Pinch Paxton Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hi, This is my first post! The speed of light could be wrong! I have read a book about Cats and Kittens by someone with an unusual name similar to Schrodinger. Apparently some individual photons were fired at a phto-sensitive piece of paper to see where they went. They could either go through a hole in the top of the card, or a hole in the bottom. I am giving a very brief account of the details, if you don't know about this then you should look it up. Anyhow, there is a situation where a single photon went through both holes. This suggests thet the particle travelled through time. It could then hit both places. This suggests to me that the speed of light could be many times faster than has been calculated. There may be a speed of time, and a speed of light. Light can only be registered as the speed of time. Imagine this.... Light accelerates past the speed of time (Or the speed of light if that makes it easier to understand.) It then travels backwards in time, and it keeps accelerating. At twice the speed of time, it starts to travel forwards in time again! It could be registered as traveling at just 1mph but it is going much faster than this! When we test its speed we come up with a number that has nothing to do with its actual speed. It can now be in 2 places at once. In fact one particle is all you need to stretch across the entire universe. It then has a pattern to its logic, this pattern would be a wave. So a single particle produces a wave. This has been witnessed also. Feel free to respond! Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 basic subatomic particles can and do exhibit the ability to apear in 2 places at once, and also vanish equaly well this isn`t a new phenomenon and has been document several times, although the understanding of this is still limited to speculation sounds like a cool book though! And Hi and Welcome, yer gunna love this place! All the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 Yes I agree, but do you think that I have a reasonable explenation for why this happens? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 Oh sorry, but the last part was my own idea, and not in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #3 :Yes I agree, but do you think that I have a reasonable explenation for why this happens? Pincho. I'm afraid that Richard Feynman's Sum Over Histories approach (and similar) works much better. And to paraphrase the man himself, if I could describe it in a few short paragraphs it wouldn't have been worth the nobel prize. [edit] Plus I haven't done quantum physics in ages, and it's quite hard to remember in places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Brian Greene in his book mentions the photons interacting with themselves. He refers to some of Feyman's notes: "Feyman proclaimed that each electron that makes it through to the phosphorescent screen actually goes through both slits... Feynman argued taht in traveling from the source to a given point on the phosphorescent screen, each individual electron actually traverses every possible trajctory simultaneously. Feynman showed that he could assign a number to each of these paths in such a way that their combined average yields exactly the same result for the probability calculated using the wave-function approach. And so from Feynamn perspective no probability wave needs to be associated with the electron. Instead, we have to imagine something equally if not more bizarre. The probability that the electron-always viewed as a particle through and through-arrives at any chosen point on the screen is built up from the combined effect of every possible way of getting there. This is known as Feynman's 'sum-over-paths' approach to quantum mechanics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I've read of that before. So if a particle has a chance to go somewhere, it will? What does that tell us about the source of the particle? How and where does the particle split? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 That's where my time travelling comes into it. It meets itself in my opinion. It does this by travelling faster than has been recorded. Hence the title of my topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #8 :That's where my time travelling comes into it. It meets itself in my opinion. It does this by travelling faster than has been recorded. Hence the title of my topic. Occam's Razor favours Feynman. What if there was more than two slits? Would the top speed of the universe keep increasing? It doesn't seem a viable proposition to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Well if there were three, or 1 million slits, the fact that light could travel through time suggests that one particle can be everywhere at once. So the speed stays the same, about three times faster than recorded. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 There's no reason to suggest this other than your explanation of an already explained phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Yes the phenomenon of light being in two places is partly explained, and the wave pattern has this probability factor explained. But there are some strange anomalies. Light travels to an observer apparently, but we see stars that are billions of light years away. There were no observers around to witness this light, so maybe it traveled three times faster than origionally thought, and reached the observers of today in the way I explained. Also, the wave pattern could be a result of light travelling through time in a wave form to sort of raster scan an image. Maybe it was energy efficient for light to develop this feature. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I'm afraid this calls for a 'Whut?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Light travels to an observer as explained in Scrodingers Kittens. What part do you not think is delivered correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 You're saying that if there's no observer, there's no light? Or that there is light but it does not travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Oh you have not read the book? Well the observer theory is not mine, it is just something that is witnessed during college studies all over the world. You should read Scrodingers Kittens it is one of the best science books ever written. The card that I mentioned has two holes. One at the top, and one at the bottom. The holes are at the front end of a shoe box type design. The shoe box is divided into two floors like a building, and the holes pass light into the two seperate floors. If an observer looks inside the top floor, light always travels into the top floor, and never the bottom floor. If the observer looks into the bottom floor, light always travels down there, but never through the top hole. If the observer looks into both floors at once, a single photon hits both the top, and bottom floors at the same time, so it has somehow travelled to two places at once. This is where the observer theory comes from. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I trust my lecture notes over a popscience book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Ok, but I have always believed that the phenomenon was widely known. There are many pages on this forum about it. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I think you're misunderstanding the phenomenon. [edit] I'll explain when I get back from work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 If you feel that I am misunderstanding it in my presentation to you, then you are reading almost the same presentation that I have read myself, and you too are reading the same explenation that I have read. Do you follow that? For example: I read a theory about a box divided in two, and I came to the conclusion that light travels to an observer. The posts on here all suggest that light travels to an observer, so a lot of people think the same way as me. You have read my re-wording of this book, but my wording is good enough to explain the theory to you. Now having read my explenation, you think that I have misunderstood it, but to think that I have misunderstood it means that you have got the same answer from my wording, as I got from the book. So a lot of people on this forum seem to have misunderstood the book the same as me. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 On my way from home I will be buying a point light source, a shoebox, some scissors, 1m copper wire, 1 x buzzer, 2 x light sensor trip switches, 1 x PP9 battery. [edit] Where can I buy a photon individualising machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 You have to turn the light way down so that just 1 photon is emmited at a time, but I'm not sure how they do that part. You need photographic paper at the back of the shoe box to record the event. Apparently this can be done in nearly all colleges around the world. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 There were no observers around to witness this light, so maybe it traveled three times faster than origionally thought, and reached the observers of today in the way I explained. Its not just observers (as in people) that bump something out of its state, its ANYTHING. Thats why quantum computers are a huge feet and wave interference patterns only build up when the detectors are turned OFF. If ANYTHING bumps into the electron or photon, the interference pattern is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Yeah but did the planet Earth have any life at all when the light left these stars to reach us today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 If the light comes to the observer, and the observer is life on Earth when the light leaves its 3bn LY distant source, what happens if life goes extinct 2.8 bn years after the light leaves the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now