course what I am speaking about in my posts has nothing to do with this rather short range phenomenon of Cherenkov Radiation.... I am speaking about "Interstellar Travel" in a vacuum and such and higher dimensional travel (as in string theory). Rindler Foliations have nothing to do with Cherenkov Radiation as well, it is related to Special Relativity. This is a process akin to the expansion of our Universe into free space which is a well documented phenomenon and is responsible for the Hubble Shift. There is a reference to Rindler Foliations and "Of Packing Universes in" on this page...
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime
A more local "application" of this linear frame dragging effect could be used to drag synchronized clocks (a la Einstein) and a observation sphere on round trips to the stars "in real time". This would not exceed the speed of light but would be a shortcut through space-time without the need of "Wormholes" or needing to stabilize them. In a limiting case a trip to the distant stars can be made as short as you like in real time without any laws being contravened using straight Special and General Relativity.
Cheers
Very interesting, GE.
I wasn't saying Cerenkov radiation was equivalent or analogous in any way to your post - rather I was asking, in a ham fisted way, if your description "...the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other...", could be applied? i.e what is happening at the quantum level?
Either way, I've obviously got some reading to do - thanks for the Cerenkov link. Though I thought Bremsstrahlung was a different phenomenon - but as I say i have some reading to do - particularly on phase velocity and group velocity.
Hi swimmer,
Wikipedia: Bremsstrahlung
I would also point out that Cherenkov Radiation is similar to but not the same as Synchrotron Radiation.
Wikipedia: Synchrotron radiation
This is "similar" but not the same since this breaking radiation is sub-luminal emission...
Wikipedia: Synchrotron light
Still a pretty color though.
QUOTE
thanks for the Cerenkov link. Though I thought Bremsstrahlung was a different phenomenon
My use of the word was "broad" so you are right about that. It sounds like you may get something from this as well...Wikipedia: Bremsstrahlung
I would also point out that Cherenkov Radiation is similar to but not the same as Synchrotron Radiation.
Wikipedia: Synchrotron radiation
This is "similar" but not the same since this breaking radiation is sub-luminal emission...
Wikipedia: Synchrotron light
Still a pretty color though.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| thanks for the Cerenkov link. Though I thought Bremsstrahlung was a different phenomenon |
My use of the word was "broad" so you are right about that. It sounds like you may get something from this as well...
Wikipedia: Bremsstrahlung
I would also point out that Cherenkov Radiation is similar to but not the same as Synchrotron Radiation.
Wikipedia: Synchrotron radiation
This is "similar" but not the same since this breaking radiation is sub-luminal emission...
Wikipedia: Synchrotron light
Still a pretty color though.
if your description "...the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other...", could be applied? i.e what is happening at the quantum level?
Wikipedia: Bremsstrahlung
I would also point out that Cherenkov Radiation is similar to but not the same as Synchrotron Radiation.
Wikipedia: Synchrotron radiation
This is "similar" but not the same since this breaking radiation is sub-luminal emission...
Wikipedia: Synchrotron light
Still a pretty color though.
if your description "...the "Speed of Light" as the speed of "connection" since light is the "great connector" through virtual photons and this is the speed that things "communicate" with each other...", could be applied? i.e what is happening at the quantum level?
It is amazing how much we seem to know about the atom yet no one has really seen what is going on in there. What all our big machines do is akin to taking a pocket watch and smashing it with a hammer and then looking at all the pieces. You would not expect to tell a lot from a living creature by this process yet in a way an atom in action is a kind of "living creature" because it only works as a whole. In Quantum Electrodynamics photons are the carriers of all the forces at that level (the level of our Universe). They have an infinite range and are bosons. So all forces are exchanges of electromagnetic quanta. This is almost everything we know as beings of our Universe. It is responsible for everything we touch feel and sense as well as see. The "velocity of connection" is the speed of light.
The other forces are "wrappings" of QED seen through a "dimensional glass darkly" of another level that seems confined to a different scale of the Universe. It is barely perceptible at our level of the Universe as "radioactivity".
IMHO the way I like to think of it is like this...
Electromagnetism propagates in our "flat" space-time (across space even from distant stars) then it encounters "lens like objects" we call electronic shells and the nucleus. These are both different aspects of the one thing, the nucleus produces and is produced by the shells. The former are termed fermions and the latter are bosons. They obey differnet rules of physics. A simple proton has a series of shells but collections can hybridize. Collections of these particles can form atoms. These "dimensional structures" trap photons and electrons from the outer flat-space inside a differently and highly curved "inner space". Inside that "inner space" which appears "distorted" from our external point of view "out here" because of the "lens" effect. Inside it is another flat-space just like the one we are in. It is just the nature of dimensional space for things inside them to appear "flat" in as many dimensions they contain. The distortions lead to the measurables of systems such as charge, mass, spin, energy etc. which we can measure relative to our frames of reference.
Light in that realm behaves just like it does in our flat-space (eg. travels in a straight line forms interference fringes and so on) but it appears now to be curved because of the way we measure things from the outside of the shell. This "light" or photon can then come across other interior embedded "lenses" within that inner space and the process repeats. Each of these "optical traps" are resonant cavities and they are bounded by Rindler Foliations. Each one imposes another "distortion" on what we see from our point of view here in our "real" world. The "bosons" at those additional levels exhibit "mass" and are affected by a very restricted "range" but they are the equivalent of photons at that "level" and in a strange way are actually still photons trapped inside of dimensional envelopes. The distortions are so convoluted and strange that they no longer look like the forces we recognize and so we give them different names. This is why our boson (the photon) has an infinite range, travels in an apparent flat-space, and has no mass... we are on the inside of a "lens" that is our Universe. Outside our "bubble" universe new forces would come into play due to added dimensions that would force our photons to have mass and range (and a lowered speed from C... that of a de Broglie particle).... that is if they can get there. All this is happening in extra-dimensional space... at least 10 dimensions per level.
All fundamental particles are essentially just "photons" but they have these properties of spin, charge, parity, mass and energy boosts to separate them and "in principle" are all interconvertible to each other. We have no current practical way to do this "interconversion"... if we could we could unravel mass and all matter to provide unlimited energy as we can do in a limited way with matter and anti-matter.
Students take care with this explanation... your teachers will not approve of "Elven Science" he he he!
Cheers
The other forces are "wrappings" of QED seen through a "dimensional glass darkly" of another level that seems confined to a different scale of the Universe. It is barely perceptible at our level of the Universe as "radioactivity".
IMHO the way I like to think of it is like this...
Electromagnetism propagates in our "flat" space-time (across space even from distant stars) then it encounters "lens like objects" we call electronic shells and the nucleus. These are both different aspects of the one thing, the nucleus produces and is produced by the shells. The former are termed fermions and the latter are bosons. They obey differnet rules of physics. A simple proton has a series of shells but collections can hybridize. Collections of these particles can form atoms. These "dimensional structures" trap photons and electrons from the outer flat-space inside a differently and highly curved "inner space". Inside that "inner space" which appears "distorted" from our external point of view "out here" because of the "lens" effect. Inside it is another flat-space just like the one we are in. It is just the nature of dimensional space for things inside them to appear "flat" in as many dimensions they contain. The distortions lead to the measurables of systems such as charge, mass, spin, energy etc. which we can measure relative to our frames of reference.
Light in that realm behaves just like it does in our flat-space (eg. travels in a straight line forms interference fringes and so on) but it appears now to be curved because of the way we measure things from the outside of the shell. This "light" or photon can then come across other interior embedded "lenses" within that inner space and the process repeats. Each of these "optical traps" are resonant cavities and they are bounded by Rindler Foliations. Each one imposes another "distortion" on what we see from our point of view here in our "real" world.
The "bosons" at those additional levels exhibit "mass" and are affected by a very restricted "range" but they are the equivalent of photons at that "level" and in a strange way are actually still photons trapped inside of dimensional envelopes. The distortions are so convoluted and strange that they no longer look like the forces we recognize and so we give them different names. This is why our boson (the photon) has an infinite range, travels in an apparent flat-space, and has no mass... we are on the inside of a "lens" that is our Universe. Outside our "bubble" universe new forces would come into play due to added dimensions that would force our photons to have mass and range (and a lowered speed from C... that of a de Broglie particle).... that is if they can get there. All this is happening in extra-dimensional space... at least 10 dimensions per level.All fundamental particles are essentially just "photons" but they have these properties of spin, charge, parity, mass and energy boosts to separate them and "in principle" are all interconvertible to each other. We have no current practical way to do this "interconversion"... if we could we could unravel mass and all matter to provide unlimited energy as we can do in a limited way with matter and anti-matter.
Students take care with this explanation... your teachers will not approve of "Elven Science" he he he!
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 12 2006, 05:46 AM)
...IMHO the way I like to think of it is like this...
Electromagnetism propagates in our "flat" space-time (across space even from distant stars) then it encounters "lens like objects" we call electronic shells and the nucleus. These are both different aspects of the one thing, the nucleus produces and is produced by the shells. The former are termed fermions and the latter are bosons. They obey differnet rules of physics. A simple proton has a series of shells but collections can hybridize. Collections of these particles can form atoms. These "dimensional structures" trap photons and electrons from the outer flat-space inside a differently and highly curved "inner space". Inside that "inner space" which appears "distorted" from our external point of view "out here" because of the "lens" effect. Inside it is another flat-space just like the one we are in. It is just the nature of dimensional space for things inside them to appear "flat" in as many dimensions they contain. The distortions lead to the measurables of systems such as charge, mass, spin, energy etc. which we can measure relative to our frames of reference.
Light in that realm behaves just like it does in our flat-space (eg. travels in a straight line forms interference fringes and so on) but it appears now to be curved because of the way we measure things from the outside of the shell. This "light" or photon can then come across other interior embedded "lenses" within that inner space and the process repeats. Each of these "optical traps" are resonant cavities and they are bounded by Rindler Foliations. Each one imposes another "distortion" on what we see from our point of view here in our "real" world. The "bosons" at those additional levels exhibit "mass" and are affected by a very restricted "range" but they are the equivalent of photons at that "level" and in a strange way are actually still photons trapped inside of dimensional envelopes. The distortions are so convoluted and strange that they no longer look like the forces we recognize and so we give them different names. This is why our boson (the photon) has an infinite range, travels in an apparent flat-space, and has no mass... we are on the inside of a "lens" that is our Universe. Outside our "bubble" universe new forces would come into play due to added dimensions that would force our photons to have mass and range (and a lowered speed from C... that of a de Broglie particle).... that is if they can get there. All this is happening in extra-dimensional space... at least 10 dimensions per level.
All fundamental particles are essentially just "photons" but they have these properties of spin, charge, parity, mass and energy boosts to separate them and "in principle" are all interconvertible to each other. We have no current practical way to do this "interconversion"... if we could we could unravel mass and all matter to provide unlimited energy as we can do in a limited way with matter and anti-matter.
Students take care with this explanation... your teachers will not approve of "Elven Science" he he he!
Cheers
Thank you G E
Very interesting indeed.
I'll probably have to read it fifteen times to grasp the full meaning though (who am I kidding?!).
Definitely worth the effort.
Thank you.
With String theory and its complexity and difficulty, do you think that by analogy we could be in a "pre-Copernican" or "Epicycle world" and we need someone to think radically, creating a new mindset. A new description of the observations? Could this Heim guy have had some answers (I read about him in NewScientist a while ago) - space itself being quantized?
Electromagnetism propagates in our "flat" space-time (across space even from distant stars) then it encounters "lens like objects" we call electronic shells and the nucleus. These are both different aspects of the one thing, the nucleus produces and is produced by the shells. The former are termed fermions and the latter are bosons. They obey differnet rules of physics. A simple proton has a series of shells but collections can hybridize. Collections of these particles can form atoms. These "dimensional structures" trap photons and electrons from the outer flat-space inside a differently and highly curved "inner space". Inside that "inner space" which appears "distorted" from our external point of view "out here" because of the "lens" effect. Inside it is another flat-space just like the one we are in. It is just the nature of dimensional space for things inside them to appear "flat" in as many dimensions they contain. The distortions lead to the measurables of systems such as charge, mass, spin, energy etc. which we can measure relative to our frames of reference.
Light in that realm behaves just like it does in our flat-space (eg. travels in a straight line forms interference fringes and so on) but it appears now to be curved because of the way we measure things from the outside of the shell. This "light" or photon can then come across other interior embedded "lenses" within that inner space and the process repeats. Each of these "optical traps" are resonant cavities and they are bounded by Rindler Foliations. Each one imposes another "distortion" on what we see from our point of view here in our "real" world.
The "bosons" at those additional levels exhibit "mass" and are affected by a very restricted "range" but they are the equivalent of photons at that "level" and in a strange way are actually still photons trapped inside of dimensional envelopes. The distortions are so convoluted and strange that they no longer look like the forces we recognize and so we give them different names. This is why our boson (the photon) has an infinite range, travels in an apparent flat-space, and has no mass... we are on the inside of a "lens" that is our Universe. Outside our "bubble" universe new forces would come into play due to added dimensions that would force our photons to have mass and range (and a lowered speed from C... that of a de Broglie particle).... that is if they can get there. All this is happening in extra-dimensional space... at least 10 dimensions per level.All fundamental particles are essentially just "photons" but they have these properties of spin, charge, parity, mass and energy boosts to separate them and "in principle" are all interconvertible to each other. We have no current practical way to do this "interconversion"... if we could we could unravel mass and all matter to provide unlimited energy as we can do in a limited way with matter and anti-matter.
Students take care with this explanation... your teachers will not approve of "Elven Science" he he he!
Cheers
Thank you G E
Very interesting indeed.
I'll probably have to read it fifteen times to grasp the full meaning though (who am I kidding?!).
Definitely worth the effort.
Thank you.
With String theory and its complexity and difficulty, do you think that by analogy we could be in a "pre-Copernican" or "Epicycle world" and we need someone to think radically, creating a new mindset. A new description of the observations? Could this Heim guy have had some answers (I read about him in NewScientist a while ago) - space itself being quantized?
couldn't someone go faster than the speed of light using added speeds?
what if a space ship went 99.9....% the speed of light, and from its front a smaller craft was shot off going faster than the initial space ship.
couldn't the smaller craft achieve a speed equal to or higher than that of light?
and even if the smaller craft didn't achieve the speed of light, couldn't it shoot off a projectile in front of it to achieve an even higher speed?
what if a space ship went 99.9....% the speed of light, and from its front a smaller craft was shot off going faster than the initial space ship.
couldn't the smaller craft achieve a speed equal to or higher than that of light?
and even if the smaller craft didn't achieve the speed of light, couldn't it shoot off a projectile in front of it to achieve an even higher speed?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.