Jump to content
Teradanius

Radio Waves As Fast As Light (Teleportation Theory)

Recommended Posts

I have recently been watching cosmos series about Michael Faraday and his work and

how radio communication wouldn't of existed without him nor the use of electricity for

machinery and i brainstormed at the end it hit me like a bullet as they said some radio waves

move as fast as the speed of light and the thought has occurred to me ...


Why, why is it as fast as light? when no solid object can move faster than the speed

of light and then i thought theoretically if you could turn an object into radio waves you

could transport it anywhere as fast than the speed of light essentially creating what was

thought to be science fiction (teleportation).


Turning ones self into radio wave atoms would be difficult but if successful it's also another

way worm holes could work as the field is bended like light to cut across the galaxy is it

possible since radio waves move near the speed of light that if you could see what radio

waves might see that the world would be compressed like its squashed down allowing you

to move to any location in a much shorter time.


I suppose the real question would be how to turn oneself back without anything missing .


Anyway i would like to see if anyone smarter than me can think of a way this could work,

it's just an idea but you never know if my theory is right and we find a way and have the

technology then it could be a key to an astounding future with almost unimaginable

possibilities or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, why is it as fast as light? when no solid object can move faster than the speed

of light

Radio waves are not solid. They are electromagnetic radiation, just as visible light is. The difference is, visible light has a wavelength our eyes can pick up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

 

Basically, what you're suggesting is teleporting things via the use of light. What you then need to do is figure out a way to transform the object you're teleporting into electromagnetic radiation, and then back again. Also, I don't think it would be teleportation so much as sending information at the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently been watching cosmos series about Michael Faraday and his work and

how radio communication wouldn't of existed without him nor the use of electricity for

machinery and i brainstormed at the end it hit me like a bullet as they said some radio waves

move as fast as the speed of light and the thought has occurred to me ...

Not "some" but "all".

 

In the mainstream physics all photons always have speed of light by definition.

 

 

when no solid object can move faster than the speed

of light

You mixed states of matter with massive/massless particles.

Matter can be in states: solid state, liquid state, gas state and plasma state.

 

You should say: "no particle with mass can move faster than speed of light". It is postulate of special relativity.

 

Turning ones self into radio wave atoms

Radio waves are not atoms.

 

would be difficult but if successful it's also another

way worm holes could work as the field is bended like light to cut across the galaxy is it

possible since radio waves move near the speed of light that if you could see what radio

waves might see that the world would be compressed like its squashed down allowing you

to move to any location in a much shorter time.

Calculate how many atoms have human.

Calculate how many data you have to transfer.

Calculate how many data you can transfer using given radiowave frequency.

Calculate time you will spend sending data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mainstream physics all photons always have speed of light by definition.

 

I'm not convinced that this is orthodox physics. Apparently one optics book claims that and it has influenced many readers; maybe the number of followers suffice to qualify the claim as "mainstream", but not as "orthodox" or "true". It must be the same bizarre book that claims that photons are absorbed and reemitted by atoms "with a delay", explaining thus the refraction index. Please bear in mind that not everyone agrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massless particles travel at c; that's pretty orthodox physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not convinced that this is orthodox physics. Apparently one optics book claims that and it has influenced many readers; maybe the number of followers suffice to qualify the claim as "mainstream", but not as "orthodox" or "true". It must be the same bizarre book that claims that photons are absorbed and reemitted by atoms "with a delay", explaining thus the refraction index. Please bear in mind that not everyone agrees.

Please produce a citation from a peer reviewed document, or standard textbook where it clearly states that massless particles do not travel at c in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please bear in mind that not everyone agrees.

 

I agree that there should be performed set of experiments sending radiowaves and light photons parallel to each other to see whether there will be delay or not between them.

Quite easy to perform experiment on small distances, but much harder to perform on larger cosmic scale.

 

Nothing should be taken for granted, without extensive experimental proof.

 

It must be the same bizarre book that claims that photons are absorbed and reemitted by atoms "with a delay", explaining thus the refraction index.

 

The majority of scientists believe in it. I have seen swansont mentioning it constantly in many threads for example.

Don't forget about neutrinos coming from supernovas arrive a few hours before photons.

And it's explained by medium between us and supernova that is absorbing and emitting photons, slowing them down.

And neutrinos don't have such absorption cycles arrive before them, even though according to SR they should arrive later (because of mass).

Of course these discoveries are much much newer than Einstein theory and he could not predict everything with limited data.

Experimental data are quite bended to match well established theories. It's easier for scientists than completely abandoning theory and starting from scratch.

You can see this clearly with mismatching GR with galaxy scale, velocities of stars around galaxy center, by introduction of DM.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, an idea becomes a physical law if it's in a book...

 

Massless particles travel at c; that's pretty orthodox physics.

 

In vacuum only. There is no vacuum in a normal solid, since electrons occupy all the volume. Zeolithes are one exception.

 

Then, one should think at what a speed means when the distance between so-called emission and absorption is much less than a wavelength.

 

And the delayed re-emission would keep the wave impedance, while dielectric materials don't.

 

Plus, light diffusion by individual atoms can be observed directly, and it introduces no delay.


The majority of scientists believe in it.

 

Only in countries where said book is common. Elsewhere, this explanation sounds bizarre.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to open an argument here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In vacuum only. There is no vacuum in a normal solid, since electrons occupy all the volume. Zeolithes are one exception.

 

 

No, that's not true either. Even if it were, we can use a gas. Plenty of space not taken up by matter in a gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in countries where said book is common. Elsewhere, this explanation sounds bizarre.

I don't know about what book you're talking about. Certainly I didn't read it.

 

 

Anyway, I didn't want to open an argument here.

I think so it's too late. If discussion will be progressing mods will split it to other thread. I see no problem.

So, what is explanation of refractive index in your country.. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Replied to my "there is no vacuum in a normal solid, since electrons occupy all the volume"]

 

 

No, that's not true either.

 

It's again our different representations of the electron. I say "the electron is the wave". If I don't misinterpret you, you say "the electron is permanently a point whose wave defines its position probability density".

 

One reason I prefer no permanent point is that this permanent point can't be observed. If one tries to locate more precisely an electron, the wave is modified. So I feel more natural not to imagine a point in addition to the wave, but say rather that a wave can change its shape and size according to the environment.

 

Then, "point-like" means that the quantities associated with the electron (charge, momentum...) don't split, whatever small the wave gets with our present technology. This is the necessity of particles, but not that they're points permanently.

 

Numerically, it changes nothing. When integrating over a wavefunction, when we don't take the step of squared modulus, we can call psi the particle's amplitude there, or add that its squared modulus would represent a spatial probability density if an additional physical means were to locate the particle more accurately.

 

----------

 

An interesting point is that most interactions with a photon of eV energy don't reduce the size of an electron. The interaction doesn't happen at one point whose position can be determined by the wavefunction, but rather must be summed over the volume.

 

For instance a valence electron that absorbs a photon near the bandgap energy to become a conduction electron is delocalized over many atoms before and after, and so is the photon. The photon couldn't bring the energy necessary to localize the electron in any band.

 

Same with a single atom, or with nonmetallic bonds. A photon of moderate energy interacts with the electron over the whole electron's volume (or possible positions in the more usual formulation), as the photons lacks energy to localize the electron in a smaller volume.

 

Or take an atomic force microscope. The atoms of the scanned surface and the sensing tip interact as diffuse electron clouds, deformed by their proximity. An interaction between two point electrons at fixed positions wouldn"t produce the picture.

 

I certainly agree that everyone computes these examples by summing complex amplitudes over the volume. It's just that I feel unnecessary because not observable, and potentially misleading, to add the idea of a permanent point electron.

 

----------

 

As for the refractive solid, electrons take all the volume in my formulation - or in the more usual formulation, the possible positions of the point electrons occupy all the volume. Pictures use to represent atoms in a crystal as hard spheres for clarity, but with the biggest distance to the next nuclei being like 10% more than the smallest half-atomic distance, the fuzzyness of the electrons covers it easily.

 

----------

 

While the "permanent point" is more commonly claimed or implicitly suggested, I feel to be perfectly orthodox with "the electron is the wave". At least Schieffer used to write it exactly that way.

 

Do I feel animosity by some members every time I write something that is a less usual formulation, especially that one? I should like to remind that "usual" does not equate to "true", and that misinterpretations of quantum mechanics are common. Just remember how many people want to see a Bose-Einstein condensate in the BCS theory of superconductivity, despite the authors ruled it explicitly.


[...] So, what is explanation of refractive index in your country.. ?

 

Below the frequencies that can be absorbed, atoms get polarized by light. This radiates without delay a local and mainly electrostatic field (call it a virtual photon if you wish). Then you get the lower wave impedance in a dielectric. As opposed, atoms radiating the photon with a delay would keep the vacuum's wave impedance.

Edited by Enthalpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that fascinates me with permittivity is that you can measure it at very low frequency (or at DC, say by electrostatic deflection of an electron beam) and, unless it results from slow processes (ion movement, molecule orientation, molecules clusters, like in liquid water), this DC permittivity still gives you the refraction index in the GHz range or even at optical frequencies.

http://www.ioffe.rssi.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/Si/optic.html

silicon : relative permittivity = 11.7 and optical refractive index = 3.42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speed of all em waves are same as that of light in vacuum.as it enter another medium it slows down in different propotions.even light has different speed in diffrent medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose a simple argument :

 

1st observation - photons don't appear spontaneously. Photons from a light source take a finite time to reach us from an emitter. This indicates a finite velocity. This is also true of radio waves.

 

2nd observation - if we consider reflection of photons (white light) and radio waves from a reflector, a detector detects the two beams at the same time if the distance of the source and the qualities of the reflector are similar. This points us to the fact that essentially the two beams are equivalent.

 

Both beams are transverse waves and hence their velocities are the same (differing only in wavelength).

 

This is pretty elementary physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enthalpy stated "An idea becomes a physical law if its in a book . . . " Sorry, it isn't that simple.

 

A scientific idea or theory is called a theory no matter how much or how little evidence there is to support it. The theory of general relativity, for example, has an enormous amount of evidence which confirms its predictions. String theory has no such evidence. Yet they are both called theories. And they both appear in a number of books.

 

Plus we can find arguments against these and most any theory in a some book or scientific paper.

 

No group of scientists meets to decide which theory is a physical law and which is not. We have to take science courses, read and study existing literature, and hear from experts to learn which theory is currently considered mainstream physics. And what is established physics today may not be in the future.

Edited by IM Egdall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have written something like "readers consider a theory to be certain as soon as they see it in a book". I thought it was clear enough.

 

Just consider how many people in forums want to save the ether theory just for having read about it.

 

Or how many people repeat that cubic centered alloys are brittle and face centered ones are ductile, just for having read or heard it, despite a quick check shows that there is no relationship.

 

In the fields I know better, every book contains at least one plain big mistake. The best experts err - even ol' James Clerk himself about Crooke's radiometer. This should make us wary and keep our critical mind.

 

But then, learning is believing, or nearly. There is no magic solution to this.

 

-----

 

At least for the C/T, a group of scientists did meet and claimed that a meteoroid impact was the probable cause. Which surprised me, since scientists have to keep thinking individually. The good thing is that everyone can still voice a different opinion, and even this group may change its mind if it were necessary, like geologists did over tectonics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.