Faster Than Light?

[ralfcis]

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)² ) = .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.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I like GAHD's explanation much better.

It's still outdated:

 

 

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

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

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

Edited September 24, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[ralfcis]

Ok Poly.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

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.

[ralfcis]

Why are you suddenly speaking English?

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

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 September 24, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

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

[GAHD]

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 September 24, 2019 by GAHD
latin afterthought

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

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

[GAHD]

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

[Vmedvil2]

I knew this was Superpolymath ever since the seven of nine meme(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36157-america-beat-australia-germany-and-china-to-the-punch/).

Edited September 25, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[exchemist]

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://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-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?

[Dubbelosix]

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.

[Dubbelosix]

How a photon (particle/wave function) interacts, with other particles via absorption and emission as it passes through a gas and is slowed down and refracted. Might be a similar effect in space due to interaction with virtual particles.

 

Modelling of interactions of little particles is easier with a wave function, as you dont know exactly where the little ****er is until it is detected. And according to bohemian theory photons dont go in straight lines due to interactions with the medium they are passing through.

But they do interact with a guiding wave.

[exchemist]

This is what I am driving at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Einsteins_photon_really_the_same_as_the_QED_photon

 

Further more an interesting discussion on virtual photons which is partly related https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_visualize_a_virtual_photon2

 

Photons travel in straight lines, Virtual photons can have many differing properties and can bend around corners like magnetic field lines for example, which photons can not. When discussing photons and virtual photons, people often use the wrong terms. 

 

Radio waves in my book on QFT in the section on QED are transmitted by polarized virtual photons, not polarized photons. Photons can not be polarized, other than perhaps in QED they are made up of a particle anti particle pair ripped from the vacuum. 

This is wrong. Here is an article on photon polarisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization

 

The idea that radio waves are not quantised into photons like all other EM radiation is frankly daft. I think you either have a bad book or you have misunderstood what it is saying. If you can post an extract I'd be interested to read it, but I am very sceptical that what you say is what is meant. 

[Dubbelosix]

Yes they do interact according to the mathematical model with a guiding wave. But a particle is not a solid thing in QFT it has increasingly blurred edges as you move away from it, giving the appearance of a wave.

 

In debroglie model, both wave and particle exist.