Topic: Eureka! Scientists break speed of light
started by: jim
I'm sure CK will some sort of insight into this... Fascinating none the less.
------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >
a: they made a light pulse go 300 times the speed of light, not matter
b: the light pulse didn't actually go 300 times the speed of light, it sort of jumped from one place to another 300 times faster then it would have taken to propogate normally
notes: i'm still on the skeptical side of things here. i don't think they have broken the laws of physics nor have disproved relativity. i think this is just some strange property of matter that has gone undiscovered until now. also, similar effects have been seen with sodium gas at near-absolute-zero tempratures. scientists have actually "frozen light" in a chemical process.
vaccum = no medium
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 07, 2001 at 01:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
it can slow down but it can't speed upvaccum = no medium
Light can be affected by gravity. So whats the speed of light after it passes the event horizon of a black hole, and as it enters it? Also since light has no matter that would suggest that it could pass through or reflect off of anti matter. what about in negative medium?
------------------
Radio Dj: so now that your not on saturday night live what are you gonna do?
Jim Bruer: I dont know.. fight mexicans or something.
FUHAOHB2IPDEFCIPUDQNFQFYLOEGOGB
quote:
Originally posted by L33T_h4x0r_d00d:
Light can be affected by gravity. So whats the speed of light after it passes the event horizon of a black hole, and as it enters it? Also since light has no matter that would suggest that it could pass through or reflect off of anti matter. what about in negative medium?
i don't know where you heard that from, because it's wrong. light isn't directly affected by gravity. gravity "dents" space-time, which results in light traveling in straight lines to appear as if it's being bent to us, who can't percieve the 4th dimension.
as for the anti-matter thing, that is way off. anti-matter is exactly the same as normal matter, except it has opposite charge. photons interact exactly the same (or exactly opposite). and there's no such thing as a negative medium.
also i know that it is possible to make an image go faster than the speed of light. take a REALLy big cylinder place a laser beam at the centre aimed at the walls and rotate it REALLY fast and the dot it produces can go faster than light cos its an image not an individual particle
catnight could probably explain that better cos i cant be assed though i seriously doubt they managed to actually break the light barrier though
i mean i've seen cases where scientists have claimed to send a radio signal back in time using negative energy but i've never heard anything more so i doubt it was accurately done or something was assumed wrong. a lot of times the data turns out to give a different conclusion that sometimes is interesting but not what was originally laimed.
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
Whether or not they transferred matter or 'a light pulse' 300 times faster than the speed of light doesn't matter, the fact that they've transferred information faster than the speed of light is what matters (excuse the pun). If what they've done is real and is repeatable (I've not read the article but I did hear about this about 6 months ago though anyway, it's something to do with caesium gas isn't it?) then you can forget all this 1 GHz bullshit, we'll be using quantum computers that run at incredible speeds (mmmmmmmm, speeeeeed).
Nice sig Bob, I heard that the git surfers load up on Cake before going out to look for fun.
cheers
quote:
Originally posted by Sithiee:
but then there was the crazy thing about how if you go the speed of light, time stands still. does this mean, that if you go faster than the speed of light, you go backwards in time??
sort of. The faster you move (i.e. in a rocket or something), the slower time passes. So, logically, if you are going faster than light speed, time should go backwards. This is one of the reasons why the theory of relativity cannot be proven "correctly".
Btw, when I heard this in physics class, I tried to make practical use of it: when I am late for school in the morning, the faster I run to get there, the slower time passes... i.e. if I run fast enough time passes so slowly that I still arrive in time for school? Too bad I could never run really fast.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
Want proof?
< http://nova.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/cerenkov.html >
Short blurp about Cerenkov radiation.
There's proof that relativity's true when you look at the decay of gamma rays as they hit our atmosphere (or something, yes I know that gamma rays are part of the elctromagnetic spectrum I don't if I'm talking about ther ight thing hitting our atmosphere, but it could be right, the rest of what I say is pretty much true, honest). I think that they turn into mesons as they hit our atmosphere which have a life time of about 10^-18 seconds (or something). Anyway, despite this, these mesons still manage to reach the surface of the planet which, even though they're travelling at near the speed of light, they shouldn't be able to do as they don't exist long enough. The fact that they do last long enough proves that time has 'slowed down' for the particle so in our observations it lasts a lot longer than it should and so can reach the ground.
Renegade, I've heard before how they've accelerated electrons to move faster through water than light does but what they're talking about here is photons travelling faster than the actual speed of light in a vaccuum by acccelerating it through caesium gas (or something).
cheers
I'm sure this won't be last we hear of it...
------------------
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)
quote:
Originally posted by LazyGit:
you can forget all this 1 GHz bullshit, we'll be using quantum computers that run at incredible speeds
Quantum computers wouldnt need speed. they'd go back and forth in time to see what you want, figure out how to do it, do it, and then give it to you.
did anyone read 'Timeline' by Michael Crichton? that was a damned good book. it gives some theories about 'time travel' and how your not traveling anywhere since time itself isnt a place. j00 people should read it.
and people get beheaded!
------------------
I may be paranoid, but not an Andriod.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
quote:
Originally posted by Rhydant:
Quantum computers wouldnt need speed. they'd go back and forth in time to see what you want, figure out how to do it, do it, and then give it to you.did anyone read 'Timeline' by Michael Crichton? that was a damned good book. it gives some theories about 'time travel' and how your not traveling anywhere since time itself isnt a place. j00 people should read it.
and people get beheaded!
not really quantum computers work by doing equations simultaneously unlike modern computers that figure things out one thing after the other. this means that quantum computers wont replace standard ones as there are certain things that they cant do that standard pcs can. however their speed does exceed that of modern pcs in that they can work out information faster than if u used a standard pc that utilised every particle in the universe as its components.
basically the bit rate of quantum pcs increases by square rather than by sum.
i.e instead of 1bit, 2bit, 4bit, 8bit
it goes 1bit, 2bit, 4bit, 16bit, 256bit
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
it goes 1bit, 2bit, 4bit, 16bit, 256bi
Doesn't 1 ^ 2 = 1?
Then again, I don't know wtf I'm talking about...
------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-< PersonGuy >
quote:
Originally posted by PersonGuy:
Then again, I don't know wtf I'm talking about...
Such honesty the likes of which this forum has never seen
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
because according to the article, particles didn't really travel back in time, but rather it existed in two places at once for a given period of time
i think there is no such thing a future,m since it hasn't happened yet, and no past, because we can olny exist at one place at any given period of time(if we are not traveling faster then the speed of light that is)
but when u go with the speed of light, time sptos, now when u go faster, u just basically split in two for a while, until your second half catches up to u eventually
which would basically be a sord of teleportation
u appear at a distanation, and then disappear from the point of the departure
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
That would mean that the whole "faster than light" thingie has to be quite old, too.
------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-< PersonGuy >
The way quantum computers work is this:
Instead of each transistor being capable of being either ON (1) or OFF (0), as in normal computer, in a quantum computer, each transistor can be ON and OFF at the same time. This means that while a normal computer's bit count goes 2n: 1,2,4,8,16,32... a quantum computer's bit count goes 2n^2: 1,2,8,128,32768,2147483648! This is according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for which Schroedinger's cat is an example.
Suppose you have a box that contains a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a glass bottle containing cyanide, and a live cat. It's arranged so that when the apparatus is switched on for just long enough, there is a 50/50 chance that one radioactive particle will be released from the source and detected. If a particle is detected, then the cyanide will be released, killing the cat. If no particle is detected, then the cyanide is not relased, leaving the cat alive. The Copenhagen interpretation states that until we look inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive (called the superposition of states). Once we look inside the box, the possibilities collapse and just one of the two remain.
Kind of a long explanation for the theory but I bet you guys get the drift. Anyway, if you want a good read, pick up John Gribbin's In Search of Schroedinger's Cat. And remember, though Timeline was a good book (that's where I got interested in quantum mechanics) it's only BASED on fact.
Any questions, comments, or flames, don't hesitate...
-miNus
This message has been edited by miNus on June 10, 2001 at 08:42 AM
quote:
Ok, some quantum computer clarifications.
The way quantum computers work is this:
Instead of each transistor being capable of being either ON (1) or OFF (0), as in normal computer, in a quantum computer, each transistor can be ON and OFF at the same time. This means that while a normal computer's bit count goes 2n: 1,2,4,8,16,32... a quantum computer's bit count goes 2n^2: 1,2,8,128,32768,2147483648! This is according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for which Schroedinger's cat is an example.
Suppose you have a box that contains a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a glass bottle containing cyanide, and a live cat. It's arranged so that when the apparatus is switched on for just long enough, there is a 50/50 chance that one radioactive particle will be released from the source and detected. If a particle is detected, then the cyanide will be released, killing the cat. If no particle is detected, then the cyanide is not relased, leaving the cat alive. The Copenhagen interpretation states that until we look inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive (called the superposition of states). Once we look inside the box, the possibilities collapse and just one of the two remain.
only comment on that is that they won't be transistors any longer
from my understanding transistors are defined as switches that can either be on or off, once they loose that property they are no longer transistors
quote:
what would be the advantage to being on and off at the same time? and whats the advantage to counting by 2n^2 instead of 2n? i am quite lost.
well the fact that they can be on and off at the same time accounts for the exponential growth in speed
and the fact that the growth is exponential accounts for the extremely high speeds
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
This message has been edited by kornalldaway on June 10, 2001 at 10:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by miNus:
[B]which Schroedinger's cat is an example.
Suppose you have a box that contains a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a glass bottle containing cyanide, and a live cat. It's arranged so that when the apparatus is switched on for just long enough, there is a 50/50 chance that one radioactive particle will be released from the source and detected. If a particle is detected, then the cyanide will be released, killing the cat. If no particle is detected, then the cyanide is not relased, leaving the cat alive. The Copenhagen interpretation states that until we look inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive (called the superposition of states). Once we look inside the box, the possibilities collapse and just one of the two remain.
there is something about that in a guide book to the Riven game. im gonna have to find that book again.
but remember, the only reason why the cat is both dead and alive is because we cannot know the location and direction (which the particle is traveling) of a sub atomic particle without changing one or another. so it is impossible for the cat to die without us changing something in that box. but what does this have to do with anything? bah.
so instead of waiting 5 hours to detect a particle, just open that damn box!
------------------
I may be paranoid, but not an Andriod.
This message has been edited by Rhydant on June 10, 2001 at 11:07 AM
and anyways the reason i fucked up my last converstion is simple.
NEVER and i repeat NEVER try to explain quantum mechanics when pissed off your head cos then it makes even less sense and beleive me that IS BAD!
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
It's not an easy subject to wrap your mind around, simply because the quantum mechanical world cannot be aptly compared to anything that we can observe directly. You also seem to know about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The problem with quantum computers is that when we go to check the value of the 'electron transistor' (oh, btw, quantum bits are called qbits), we make it 'choose' a state of being (on or off). There are ways to get around this though. I read an interesting < article > a while ago about the blessings and problems of quantum computing. I suggest reading the whole thing but if you want to know the ways to circumvent the uncertainty principle problem, it's in the bulleted paragraph at the end.
Anyway, it's a really cool field of study that can and will (eventually) change the way we think of computers.
Oh and kornalldaway, your comment about them not being transistors made me go back and read that article. What they would use in place of transistors in a quantum computer are electrons, where the states are 1/2 or -1/2 corresponding to the spin of the electron.
-miNus
anywayz this working optical one works using sending a beam of light splitting it and by using mirrors you get simulataneous singnals which u can use to practicaly demonstrate how the theory works
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
quote:
Originally posted by miNus:
You also seem to know about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
-miNus
What did Neil Bohrs prove>?
I thought that was his bag.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
quote:
This is one of the reasons why the theory of relativity cannot be proven "correctly".
relativity has already been proven. moving backwards in time is not a part of the theory because part of the theory says you can never go faster then the speed of light.
quote:
tachyons
tachyons are actually just a mathematical error of some sort. accoring to some mass-energy calculations, a particle with negative mass should exist. they named this the tachyon. since you can't have negative mass, it doesn't exist. then the name got WAY WAY abused by star trek voyager.
quote:
Anyway, despite this, these mesons still manage to reach the surface of the planet which, even though they're travelling at near the speed of light, they shouldn't be able to do as they don't exist long enough. The fact that they do last long enough proves that time has 'slowed down' for the particle so in our observations it lasts a lot longer than it should and so can reach the ground.
experiments are currently underway to investigate the way that mesons transform into other particles and vice versa spontaneously, which would explain this.
quote:
What did Neil Bohrs prove>?
bohr did atomic structure and electron orbits
quote:
Originally posted by LiNeY:
Teleportation? Didn't they already experiment with that during WWII?
I believe you're thinking of the Philadelphia Experiment. That was some far-out shit where they did make an entire ship vanish, and for a brief moment, it appeared in another harbor. When it did return to Philadelphia, however, many of the crew had merged with parts of the ship so that they were sticking out of the floors and bulkheads.
I'll email a copy of the Allende letters, which were written to the Philadelphia Inquirer (not the Enquirer the tabloid rag!) detailing the aftermath of that experiement, to anyone who wants them.
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
This message has been edited by Observer on June 11, 2001 at 05:48 AM
< http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/cs/philadelphiaexp/ >
I'm not saying it really happened, cause I seriously doubt it did. But it had nothing to do with a stealthy battleship...
quote:
Allegedly, in the fall of 1943 a U.S. Navy destroyer was made invisible and teleported from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Norfolk, Virginia, in an incident known as the Philadelphia Experiment. Records in the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center have been repeatedly searched, but no documents have been located which confirm the event, or any interest by the Navy in attempting such an achievement.
------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >
This message has been edited by jim on June 11, 2001 at 06:34 AM
Yes, I know that they < made a movie > about it in 1984. But if you check the info on that movie, you'll see "based on an actual event that occurred in 1943.
Anyway, that involved a whole lot of electricity and very little about lightspeed theory. CK, I'll be happy do discuss it with you on ICQ or AIM if you wish. Email me for info.
edit: I just found this page: < http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm > which categorically denies that such an event ever happened.
Now, for all you conspiracy theorists, this could be seen as merely evidence of a government coverup. One could argue that if it did actually happen then the government realized it was much more advanced than they could possibly deal with at the time.
In any event, I withdraw the challenge as the evidence to properly support the theory has probably been removed.
edit again: Somehow missed Jim's post while typing mine. Stupid IE not checking that a new page was there!
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
This message has been edited by Observer on June 11, 2001 at 07:43 AM
who here think that timetravel is possible?
and i don't mean in a fictional way, i mean in the scientific
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
now, what supposedly happens if one travels with the speed of light and then exceedes it. well as i think of it, a time travels with the speed of light, and light travels with the speed of time. now if you go faster then that you just get ahead of the time what could be classified as future, when in reality it's nothing there but the object traveling with the speed of light. eventually as the object slows downs, the time will catch up to it and object will reappear. no what exactly happens when the object breakes the speed of light is unknown, but according to the article that started this thread the object will exist at two places at once (btw: the article was talking about light and my theory here deals with a ceratin object, or particle).
it all depends on what time is perceived as. time, as i see it, is a dot. and adsolute dot that does not extend into any of the three dimensions, but travelling along the forth one. that explains the fact that there is no future or past, just present, because time is only a dot that exists and only one instance. now if an object exceedes the speed of light, it will leave the dot, moving further into the forth dimension and then rejoining the dot later. now as we all at the dot, what would we see. the object would basically stay right where it was, unless somehwere in the process of leaving our timedot and moving along the fourth dimention a movement of that object along any of the three dimensions that we are able to perceive occured. so if an obfect moved along either x,y, or z plain as it was moving beyond the speed of light it would simply reappear at a different location. now since it was going faster then the time when it moved in the other three dimensions, when the time catches up with it, there will be now two of the same object, only for a tiny period in time, since it will still remain at the location of it's departure and now be at the location of the reentry.
now, it is hard to explain because of the concept of the fourth dimension, but it is the way i see time and the way i explain the experiment done in the article
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
as for the movie, whoever wrote thar script was really stupid. there was no time travel done in that experiment
now as a side note, i apologise for any spelling mistakes that i might've made in this and the above posts
that is simply because i am not very good at spelling.
i am a forener.
lol
and partially because about half way through that big theory shrooms that i took before started to kick in
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
newton was suppased by special relativity,
special relativity was surpassed by general relativity
and the next thing will be quantum gravity as soon as we figure out how to merge quantum with the real world or something like that
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
quote:
Actually CK, you need to read up on it a bit before making guesstamations... < http://ufos.about.com/science/ufos/cs/philadelphiaexp/ >
ufos.about.com automatically can't be used in an argument, becuase you can be sure it's pure dillusion and fiction right from the start. and so it was a destroyer not a battleship, big deal.
quote:
Yes, I know that they made a movie about it in 1984. But if you check the info on that movie, you'll see "based on an actual event that occurred in 1943.
hollywood claims a lot of things. like "fire in the sky was based on a true story", etc. you're forgetting its hollywood bullshit and they just say that crap to get stupid people to believe its true.
quote:
i myself beleive that time travel is impossible, because, in simple words, there is no future because is hasn't happened yet,
re-read my previous post.
quote:
what supposedly happens if one travels with the speed of light and then exceedes it
if it were possible, then our model of the universe would be vastly incorrect, and thus the rest of your theory is based on an incorrect perception of reality.
quote:
a time travels with the speed of light, and light travels with the speed of time.
time doesn't travel. it's a dimension. i don't see "left" or "down" going anywhere either. and wtf is speed of time?
quote:
it all depends on what time is perceived as. time, as i see it, is a dot. and adsolute dot that does not extend into any of the three dimensions, but travelling along the forth one
time is the fourth dimension.
quote:
special relativity was surpassed by general relativity
those aren't the same thing dumbass. and quantum gravity is the same thing as general relativity, except that the idea of particles is replaced by strings to get rid of infinities and such. it combines relativity and quantum mechanics, but it doesn't invalidate either as such.
i'll have to find an article to post and some illustrations, but basically steven hawking proved that traveling back in time is impossible using relativity related theories. it has to do with black holes or something.
and i appologise for certain misconceptions in it, it is very hard to explain
and the more i think of it or discuss it, more complex it becomes
time is the forth dimension, but i was refering to a specific point in time, present, as being a dot shifted along the same axis
just trying to visualize it can be complicated, but that is the only way i can explain it
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
But this is all just from my memory, please don't take it as fact or anything.
SLATE
CK, you have a big head and I think you need to open yourself to new ideas and quit pretending that you know everything.
quote:
This war-weary, heartsick, and bedraggled planet is not alone -- it is just one cell in a multi-cellular unit. Let us revive from the sedative idea fostered by both science and religion that man, Homo Sapiens, of here and now, of the United States and today, is the final, glorious, endpoint in the work of an omnipotent and benevolent creator, all alone in an infinite universe. It cannot be true -- and in our honest hearts all of us know that it is not so.Were I to be granted one more word, that word would be Truth. I am interested in true knowledge, for its own sake. It is my philosophy that science and religion should have at least one thing in common: the untiring, unceasing, unwavering quest of unbiased, undistorted true knowledge of the world around us . . . and, again, I use the word world in its old, original and all-comprehensive sense.
------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >
This message has been edited by jim on June 12, 2001 at 07:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jiggyfresh:
travel through space going faster then the speed of light, you'll still get where your going; just faster
Doesn't mass/size increase exponentially as somethign reaches near light speeds. Which means that you would be as big as the universe (maybe) and you would hit a bunch of shit on your way to your detination and probably die in a horrible explosion, but you would do it faster.
EDIT-- spelling
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
This message has been edited by Non on June 11, 2001 at 09:57 PM
Enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by kornalldaway:
and partially because about half way through that big theory shrooms that i took before started to kick in
Well Then it belongs in the lsd thread as an example of the incoherence involved with drugs........
------------------
Radio Dj: so now that your not on saturday night live what are you gonna do?
Jim Bruer: I dont know.. fight mexicans or something.
FUHAOHB2IPDEFCIPUDQNFQFYLOEGOGB
You have a lot of facts about stuff, especially science, and I was wondering where you aquired all this?
I mean are you getting a Ph D in Quantum Physics or something, or do you just read a lot of "Popular Science" magazines?
Edit - just not starting a new post.
Are there planets orbit the Alhpa Centuri System? I thought it was just 3 stars?
I think that Intersteller travle is pointless unless the goal is to find greatly advanced beings to teach us how to evolve with out destroying.
btw If i were looking for technologically advanced beings in this galaxy i would look start at the center, i mean really if you wanna meet go to the obvious place.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
This message has been edited by Non on June 12, 2001 at 01:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Non:
Doesn't mass/size increase exponentially as somethign reaches near light speeds. Which means that you would be as big as the universe (maybe) and you would hit a bunch of shit on your way to your detination and probably die in a horrible explosion, but you would do it faster.
EDIT-- spelling
mass increases, but not size. it explains how the momentum of an object continually increases as it approaches the speed of light, but it never reaches the speed of light. because p(momentum) = mass * velocity, as momentum increases, so must mass or velocity. because you cannot reach the speed of light, and yet momentum still increases, it was concluded your mass must increase. that does not necessarily mean that your size increases though.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here
quote:
time has a speed. if your standing still on the earth, time is passing at 24 hours per earth day. if youre going at the speed of light in a vacuum, time is not passing, and thusly has a speed of 0. at least thats true according to what ive managed to understand of my physics class.
you are wrong again sithiee. if you are in a space ship going 99\% the speed of light time still passes exactly the same for you. for an outside observer however, it will look as if you are not ageing.
quote:
I mean are you getting a Ph D in Quantum Physics or something, or do you just read a lot of "Popular Science" magazines?
nuclear engineering/physics
quote:
Are there planets orbit the Alhpa Centuri System? I thought it was just 3 stars?
i think they found a gas giant there too. there was also a star where they found proof that a planet was actually engulfed by the star! forgot which one though.
for the speed of light/mass thing,
E=mc^2, c is constant.
E=1/2mv^2
as velocity increases, energy increases, therefore mass must also increase. also, the faster you go, the more energy is required to accelerate faster. so when you go 99.99999...\% the speed of light, the energy required to accelerate is infinite.
as for interstellar travel, i don't think it will be possible to go really far without some sort of space bending/wormhole technology. even going at 90\% the speed of light it would take decades to get to any interesting star systems, and thousands of years to get to the galatic center.
And with regards to intersltellar travel i think that it will be a VERY long time before we accomplish that i think that for a long time the technology used will be more to do with efficientcy like how to travel to mars and such quickly but with low cost.
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
<Spock>Fascinating, Jim.<Spock>
Anyway, as to relativity. A person travelling at near-C (near lightspeed) would observe time passing "normally." In other words, an onboard clock would still tick at the same speed as far as the traveller is concerned. However, the "ship time" taken for the trip would be less than the "real world" time.
Let's use the previous example of a trip to Alpha Centauri. To everyone not in the ship, a journey at near-C would take 4 years, but to the traveller(s) in the ship, much less time would have passed. How much time passed would depend on how close to C they were travelling.
This principle was used in Speaker for the Dead, the sequel to Ender's Game. And yes I know it was just a book, but I think it's perfectly ok for an author to use real scientific theories and principles in literature. Jules Verne did.
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
by the way this effect has been confirmed by the fact that sattellites with cesium clocks in orbit going 20,000 mph for several months get ahead by a second or so due to time dialation.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 12, 2001 at 07:08 AM
maybe
Anywya i haev to go take my Physics final in 45 mins so i am off. It is just an intro to newtonian mechanics.
ok i am off to class so no more insightful (if not totally unbased) theories form me till 1:30 pst
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
the ship went about 1000 years into the future. i forgot how long the ship had been traveling before it landed back on earth, so i will just say it was 1 year (the most difference it could make is 1 order of magnitude, which isn't very significant anyway). in order to experience 1000 earth years in 1 ship year, the ship must have traveled at .9999995c. now, the kinetic energy associated with a rocked ship with mas 10,000 kg traveling at this speed is approxamately:
E=1/2mv^2
E=1/2(10000 kg)(.9999995c)^2
=449,999,775,000,000,000,000 J (449 sextillion joules)
thats equal to 124,999,937,500,000 kilowatt-hours. (124 quadrillion kilowatt-hours)
to give you an idea to as how much power this is, all of the united states in 1999 produced 21,396,300,000,000 kWh total (21 trillion). thus i conclude that the planet of the apes plot was totally implausable. 
Scenario:
The starship cr0bar leaves from Earth on a journey to Alpha Centauri at 0.99\%C as measured by a stationary observer at rest. For simplicity, we'll say C=186,000 miles/sec.
The distance to Alpha Centauri (assuming a straight line) is 4 light-years, or roughly 5.88 trillion miles.
Recall that a light-year is the distance an object travelling at the speed of light would cover in one year. So, to the stationary observer, cr0bar would make the trip in 4 years.
Where the relativity comes into play, is how much time does the trip take for a passenger on that starship? Since there appears to be a consensus that "time slows down for you as you go faster," it would appear that the passenger would measure a trip time of less than 4 years. I could offer better examples, possibly with math, once I dig out my physics notes tonight.
So, CK, to continue this discussion, are you disputing my first point about the trip time as measured by the stationary observer, that an object which is observed (by the stationary person) to travel from point x1 to point x2 travelling at velocity v does not actually take time t=(x2-x1)/v to get there? If that point isn't already established, then discussing what happens in the ship won't work.
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
after lunch
btw:
quote:
So, to the stationary observer, cr0bar would make the trip in 4 years.
you are forgetting the whole point of relativity! *smacks forehead*
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 13, 2001 at 11:01 AM
it's like for every week we have on earth, they have a month
i am not sure why this happens, but i did read this somewhere
and by the way, the time on earth and spaceship i gave as an example might not be accurate. it's only an example
------------------
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Whigham
^see above.
BTW i kicked my physics final's ass.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
< The Twin Paradox >
edit- found another
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
This message has been edited by Non on June 12, 2001 at 03:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
thats where you are wrong. you are forgetting the whole point of relativity! *smacks forehead*
Then I will ask again. If the voyage does not appear to take 4 years, then how can the observer measure V(ship)=(near-C) with respect to him? If the voyage would appear to take longer than 4 years to an at-rest observer, then the measured velocity would be far less than C. Right now, it appears we can't seem to agree on the first point.
As I said before, let's clear up my point 1 first: the reference frame measures the speed of the ship to be near-C with respect to the reference frame. Without trying to look inside the ship right now, please explain how the reference frame would measure an object travel a known distance at a known velocity yet not take the equivalent time. In case I haven't been clear enough, I am talking about an at-rest observer who is not in the ship.
Once we both agree and hammer out that point, then we can move on to discussing what happens to the passengers.
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
quote:
Originally posted by Observer:
So, to the stationary observer, cr0bar would make the trip in 4 years.
No cr0bar would make the trip in a much shorter period of time, the staionary observer would meassure his travel time at 4 years.
"Don't worry, It's all relative."
-----------------
There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!
This message has been edited by Non on June 12, 2001 at 04:20 PM
quote:
then the measured velocity would be far less than C
this is correct. addition of relativistic velocities. 1+1 := 2. if you take two photons, and fire them off in opposite directions, then to a neutral observer in the middle, both will fly away at the speed of light. but relative to either photon, the other is only traveling at the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. similar situation here. the guy in the space ship makes it in 4 years to him. accoring to earth, it takes him like 20 or 40 or whatever.
non-did you even read your own link it explains everything i've been trying to tell you a little better.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 12, 2001 at 05:46 PM
I think you're dancing around this point too much. Please explain why an observer who measures the speed of the ship to be near-C would not observe the ship getting there in 4 years.
This message has been edited by Observer on June 12, 2001 at 05:57 PM
observer-
quote:
I re-read CK's post. So then to the stationary observer, the ship isn't actually moving at anywhere near relativistic speeds with respect to his reference frame, making relativity invalid?
you are still missing the whole point of relativity, and that is that for different reference frames, stuff happens differently. you have to pick 1 reference frame.
quote:
I think you're dancing around this point too much. Please explain why an observer who measures the speed of the ship to be near-C would not observe the ship getting there in 4 years.
oh wait that link was incorrect forget i posted it
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 13, 2001 at 11:11 AM
Here is an < example > of that different frames of reference CK was talking about.
Since the best way to settle an argument is to take one point at a time, I figured it would be best to establish a starting point. A starting point which you seem adamant about avoiding.
And do you always have to resort to insults instead of answering my question?
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
ok lets settle this argument catknight style
<catknight stlye>
point one = Time is relative to speed, duh Onserver. I mean come on. What are you retarded?
point two = Event can occur but are not the same depending on frame of reference. I can't believe you don't get this. really Observer get a clue.
point three = you are stupid
point four = I am GOD, bow down
</catknight style>
quote:
this effect has been confirmed by the fact that sattellites with cesium clocks in orbit going 20,000 mph for several months get ahead by a second or so due to time dialation.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 13, 2001 at 05:55 AM
but i think it's more like:
observer: here is the way relativity works...
me: no you got it backwards its the other way around
observer: wait i dont get it...so you mean its this?
me: no that's still not right. it's like this.
non: oh...i get it. here's an article that explains it.
observer: so it's like this?
me: yeesh, no, it's exactly how i just said. read that article.
observer: no no i think it's like this. wait you are confusing me.
me: here just read this.
observer: (not reading link) i still don't get it.
me: *smacks forhead*
Ob: Two points about how relativity works.
CK: No, you're wrong.
Ob: Ok then, consider first point which is simpler.
CK: NO! Here's a link to why you're wrong about the second point.
Ob: I'm not asking about that. Please explain the first point if I'm wrong then.
CK: You're so stupid, read this link while I dance around.
BTW, after reading your link and the one on the Twins Paradox, I'm convinced that you do have it backwards. You said to choose one frame as a reference frame. What's wrong with choosing the at-rest observer? For your examples, you were using the inside of the ship as your reference frame, such that the trip takes 4 years for the ship.
On the same page as the Twins Paradox, consider the pole and barn example. The pole represents the ship, and the barn represents the distance between Alpha Centauri and Earth.
Notice how for the moving object the barn appears shorter. So for the ship's passengers, it would not appear to be covering 4 light-years during the trip. As for time dilation, the stationary observer (reference frame) would observe time passing slower for the passengers.
************************************************************
For those of you still with us, thank you.
Going back to Jim's original idea of somehow transmitting a signal seemingly faster than light-speed, does this idea remind anyone else of the ansible concept from Ender's Game?
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
code:Conclusion: the traveling twin is younger. Furthermore, if
she moves with constant velocity v most of the time (periods of
acceleration short compared to the duration of the whole trip), T will
approximately be given by ____________
/ 2 |
(t2-t1) \/ 1 - [v/c] . (2)The last expression is exact for a round trip (e.g. a circle) with constant
velocity v. [At the times t1 and t2, twin B flies past twin A and they
compare their clocks.]
the reason why:
quote:
Now the big deal with SR, in the present context, is that T (or d\tau, respectively) is a so-called Lorentz scalar. In other words, its value does not depend on the choice of S. If we Lorentz transform the coordinates of the world lines of the twins to another inertial frame S', we will get the same result for T in S' as in S. This is a mathematical fact.
basically, if you change which reference frame you are using, you change the variables around, but you get the same result. after a 8 year round trip going near the speed of light, when the guy gets back to earth, everyone will have aged more then 8 years. your mistake can be explained by this:
quote:
Of course the situation of the two twins is not symmetric, although one might be tempted by expression (2) to think the opposite. Twin A is at rest in one and the same inertial frame for all times, whereas twin B is not. [Formula (1) does not hold in an accelerated frame.] This breaks the apparent symmetry of the two situations, and provides the clearest nonmathematical hint that one twin will in fact be younger than the other at the end of the trip. To figure out *which* twin is the younger one, use the formulae above in a frame in which they are valid, and you will find that B is in fact younger, despite her expectations.
Depending on the reference point you take, that is.
if you take a reference from a stationary observer on earth, then the ship crobar gets to AlphaCentauri in 4 years. from the observers frame of reference, the poeple in the ship actually only experience a small fraction of this time, depending on how fast they are going.
Frame of reference 2:
From the ship!
crobar observers that it takes him 4 years to get to alpha centauri, but yet, when he gets back, he is younger than his wife ch1ck1e he left behind. ergo, the trip took longer than 4 years from an internal viewpoint.
these views are not incompatable. they are off only on a matter of scale.
code:
T t d v gamma
1 year 1.19 yrs 0.56 lyrs 0.77c 1.58
2 3.75 2.90 0.97 3.99
5 83.7 82.7 0.99993 86.2
8 1,840 1,840 0.9999998 1,890
12 113,000 113,000 0.99999999996 117,000
constant acceleration of g:
distance: destination: travel time:
4.3 ly proxmia-centauri 3.6 years
27 ly Vega 6.6 years
30,000 ly Center of our galaxy: 21 years
2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy: 29 years
n ly anywhere 1.94 arccosh[n/1.94 + 1] years
i have no idea whether this theory is accurate or not though. it might be totally wrong, under SR. i just found this on the internet.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 13, 2001 at 02:40 PM
I love you.
Please, Enjoy.
BYE BYE STUPID TOPIC THAT NOONE GETS ANYWAY!!!
------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
We should think of it this way; it is not possible for anything to go faster than the speed of light for any distance that would effect time.
please don't respond to this, as i just want this thread to die too.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
if a quantum "transistor" (for lack of a better word) had the ability to be both on and off at the same time, and it was performing two tasks, what if both tasks required that specific "transistor" to be "on"?
and also
when the transistor is on and off, and you've got two tasks, one requiring the on, and the other requiring the off, how would you assure that they don't get mixed up...?
--amy
------------------
I am the one, the Alfa and the Omega...I am the Amygdala...
--amy
------------------
I am the one, the Alfa and the Omega...I am the Amygdala...
A:univerise's expansion will accelerate and continue forever
B:universe's expansion will decelerate forever
C:universe will decelerate to 0 then start to collapse to the big crunch.
it all depends on the amount of matter in the universe, and any unknown forces that act on galaxy super clusters.
forgot to mention, the universe is currently expanding, and accelerating. this can be seen by the apparant redshift of ALL galaxies (except like 2, one of which is the andromeda which is on a collision course with the milky way)
This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 13, 2001 at 08:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
(except like 2, one of which is the andromeda which is on a collision course with the milky way)
/me Immediatly blows whole event out of perportion, causing mass panic and thousands of suicide cults.
Just another day in the life of mass media.
------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass
Ok I have found a new reason to be cryogenically frozen and reanimated. To see the collsion.
The quantumn computer works on the principal that all things that Can happend Do happen, I think. Read Crichton's Timeline.
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
C:universe will decelerate to 0 then start to collapse to the big crunch.
ok, so when the universe decelerates to 0, time will slow down?
this isn't really relevant due to the fact that we wouldn't notice...but when it slows to zero...time will have stopped...so how would it start to collapse without any time?
no time, means no nothing...
------------------
I am the one, the Alfa and the Omega...I am the Amygdala...
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
C:universe will decelerate to 0 then start to collapse to the big crunch.
ok, so when the universe decelerates to 0, time will slow down?
this isn't really relevant due to the fact that we wouldn't notice...but when it slows to zero...time will have stopped...so how would it start to collapse without any time?
no time, means no nothing...
------------------
I am the one, the Alfa and the Omega...I am the Amygdala...
but, as far as i know, the expansion of the universe is not directly related to time or the speed of light. however, there is no way to really know because we have only known about the expansion of the univerise for 70 years or so and it's almost impossible to measure on short scales.
As a result of this Catknight doesn't really know what he's talking about.
The universe is fine, they've done studies, it's 'flat': it won't never collapse unless God farts.
cheers
quote:
Originally posted by LazyGit:
First off, Catknight studies nuclear physics, that's practically chemistry which is almost as bad as biology which isn't even really a science.As a result of this Catknight doesn't really know what he's talking about.
The universe is fine, they've done studies, it's 'flat': it won't never collapse unless God farts.
cheers
And I bet you're an "engineer" or something?
Pardon me but, ooOOooOOooOOoo
Right now we've got the time just before the universe began at about 10^10 seconds or something redicuolus but anything before that involves trying to understand how all the universal forces were unified as one.
So back to the task at hand universal expansion... well its not really expansion as most people understand it isnt as if the universe "exploded" from a single point it kinda just happened everywhere. this is why we still get the microwave background radiation from the beginning literaly of time because its coming from billions of light years away and we still can measure it cos as far as we know the universe is infinite. the doppler effect as such isnt the same as you get with sound (the speeding car effect) its caused by space time literally being stretched (dont confuse space-time with space as they aint the same)and the light being shifted to the microwave. this stretching of space time is what the expansion is. the problem with comprehending it i find is due to people trying to imagine the universe as a static image in there head but because space-time has time in it
if you try and imagine light being affected over different distances as it travels you can begin to understand how that ckreaky old wheelchair doesnt hold ol stephen boy back ------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop
This message has been edited by Dark Knight Bob on June 14, 2001 at 05:03 PM
can anyone answer my first two questions??
--amy
------------------
I am the one, the Alfa and the Omega...I am the Amygdala...
it is not as simple as "answer this". It is all theories. <--- like i know. Don't listen to this guy!
------------------
My inner child has gone mad from the bitter cold and darkness that is my soul.
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
aww man i missed one of jiggyfresh's insightful insights :D
At this point in time, I will toss in the Omega Constant and duck. That has been touted as one of the solns to explain why the universe seems to be accelerating. Maybe Einstein wasn't so wrong...
------------------
"Once you have pulled the pin from Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend."
-Unknown (cited in nene, 2001)
I'm useless at explaining stuff.
cheers
quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
I need to get this into everyone's heads: particles CAN exceed the speed of light, just not if the particle is in a vacuum.Want proof?
< http://nova.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/cerenkov.html >Short blurp about Cerenkov radiation.
Now Go back and read the article again..
science has (up till now) held that the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute speed limit. Cerenkov radiation does not contradict this law. Rather, the particles travel faster than The speed of light in water. Not faster than the speed of light in vacuum. So. Cerenkov radiation is unusual in that the particle manages to travel faster than the usual speed of light in the medium, but does not violate the laws of physics, as the speed of the particle is still below the speed limit (Light in a vacuum.)
And while I'm attacking theories at the beginning of this forum (yeah, I know I'm late), there seems to be some basic mis-understanding of Schroedinger's cat principle.
quote:
Originally posted by : miNus
This is according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics for which Schroedinger's cat is an example.
Suppose you have a box that contains a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a glass bottle containing cyanide, and a live cat. It's arranged so that when the apparatus is switched on for just long enough, there is a 50/50 chance that one radioactive particle will be released from the source and detected. If a particle is detected, then the cyanide will be released, killing the cat. If no particle is detected, then the cyanide is not relased, leaving the cat alive. The Copenhagen interpretation states that until we look inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive (called the superposition of states). Once we look inside the box, the possibilities collapse and just one of the two remain.
No, as a matter of fact, Schroedinger's point was precisely the opposite; that the cat was either alive or dead at that point in time, and therefore, that quantum probabilities collapse in the presence of large systems; that the concept of a simultaneously alive and dead cat was non-sensical, therefore the quantum wave-front *must* have dissolved by this point.
T
------------------
Vi Forever! (or at least till you figure out how to quit..)
quote:
Originally posted by Trog:
No, you're wrong! It's actually exactly how you explained it before, and you were right to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
Originally posted by Trog:No, you're wrong! It's actually exactly how you explained it before, and you were right to begin with.
erm... where did you pull that quote from? Not this thread, I think...
T
------------------
Vi Forever! (or at least till you figure out how to quit..)
This message has been edited by Trog on June 18, 2001 at 07:40 AM
The photon hasn't gone faster than light through caesium gas, it's gone faster than light in a vaccuum because it's gone through the caesium gas (supposedly).
No one even knows what the argument is in this thread anyway, what are we actually talking about? If you want a simple introduction to physics go and get A Brief History of Rhyme, sorry, Time by MC Hawking, sorry, Stephen Hawking, it will explain all.
cheers
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
i don't think the expansion of the universe has anything to do with redshifting.
see i wasnt having a go at you for saying the doppler effect was redshifting. which stricly speaking it kind of isnt actually i was saying that you were wrong about [above quote]
------------------
This is WAR wilson not sainsbury's!
-Arthur Lowe
logic chain:
expansion of the universe --> stuff moves away from us --> we observe redshift
we observe redshift := expansion of the universe