Physics Question

^that's a god damn good question... hey guys i need some help, specially RMT. I'm at this forum discussing the almighty "god" theories and since i pretty much believe what you believe RMT maybe you could just help me. Theirs 2 people in particular that keep stating the blackman is god. i will link you... http://www.hiphopgame.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8

the threads you wanna be looking at are, THE Truth, question, and quote you will never forget.
 
Hiya Fletch,
If it would be impossible for us to go the speed of light because of the energy needed.. how can light travel that fast?
A very pertinent and clear question!

There seems to be a bit of an "argument" in physics as to whether light posseses Mass or not. IMO personal opinion you can't have it both ways, and the people who say that a photon does possess an infinitely small Mass I call BS on. I believe that light, in its wave state posseses a transitory (oscillating) measure of Mass. Furthermore, I believe that the mathematical solutions dictate that light in its photonic, discrete state must be Massless.

This dual nature of light with respect to Mass is one of the keys to understanding the Integrated Matrix Energy of Massive SpaceTime, and how it vibrates between two distinct states at all TIMES.


RMT
 
fletcher,

If it would be impossible for us to go the speed of light because of the energy needed.. how can light travel that fast?

Photons can't travel at any velocity other than "c" - which is no problem for "massless" particles. But they have no intrinsic rest mass and when emitted they have velocity "c". Adding or removing energy from a photon increases or decreases its wavelength, which changes the momentum - but not the velocity.

One big problem with looking at sub-atomic particles in the way that we generally do is that we tend to take the classical Newtonian view of them. We expect particles to behave the same way as massive structures (like space ships or billiard balls) behave. The problem there is that sub-atomic particles exist entirely in the realm of quantum physics. Our instinctive Newtonian view of their "reality" is incorrect.

BTW: Rainman was correct about the "argument" in physics. But the one argument that is no more is that photons do posess mass, momentum, angular velocity and when they strike an object they exert a force on the object. If one determines the photon's wavelength they can convert the wavelength to energy and apply E=mc^2 to determine the mass (m=c^2/E). The argument that is being contemplated is whether a photon mas some minute rest mass. It appears that neutrinos, another "massless" particle, might have some intrinsic mass.

What Special Relativity states is that a mass cannot be accelerated to "c". Photons are not acelerated at all. If it is ever determined that a photon has an intrinsic rest mass quantum electrodynamics would be in a huge mess.

Another BTW:

You can travel at the speed of light. There's absolutely no theoretical problem there - either with Special or General Relativity. But there is a bit of a trade-off. You won't survive. All you need to do is come into contact with a mass of anti-matter equal to your mass. Viola! You will be accelerated to the speed of light - as photons.
 
Question...?
The technology of holograms is advancing, now wouldnt it be possible for a hologram to be able behave or experience what has been described in the previous posts. It is merely a construct of energy.

It wouldnt be exposed to the dangers as you all mention. Now, what could one do in projecting a hologram through time...a thought to ponder.
 
Umm...but if I remember my photonics lessons from GCSE Physics correctly, doesn't light slow down when it moves through a denser medium? For example, when travelling through diamond, if memory serves, light travels at only ~75% of it's speed in a vacuum.
 
Cooper,

Umm...but if I remember my photonics lessons from GCSE Physics correctly, doesn't light slow down when it moves through a denser medium? For example, when travelling through diamond, if memory serves, light travels at only ~75% of it's speed in a vacuum.

Absolutely correct. That's why both Maxwell (electrodynamics ~1865) and Einstein (Special Relativity - 1905) state the velocity of light in a vacuum.

It also explains Cherenkov radiation. A medium has a Refraction Index that states the velocity of light through the medium. If charged particles exceed that velocity they emit Cherenkov radiation. That's the blue-green glow that you might see in the cooling water of a nuclear reactor.
 
Hi Darby,

BTW: Rainman was correct about the "argument" in physics. But the one argument that is no more is that photons do posess mass, momentum, angular velocity and when they strike an object they exert a force on the object. If one determines the photon's wavelength they can convert the wavelength to energy and apply E=mc^2 to determine the mass (m=c^2/E). The argument that is being contemplated is whether a photon mas some minute rest mass. It appears that neutrinos, another "massless" particle, might have some intrinsic mass.
As usual, I note your flawless presentation of the "state of the science" and commend you for staying up-to-date on these things. You do a much better job than I! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

While I do not purport to be at the same level of knowledge as the "heavyweights" in theoretical physics, I do know history of science. And the one history of science that continually nags at me are the errors made about the possibilities of supersonic flight prior to us testing or understanding the sonic barrier. The models were wrong, and what is interesting is that the models were wrong in a very similar manner to what our current model (embodied in GTR) tells us occurs as we approach "c". Those early aerodynamic models were aware of the very large drag increases, and even were able to measure its rise (slope). Thus, they modeled it as a "barrier". Pop Science treatments took over from there and people without the depth of knowledge thought "we will never exceed the speed of sound." However, as you know, it was in pushing the flight envelope with the X-1 that we learned there was a limit to that drag rise, and happily that once on the other side of the "barrier" drag coefficient would again decrease (while total drag itself, of course will always increase with velocity squared).

These parts of our history, coupled with the fact that we cannot (as yet) probe the speed of light with objects that possess appreciable rest mass, are what have me referring to light speed as a "veil", rather than a barrier. Certainly, based on what we know currently we say that "c" represents a singularity for which there is not enough energy in the universe to reach or exceed. But I maintain this somewhat skeptical attitude that we may be missing something, as we did prior to the X-1 historic event. And right now, the best candidate for what we are missing could very well be Dark Energy. Given the agreement for how large a percentage of total universal energy is attributed to DE, I get the sneaking suspicion that we will uncover a new interaction that will involve DE, and can't for the life of me help but think it will involve a modification of GTR and the "famous" singularity poised at "c".

These sneaking suspicions (and my own mathematical curiosity) are what have me on my somewhat Quixotic path to a "better" (read: more comprehensive) model of Mass and Matter, and why I think they are two distinct phenomenon. One (Mass) is an illusion which continues to defy investigation and explanation (ever smaller subatomic particles) and one (Matter) which is a field effect between what we think of as Time and Mass. Beyond this, I just cannot seem to accept that if Space is demonstrably 3-dimensional that the laws of nature being what they are would not also favor multi-dimensional (exactly 3-dimensional) configurations for Mass as well as Time.

But that's just me...

RMT
 
Rainman,

They really should have asked a practical aero engineer. The sound "barrier" was an engineering problem.

Had the nay-sayer "experts" just used a tiny bit of their math they would have known that parts of propeller driven aircraft were always exceeding the speed of sound. That's why they are so damned noisey!

I think that the Hazel prop on a P-51D is approximetely 15" in diameter. The P-51 cruises at about 2300 RPM's. Let's see...

Pi * D * (2300 /60) = ~1800 ft/sec. That's the angular velocity of the tip of the propeller blades. That's about Mach 1.65 at sea level.

So the "barrier" wasn't a barrier for the propeller blades. But it did signal the edge of the maximum performance envelope for prop driven aircraft.

Want good theories? Ask a physicist. Want something built, fixed or designed? Ask an engineer.
 
Rainman,

Re. the speed of sound:

Even though there were the pop-sci nay-sayers I stiill find it absolutely amazing as to how quickly aeronautical engineering advanced from 1900 to 1954. Utterly amazing!

I think of all of the engineering problems that had to be faced, from airframe, to power plant, metalurgy, air crew safety gear, avionics and flight controls. It took two world wars to spur on the development but we went from flying <100 feet at a horse trott pace to Mach 3 and +100,000 feet altitude.
 
Hi Darby,

Not meaning to take this thread further off topic, but timing is everything, and the timing of your reply with regard to a recent article is uncanny. Your comments:

I stiill find it absolutely amazing as to how quickly aeronautical engineering advanced from 1900 to 1954. Utterly amazing!

I think of all of the engineering problems that had to be faced, from airframe, to power plant, metalurgy, air crew safety gear, avionics and flight controls. It took two world wars to spur on the development but we went from flying <100 feet at a horse trott pace to Mach 3 and +100,000 feet altitude.
Yes, it is quite amazing how quickly we advanced in that era. Those folks were, as the saying goes, standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before them. Daniel Bernoulli, Leonhard Euler, Osborne Reynolds, Ludwig Prandtl, Ernst Mach, and who could forget Newton and Kepler! They laid the groundwork for those to follow: The Wright brothers, Samuel Langley, Glenn Curtiss, and the "captains of aerospace industry" Douglas, Boeing, Northrop, McDonnell.

And yet, as amazing as our fast progression in terrestrial air vehicles was, it is equally amazing how slow our progress in space has been. IMO and the opinion of many others in my field, we have stagnated following the Apollo experience. While the technology of the shuttle is certainly amazing, it did not significantly expand our horizons. And it certainly did not increase the access to space, nor decrease the cost or trouble to get there. I think the following article is dead-on, and I am not sure the "house cleaning" at NASA is going in the right direction. IMO I see the new administrator as "circling the wagons" and trying to get people to buy into his line of "only NASA has the talent to do this." I think he is whistling as he walks past the graveyard, and that if NASA does not step-up its pace and work WITH space entrepreneurs, that NASA will be "OBE".

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18836

RMT
 
Let's hope that the privatized field (Virgin Galactic and others..) will continually take steps forward that NASA fails to take because of the lack of funding. They took a huge step 2 years ago (there or about) and I really believe if they continually persue this, then it will ensure the beginnings of a new era for not only the US, but the entire world..

I don't know if any of you ever read Michael Crichton's, Timeline but here is the introduction. I feel it is relevant to what is being dicussed...

Timeline by Michael Crichton

A hundred years ago, as the nineteenth century drew to a close, scientists around the world were satisfied that they had arrived at an accurate picture of the physical world. As physicist Alastair Rae put it, "By the end of the nineteenth century it seemed that the basic fundamental principles governing the behavior of the physical universe were known."* Indeed, many scientists said that the study of physics was nearly completed: no big discoveries remained to be made, only details and finishing touches.

But late in the final decade, a few curiosities came to light. Roentgen discovered rays that passed through flesh; because they were unexplained, he called them X rays. Two months later, Henri Becquerel accidentally found that a piece of uranium ore emitted something that fogged photographic plates. And the electron, the carrier of electricity, was discovered in 1897.

Yet on the whole, physicists remained calm, expecting that these oddities would eventually be explained by existing theory. No one would have predicted that within five years their complacent view of the world would be shockingly upended, producing an entirely new conception of the universe and entirely new technologies that would transform daily life in the twentieth century in unimaginable ways.

If you were to say to a physicist in 1899 that in 1999, a hundred years later, moving images would be transmitted into homes all over the world from satellites in the sky; that bombs of unimaginable power would threaten the species; that antibiotics would abolish infectious disease but that disease would fight back; that women would have the vote, and pills to control reproduction; that millions of people would take to the air every hour in aircraft capable of taking off and landing without human touch; that you could cross the Atlantic at two thousand miles an hour; that humankind would travel to the moon, and then lose interest; that microscopes would be able to see individual atoms; that people would carry telephones weighing a few ounces, and speak anywhere in the world without wires; or that most of these miracles depended on devices the size of a postage stamp, which utilized a new theory called quantum mechanics - if you said all this, the physicist would almost certainly pronounce you mad.

Most of these developments could not have been predicted in 1899, because prevailing scientific theory said they were impossible. And for the few developments that were not impossible, such as airplanes, the sheer scale of their eventual use would have defied comprehension. One might have imagined an airplane - but ten thousand airplanes in the air at the same time would have been beyond imagining.

So it is fair to say that even the most informed scientists, standing on the threshold of the twentieth century, had no idea what was to come.

Now that we stand on the threshold of the twenty-first century, the situation is oddly similar. Once again, physicists believe the physical world has been explained, and that no further revolutions lie ahead. Because of prior history, they no longer express this view publicly, but they think it just the same. Some observers have even gone so far as to argue that science as a discipline has finished its work; that there is nothing important left for science to discover.

But just as the late nineteenth century gave hints of what was to come, so the late twentieth century also provides some clues to the future. One of the most important is the interest in so-called quantum technology. This is an effort on many fronts to create a new technology that utilizes the fundamental nature of subatomic reality, and it promises to revolutionize our ideas of what is possible.

Quantum technology flatly contradicts our common sense ideas of how the world works. It posits a world where computers operate without being turned on and objects are found without looking for them. An unimaginably powerful computer can be built from a single molecule. Information moves instantly between two points, without wires or networks. Distant objects are examined without any contact. Computers do their calculations in other universes. And teleportation - "Beam me up, Scotty" - is ordinary and used in many different ways.

In the 1990s, research in quantum technology began to show results. In 1995, quantum ultrasecure messages were sent over a distance of eight miles, suggesting that a quantum Internet would be built in the coming century. In Los Alamos, physicists measured the thickness of a human hair using laser light that was never actually shone on the hair, but only might have been. This bizarre, "counterfactual" result initiated a new field of interaction-free detection: what has been called "finding something without looking."

And in 1998, quantum teleportation was demonstrated in three laboratories around the world - in Innsbruck, in Rome and at Cal Tech.* Physicist Jeff Kimble, leader of the Cal Tech team, said that quantum teleportation could be applied to solid objects: "The quantum state of one entity could be transported to another entity. . . . We think we know how to do that."² Kimble stopped well short of suggesting they could teleport a human being, but he imagined that someone might try with a bacterium.

These quantum curiosities, defying logic and common sense, have received little attention from the public, but they will. According to some estimates, by the first decades of the new century, the majority of physicists around the world will work in some aspect of quantum technology.
 
Rainman,

Given the agreement for how large a percentage of total universal energy is attributed to DE, I get the sneaking suspicion that we will uncover a new interaction that will involve DE, and can't for the life of me help but think it will involve a modification of GTR and the "famous" singularity poised at "c".

Here's one to consider that on First Principles neither violates STR, GTR or QM and still assumes that maximum v = c.

As an aeronautical engineer you frequently deal with your beloved tensors and Boundary Conditions, correct?


Now, think in terms of the boundary condition as you approach v = c. Apply the Uncertainty Principle. At super-relativistic velocities your uncertainty of position and velocity is appreciable. At the boundary - the light barrier - it is theoretically possible to have velocities >c albeit for tiny delta-t's of proper time. But the boost in your change of time flow even if you're only across the boundary for microseconds of proper time could be significant if the frequency of the oscillation across the boundary is high enough..

Just a thought...

The only downside is that we haven't seen this happen in high energy accelerators where we accelerate electrons up to one part in a billion less than c
 
For everyone else - Boundary Conditions:


I should probably explain what I'm refering to so that everyone has the opportunity to know what I'm talking about.

A boundary condition exists when you have two "different" things bumped up against each other. At the microscopic level (or atomic level) there are some weird things going on at the boundary.

One weird thing that happens at the atomic level is that the transition from one of the "things" to the other "thing" is blurred. Right where they touch they seem to blend into each other. If you cross the boundary, instead of going from one medium directly to the other you cross a tiny area of gradation - a gradient. "del-grad" (I can't get an unside down "delta" character to print...)

Submariners deal with the boundary condition under water - thermoclines. Two areas of water, touching each other, where each has a very different temperature at the boundary. Passive and active sonars have a hard time locating a huge metal object (a submarine) that is hiding in plain sight. The boundary condition is such that sound is "bent" by the boundary and misses its target.

I'm thinking in terms of the boundary condition at the light barrier.

Hmmm...

Rainman...

How about a boundary condition at v = c with a negative vacuum as a second boundary condition?

I gotta do some research over the next couple of days. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

For everyone:

Negative Vacuum:

This goes back to the Uncertainty Principle. You can't have, according to QM, a vacuum with zero fields - absolutely no energy at all -pure zero.

This condition violates the Uncertainty Principle. You can't measure the energy of a particle to an arbitrarily high degree of accuracy. Likewise, you can't measure its velocity to an arbitrarily high degree of accuracy. In an absolute zero vacuum you've measured both of those conditions to be precisely zero. No can do.

So there has to be some minimum energy - some minimum field - present. But when you're that close to zero the energy content can swing from positive to negative. You can actually have less than zero energy. That's a negative vacuum.
 
All you need to do is come into contact with a mass of anti-matter equal to your mass. Viola! You will be accelerated to the speed of light - as photons.

I know you meant that as humour but technically the photons just pop into that location in space right? We don't actually "turn into" photons /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/kiss.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Actually, you would most likely "turn into" photons as you come into contact with an equal mass of antimatter - you and the anti-mass would mutually annihilate, releasing massive amounts of energy (E=mc^2).

For a person weighing 100kg, that energy of annihilation is 9*10^18J, or roughly equal to a 2 Gigaton nuke. O_O
 
fletch,

But for us to make that much anti-matter it would take much more power than that correct?

Yep. A lot more energy. Just to make a kilogram of anti-matter, as we currently make it, would take all of the energy produced since the "Dawn of Man" plus several million years thereafter.

If we could get several million times more energy efficient in the process we could reduce the time to a few decades. Right now we make it one positron or one anti-proton at a time. I believe that the entire world has produced a few micrograms of anti-matter since 1942.
 
forgive my ignorance, but.....

as i understand it, to accuratly measure the speed that another body is moving you need to know for definate either one of two things.

1. you need to know for 100% certain that you are stationary ( or does that make you a pencil?)
or
2. You need to know the speed that you are travelling in relation to the oblect you wish to measure.

As long as you know one of these, you can do the math and work it out, however.......Since the point of creation, all mass has been moving away from the centre .(epicentre?) (of the big bang)
Since the bang gravity has done its work and an intricate dance of swirling matter has ensued, galaxies spiral galaxies and planets spin while spininnig around stars.

Now, I guess that if you were to draw a straight line from yourself, to the very point of creation....(a) you wouldn't be able to guess which way you were traveling, and (b) you probably couldnt tell if you were accellerating away from, accellerating at a slower rate away from, or travelling perpendicular to the singularity.

So, even if you take that singularity as your point if reference, ( and theres no gaurantee that it was stationary at the moment of explosion !) you can never tell how fast you are travelling, only how fast you are travelling compared to someone else. You have no idea how close or far you already are from light speed because you have no idea how fast you're already going.

If all of the above only makes sense to me, (and I wasnt being faceisous when i appologise for my ignorance at the start, I realy am coming from a point of ignorance on this) I appologise, and ask only to be educated further.

Faceisous One of only two words in the english dictionary that has all the vowels in the correct order, any guesses on the other?
 
Actually, you would most likely "turn into" photons as you come into contact with an equal mass of antimatter - you and the anti-mass would mutually annihilate, releasing massive amounts of energy (E=mc^2).

Well I say it's unlikely you "turn into" photons as you come into contact with an equal mass of antimatter - you and the anti-mass would mutually annihilate, releasing massive amounts of energy (E=mc^2). The energy causes photons to pop into existance as it speeds through space. But I could be wrong...
 
Back
Top