alt_f13 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Imagine calculating the movements of all the energy in the universe vs the energy we can measure... we've just found a loophole in the programming where we can predict the existence of particles that have not been created. If I'm not back tomorrow, they've deleted me. Tell the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erador Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 doesnt this have to do with entanglement? or am i clueless?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Erador said in post # :doesnt this have to do with entanglement? or am i clueless?? I don't think so (he described in the first post an experiment which isn't based on entanglement), but it's another 'odd' phenomenon that has some similiarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 I don't recall reading anything about entanglement, so I don't know if it has anything to do with this or not. So what's entanglement? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erador Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 entanglement is the whole theory in which it is believe that sub atomic particles share fates or destinies with other sub atomic particles.. i dont mean to misinform you...but i think it goes along the lines that interaction between two particles on one side of the universe to the other...can happen instantaniously...also...it has the same phenominum...as in the particle is in two places at the same time like shrodengers cat so instead of the photon going through a hole, then coming back...i think it merely is in 2 places at the same time, as its destiny is tied somewhere else ofcourse i can becompletly mistaken...which i am quite a bit...but thats because i dont have a train of though...i have my OWN car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 I see. So it relates to this Spooky behaviour we were talking about. This entanglement seems like a way to avoid passing into time travel. I would prefer to say that time travel can exist for things of a certain scale. This instant cause, and effect is likely to be time travel. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 It's a quantum effect where two particles that are close together can enter a state called Entanglement. The upshot of this is that when you measure something about one, it's true about the other. For instance, if you don't measure the spin at either end, as soon as you measure it at one you'll know what the spin will be at the other. This may appear like it's breaking the speed of light maximum for information interchange, but it's actually not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erador Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 didnt Einstien once say that you can travel faster than the speed of light if you are already going faster than it? or some confusiong little thing like that... i dont think there is a real speed limit in this unvierse or what ever. thats the downside of scientists....no imagination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 If scientists have no imagination, kindly describe the process that leads to them ever hypothesising anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Erador said in post # :didnt Einstien once say that you can travel faster than the speed of light if you are already going faster than it? or some confusiong little thing like that... This is true. They're called tachyons, and can never go slower or equal to the speed of light. They're approaching the same problem from the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Ok, can anyone listen to this hypothesis. Light travels from a place to another in a straight line. For moving from one place to another it would need energy. But then, if it uses its energy(ie KE) then wouldn't it's speed actually decrease? Then, velocity of light would no longer remain constant, right? But if velocity of light isn't constant(in a given medium), then what will happen to quantum mechanics? I might seem to talk dumb, but please can anyone explain this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Ok' date=' can anyone listen to this hypothesis.Light travels from a place to another in a straight line. For moving from one place to another it would need energy. But then, if it uses its energy(ie KE) then wouldn't it's speed actually [i']decrease[/i]? Then, velocity of light would no longer remain constant, right? But if velocity of light isn't constant(in a given medium), then what will happen to quantum mechanics? An object moving has energy, but isn't necessarily using energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 How does an object not use energy while in motion. To propagate forward, it needs to overcome displacement, and hence needs to "spend" energy in order to "get there" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Check out those crazy Newtonian laws of motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I thought newtons laws were: 1. Something about inertia. 2. F=ma (from which we can derive that work done W=F.d.cos(theta) ) 3. The action reaction thing. How does that help? I'm a little weak in physics, so please don't get bugged with me. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 For instance, "a body at rest will remain at rest until a[n appropriate] force acts on it", which is mirrored by "a body in motion will remain in motion until a[n appropriate] force acts on it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 And is there no one to oppose the path of light? How about those cosmic particles in space? I mean after millions of light years even in space due to the opposition of those cosmic particles, light would slow down atleast a little, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 And is there no one to oppose the path of light? How about those cosmic particles in space? I mean after millions of light years even in space due to the opposition of those cosmic particles, light would slow down atleast a little, wouldn't it? If light enters a medium with index >1 it slows down, and if it hits something it scatters. But within a medium of constant index, the speed is a constant. Space is a vacuum of moderate quality, so photons can make it quite far without hitting anything. There is nothing like friction to act on light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Oh ok. Then I guess the theory of non-constant velocity of light goes down the dumps then. But in an isotropic medium, does light ever slow down(consider infinite space available for that medium), over infinitely long distances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Oh ok. Then I guess the theory of non-constant velocity of light goes down the dumps then. But in an isotropic medium, does light ever slow down(consider infinite space available for that medium), over infinitely long distances? I'm not aware of any evidence that it does, and there's plenty to suggest that it doesn't, as theory predicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 I mean in a medium, say Air, the photon particles have to overcome air resistance. It might be negligible, but how about the same resistance in great distances(Say, in n AU), then wouldn't light gradually lose it's velocity(that too, while being in the same medium) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 I mean in a medium, say Air, the photon particles have to overcome air resistance. It might be negligible, but how about the same resistance in great distances(Say, in n AU), then wouldn't light gradually lose it's velocity(that too, while being in the same medium) Air resistance and friction are macroscopic phemomena. Atoms are mostly empty space, and a photon has the ability to pass through without interacting. If the photon does interact, it will either be absorbed or it will scatter. No more photon for the former, different energy photon, but travelling at the same speed, for the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski_power Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Oh ok. Got you. Finally my "dumb" doubt got cleared. Thanks swansont. [edit] I'm not able to rep you up, and it says i must spread rep points around. Silly thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I'm not aware of any evidence that it does, and there's plenty to suggest that it doesn't, as theory predicts. :Originally Posted by ski_power I mean in a medium' date=' say Air, the photon particles have to overcome air resistance. It might be negligible, but how about the same resistance in great distances(Say, in n AU), then wouldn't light gradually lose it's velocity(that too, while being in the same medium) Air resistance and friction are macroscopic phemomena. Atoms are mostly empty space, and a photon has the ability to pass through without interacting. If the photon does interact, it will either be absorbed or it will scatter. No more photon for the former, different energy photon, but travelling at the same speed, for the latter.[/quote'] Thee is an expeimenta; paameter that is not, until very recently, considered in virtually all mesurement of the Speed of light experimental and theoretical discussions. Let's start with a simple doppler scrutiny. Light is entering your eye. You move against the photon stream and you see, the light getting blue. If you move away from the photon stream, the light gets red. Question: Does your eye put pressure, apply a force, against the light wave thereby squeezing the wavelength to a shorter dimension? If you are measuring boxcars on a train as you move against the direction of motion and the frequency then counting of the number of boxcars / second increases, do the box cars you count get shorter? When you move against a stream of photon the rate the wave passes through your eye increases, hence the frequency of the perceived wave lengths increase, but the measured wave length is invariant. This consideration is ommitted in SOL measurements and theoretical considerations. The same consideration of adding the wavelength with distance traveled by the observer during the time the photons go whizzing by in SOL mesurements will correct the silliness of Special Relativity that assumes the SOL is constant in all inertial frames. See Grounded and his theory published in other forums. 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