Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Faster Than Light?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#18 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1165 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 02:24 PM

I like GAHD's explanation much better.



#19 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1165 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 02:54 PM

I don't think I'll ever ask the physics stack exchange another question ever again. Yes they have some experts but you get the attention of the nuts first and they re-write your question based on a few words they understand and answer the one they think you've asked instead.

 

However, I've found nuts can be useful to force you to come up with an answer yourself. None attempted to answer my question about why the light pulse doesn't look length contracted  but they did concentrate on why a bullet would not look length contracted using the femtosecond photography.

 

Bullet velocity = 1.2e3 m/s

Bullet length = 1.2e-4 m

frame rate = 1e15 f/s

 

How many meters does a frame capture at the bullet velocity = 1.2e3/1e15 = 1.2e-12 m/f of 1.2 pico meters per frame

 

So how many frames shorter would a bullet appear due to length contraction. 

 

You need to calculate 1/Y = sqrt(1 - (1.2e3/3e8)) = .999999999992

 

Multiply by bullet length = .999999999992 x 1.2e-4 = 1.1999999999904e-4

 

and subtract non-contracted bullet length = 9.6e-16 m bullet has contracted.

 

Since each frame can't see anything below 1.2e-12m, femtophotography can't see bullets shrink due to length contraction unless the speed or length of the bullet is significantly greater. They said my calculation is BS. I'm not even sure it's possible to see length contraction from the side because it only should occur in line of sight which makes it impossible to see the back of the bullet being obscured from the front. I'm not going to bother trying to understand things that don't exist anyway.



#20 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 03:48 PM

I like GAHD's explanation much better.

It's still outdated:

 

 

I know the math almost as well as those who took the photograph



#21 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 03:49 PM

I supplied the basis for that math, in fact, I invented that specific geometry for the calculus


Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 24 September 2019 - 03:50 PM.


#22 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1165 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:12 PM

Ok Poly.



#23 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:27 PM

Ok Poly.


 

Are you insinuating I'm just copying what I've read? Like a Parrot as in "Poly want a cracker?"?? No I actually have a partial proof.



#24 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1165 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:41 PM

Why are you suddenly speaking English?



#25 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:45 PM

Why are you suddenly speaking English?

I'm not speaking, I'm typing.

 

Was that a test to see if I'd catch that you used the word speaking erroneously? Have you been reading this conversation in a language other than English up until my last post? Or was this question simply an overall test of my attention-span?


Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 24 September 2019 - 04:49 PM.


#26 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:50 PM

Or perhaps from your perspective you are having a face to face conversation...deduction time.



#27 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2779 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 04:58 PM

Or perhaps from your perspective you are having a face to face conversation...deduction time.

This is a forum, not a chat room. Try to complete your thoughts in one post before you hit enter. There is an edit post button specifically for instances where you have afterthoughts before you're responded to; learn to use it.

This is Kinda classified as "annoying our members" and outrageous claims without proofs backing them (via hyperlink) is also punching past the rules (which you will find conveniently linked on the bottom right of every single page)

Shape up please.

 

Why are you suddenly speaking English?

Same shape up message. Don't be a dick, do point out what's silly specifically, preferably with evidence on why. 

Ad argumentum  not  ad hominem


Edited by GAHD, 24 September 2019 - 05:01 PM.
latin afterthought


#28 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 08:02 PM

This is a forum, not a chat room. Try to complete your thoughts in one post before you hit enter. There is an edit post button specifically for instances where you have afterthoughts before you're responded to; learn to use it.

This is Kinda classified as "annoying our members" and outrageous claims without proofs backing them (via hyperlink) is also punching past the rules (which you will find conveniently linked on the bottom right of every single page)

Shape up please.

 

Same shape up message. Don't be a dick, do point out what's silly specifically, preferably with evidence on why. 

Ad argumentum  not  ad hominem

For what purpose?

 

Make me an administrator and I'll finish the proof up to 9 planck units of space and time



#29 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2779 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 12:24 AM

For what purpose?

 

Make me an administrator and I'll finish the proof up to 9 planck units of space and time

see you in 14 days. Or never. Your choice


  • exchemist likes this

#30 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2220 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 01:35 AM

I knew this was Superpolymath ever since the seven of nine meme(http://www.sciencefo...a-to-the-punch/).


Edited by VictorMedvil, 25 September 2019 - 01:38 AM.


#31 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 12:37 PM

I've worded this in other ways as well. In more technical terms.

 

OK I'll bite. I am interested in emergent gravity so why not emergent time? Is this what you are posting about? https://medium.com/t...nt-d5d3dc850933 https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691 Or do you have another take on emergent time. 

 

Edit Just read GAHDs post, see you in 14 days perhaps. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 26 September 2019 - 12:40 PM.


#32 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 04:11 AM

No, that's a single pulse not many pulses. They USED to do multy-pulse and them mix-and-match to try and reconstruct things. Also, you're looking at a macro image of something with a nanometer wavelength and amplitude...you would not "see" a wave in that scenario. The only reason anything is seen at all is because what they send the pulse though is a cloudy medium which refracts the coherent beam. I think they used a bit of milk in water IIRC?

The camera picks up the diffraction though a special kind of lens, kinda like a Fresnel lens, which puts the image from different sections onto different receptors over time. That's half the magic of how it captures so many frames so fast. The other half of the magic is a computer cluster assembling all the different receptor signals with timestamps into a movie.

 

This might not be 100% correct, but from memory of reading something on research gate a while back( the links to which I can find if wanted). 

 

There is some confusion re Photons of Einstein and those in QED which is repeated by Pop science articles and wikipedia etc. 

 

You would not see a wave in any scenario involving Einsteins photon which is a particle in its own right. The wave function giving rise to wave particle duality is a probability wave, it only exists mathematically it does not exist in reality.

 

Einsteins Photon is different to the photons of QED which should really be regarded as virtual photons. Virtual photons in QED have more degrees of freedom than real photons, ie the Magnetic field is transmitted by virtual photons, Radio waves are transmitted by virtual photons, as are electrical fields etc. 



#33 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2898 posts

Posted 27 September 2019 - 07:12 AM

This might not be 100% correct, but from memory of reading something on research gate a while back( the links to which I can find if wanted). 

 

There is some confusion re Photons of Einstein and those in QED which is repeated by Pop science articles and wikipedia etc. 

 

You would not see a wave in any scenario involving Einsteins photon which is a particle in its own right. The wave function giving rise to wave particle duality is a probability wave, it only exists mathematically it does not exist in reality.

 

Einsteins Photon is different to the photons of QED which should really be regarded as virtual photons. Virtual photons in QED have more degrees of freedom than real photons, ie the Magnetic field is transmitted by virtual photons, Radio waves are transmitted by virtual photons, as are electrical fields etc. 

I have pointed out to you before that this idea you seem to have about radio waves is wrong. Radio waves are composed of real photons, just as real as visible light or γ-rays. The only difference is the wavelength.

 

In QED, you have real photons, just as you do in simple quantum mechanics, but in addition you have these transient disturbances in the EM field labelled rather unfortunately "virtual photons".

 

These are not photons. More here: https://profmattstra...-what-are-they/

 

I am not sure what you mean by the photons "of Einstein". As far as I know, Einstein's picture of photons was essentially the one we still have today. He got his Nobel Prize for demonstrating the wave-particle duality of light.  In what way do you think photons were seen differently in his day from the more modern picture?



#34 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 28 September 2019 - 03:28 AM

Wave refers to uncertainty. Uncertainty can be removed entirely, one has to increase the coherence time in one of these puppies:
 

 
And guess what? I know how to do it, you have a deleterious bi-brane, areas where the two branes are perpendicular cancel out, each brane is a fractal or fractional dimension between 4 and 6.


A wave does not imply uncertainty. A wave function is deterministic.