What is anti-light-speed?
-
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
Velocity is simply speed with a direction component associated with it.
And that direction part is a vector that can have negative components. In one dimension you could have [-c]. So I'm with Chris on this one. Cheers, Drew.
Drew Stainton wrote:
In one dimension you could have [-c].
Huh? How could that be?
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi) So the bigger your uncertainty in exactly where you are, the less your uncertainty about your velocity. So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it.
Sounds like a contradiction. :~
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
ensger wrote:
What is above 0 and and slowly enough
How long is half a piece of string? ;)
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
About twice the size of a quarter of string.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
It felt like it today! We did Mont Ventoux[^] this morning and while the ascent hurt a little the descent - using the entire road since there was no traffic - was insane. I'm still trying to get the grin off my face. Galibier[^] on Monday. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Gradient : 7.2% average - 11% maximum Insane! :-D
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
Gradient : 7.2% average - 11% maximum Insane! :-D
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%. I just look inside for my happy place and hope my knees don't explode. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi) So the bigger your uncertainty in exactly where you are, the less your uncertainty about your velocity. So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Or dx.dp >= h_bar/2 where dp ~ m.dv so you get dx.dv >= h_bar/(2m) so the more massive a particle is the less uncertainty in the product of velocity and position. (I'm ignoring the uncertainty in mass) So probably the slowest measured velocity is from a heavy stable nuclus cooled to ultra low temperatures in a laser trap. I know in field theory you can actually calculate the mass of a particle is there a corresponding quantity similar to Energy-time, position-momentum, mass-????.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
As we know, light speed is the fastest speed we know. But I have a question. What is the most slowly speed we know?
If I have to guess I'd say it would probably be a heavy nucleus trapped in a laser trap since Heisenburg's uncertainty principle relates position and momentum and momentum is mass times velocity. Which means heavy particles have a lower velocity uncertainty for a given position uncertainty. By definition every classical particle is at rest in it's own "rest frame", so 0 is a valid answer classically.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it.
Sounds like a contradiction. :~
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Welcome to quantum mechanics ;)
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ VB > soccer
-
It felt like it today! We did Mont Ventoux[^] this morning and while the ascent hurt a little the descent - using the entire road since there was no traffic - was insane. I'm still trying to get the grin off my face. Galibier[^] on Monday. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Looks beautiful. Though slightly completely insane.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
All sorts of fun things happen if you just go faster than the speed of light.
Did you ever reach c and beyond on your way down the alpes...? ;)
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
So if you travel faster than light you are doing C++? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
-
Hi Chris, Since speed is distance over time, shouldn't the lowest speed be the Planck length over the Planck time? Ivor S. Sargoytchev Dundas Software -- modified at 16:27 Saturday 24th June, 2006
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it.
Sounds like a contradiction. :~
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
It's the same for any wave really. Confining a wave to a small region requires a lot of interference to cancel it out everywhere else. Then as these waves evolve, they quickly get out of phase where you forced them to cancel out. Which translates to velocity being uncertain for a measuring a specific position. The same argument applies in momentum space meaning if you know a particle is standing still, then you have no idea where it is. I don't think it reall applies to photons because the velocity momentum relationship breaks down with 0 mass. There you have a frequency momentum relationship.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
So if you travel faster than light you are doing C++? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
nice one.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Albert Einstein had a thought that if you traveled backwards away from a clock faster then light speed you would actually be going back in time as the clock would turn backwards. The same thing is applied to if you see farther into the universe you are actually seeing further back in time as light takes time to travel. So if you equate going back in time to going a negitive velocity in terms of space time, then actually going a faster speed then the speed of light would be slowest. E=mc2 -> BOOM
Kinda like the mathematics behind negative temperature it involves going through an infinity to get there. Wish it were that easy though.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
As we know, light speed is the fastest speed we know. But I have a question. What is the most slowly speed we know?
that depends....
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
In one dimension you could have [-c].
Huh? How could that be?
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Look at it like this. There is a one dimensional line. The fastest anything can go is the speed of light. It's velocity is a speed associated with a direction. Thus the highest velocity is straight forward at the speed of light. Like so: (The double arrows is the vector)
|---------------------|========================>|
-c 0 cNow, the lowest speed is 0. You can't go slower than no speed at all. But the lowest velocity is -c, because of the directional component. You'd be travelling straight backwards at the speed of light. Like so:
|<====================|-------------------------|
-c 0 cAnd when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there.
We have yet to recover from the shock. -
Look at it like this. There is a one dimensional line. The fastest anything can go is the speed of light. It's velocity is a speed associated with a direction. Thus the highest velocity is straight forward at the speed of light. Like so: (The double arrows is the vector)
|---------------------|========================>|
-c 0 cNow, the lowest speed is 0. You can't go slower than no speed at all. But the lowest velocity is -c, because of the directional component. You'd be travelling straight backwards at the speed of light. Like so:
|<====================|-------------------------|
-c 0 cAnd when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there.
We have yet to recover from the shock.That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Actually it's one of the topological features of one dimension that there are 2 distinct directions which cannot be continously connected without changing their magnitude. In all higher dimensions you can continously transform any 2 vectors of the same magnitude and type into each other without changing the magnitude. [edit] Just like strings can only be tied in 3 dimensions. In all higher dimensions there is enough freedom of movement that they can always untangle themselves. [/edit]
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-- modified at 19:36 Saturday 24th June, 2006
-
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%. I just look inside for my happy place and hope my knees don't explode. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%.
Please tell me you've got a triple on the front, and an MTB wide-range cassette on the rear...
-
That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
I thought he clearly said that the lowest speed is 0, but the lowest velocity (taking direction into account) is -c...
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"