The future is impossible
-
Except I'm interested not in the classical view but the relativistic view. What is 'The c' from my point of view of light in the lower-index medium? From the reverse situation, 'The c' is slower in the higher index medium when viewed from the lower index medium. Do I see, for exemple, a Cherenkov radiation view of all outside light? Your "do the experiment" works if I were to look up at stars from earth. OK: let's pretend for a moment that it is a Cherenkov radiation view: the effect could be trivial, too dim, or radiating elsewhere than toward my point of observation. The pretend, of course, can be wrong. What I see is what I've always seen - so I'd not know. I'd imagine someone has considered this by now - but I'm at work and can't go off on this particular google search right now. Seeking that quick-answer. (Should I post this in Q&A ?).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
What you see when you dive into a pool is the relativistic view; do you think that when you jump into a pool that you are suddenly transferred into a Newtonian Universe? (Note that it is impossible to treat light in any manner other than relativistic. The Theory of Special Relativity was formulated in order to resolve the non-Newtonian behaviour of electromagnetic waves).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Anybody ever wonder why the speed of light is represented by the constant c? It's because it's not the speed of light. Nobody other than optics researchers much care about the speed of light. What they do care about is the speed of causality (which, you'll note, starts with the letter 'c'). It just so happens that - in our universe - light (in a vacuum) travels at the speed of causality. If you can exceed the speed of causality, then guess what you've just invented? Not something as mundane as FTL travel. You've invented a Time Machine.
The speed of light is represented by the letter c because the Latin for speed is celeritate (which gives us words such as acceleration).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Nope. Massless objects (such as photons) are constrained to always move at the Speed of Light (when they are in vacuum). When is a different medium, such as water, they may move slower than the Speed of Light, but never faster.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Tachyons?
-
What you see when you dive into a pool is the relativistic view; do you think that when you jump into a pool that you are suddenly transferred into a Newtonian Universe? (Note that it is impossible to treat light in any manner other than relativistic. The Theory of Special Relativity was formulated in order to resolve the non-Newtonian behaviour of electromagnetic waves).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
My view, insider or outside of the pool is still (for all practical purposed) the normalized perceptions. My interest was in how a totally relativistic entity, light, would appear from a different point of view - not as I see it with eyes. This is a theoretical view that I'm wondering about. If I "perceive" light moving slower than 'c' as it moves through a higher index medium than that from which I observe it, what would I observe if the media were switched? Could I thereby "observe" light (in the lower index medium) exceeding "my local c" ? Observation here does not refer to human perception: what would I measure from my frame of reference? I'll look it up, later.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Tachyons?
Tachyons are considered impossible in Special Relativity - they can send information into the past, and so reverse cause and effect. In a Universe where Tachyons existed, it would be possible for you to kill your grandmother before your mother was born, thereby making you disappear - poof! :)
There was a young woman called Bright
Who could travel much faster than light
She went out one day
In a Relative way
And returned the previous night-- Anon.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
My view, insider or outside of the pool is still (for all practical purposed) the normalized perceptions. My interest was in how a totally relativistic entity, light, would appear from a different point of view - not as I see it with eyes. This is a theoretical view that I'm wondering about. If I "perceive" light moving slower than 'c' as it moves through a higher index medium than that from which I observe it, what would I observe if the media were switched? Could I thereby "observe" light (in the lower index medium) exceeding "my local c" ? Observation here does not refer to human perception: what would I measure from my frame of reference? I'll look it up, later.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Observation here does not refer to human perception: what would I measure from my frame of reference?
They are one and the same; what you see is (or should be) what Physics predicts that you see. If you are asking "what would it look like to a photon that entered a medium where n > 1?", I can't answer that. It's an interesting Gedanken experiment...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Under what gravity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Tachyons are considered impossible in Special Relativity - they can send information into the past, and so reverse cause and effect. In a Universe where Tachyons existed, it would be possible for you to kill your grandmother before your mother was born, thereby making you disappear - poof! :)
There was a young woman called Bright
Who could travel much faster than light
She went out one day
In a Relative way
And returned the previous night-- Anon.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Yeah, fair enough, I guess unless a hypothetical particle has been observed we must assume it is impossible. I wonder what they're doing with the LHC these days....
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
Ygnaiih wrote:
articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible.
That's their opinion, and as the old adage goes 'opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one'. A positive that may come of it though, it might kickstart a thought process by the right person, that may prove or disprove that opinion.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
Possible and achievable are two different things. Something may be possible, yet we may not achieve it. I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete. I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete. I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete.
AFAIK, it does not require any additional layers. Now, do come up with a theory were light goes faster and prove it with a repeatable experiment, and we'll talk :)
Foothill wrote:
I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
No, it wouldn't, because all matter is still slower than light.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
Quote:
"based on current technology and science knowledge I have".
:-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Under what gravity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Sounds like it's time for a "your momma" joke.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Yeah, there's definitely a "your momma" joke to be made in this thread.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Foothill wrote:
That's not entirely accurate, depending on your point of view. The speed of light is a known limit to our understanding of the universe. Until someone explains why energy cannot go any faster without relying on 45 layers of other people's mathematical theories, I will still say that it is possible to go faster then light and that is our understanding of physics that is, well, incomplete.
AFAIK, it does not require any additional layers. Now, do come up with a theory were light goes faster and prove it with a repeatable experiment, and we'll talk :)
Foothill wrote:
I know that with e = mc2 accelerating anything with more mass then a single elementary particle would need all of the energy of the universe but if you rethink what that equation implies, you begin to see that it might just be possible if we knew more.
No, it wouldn't, because all matter is still slower than light.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Let me see if I can explain this little theory I've been mulling over in my head since back when I was taking physics at my local university. First, I will start with your statement
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
come up with a theory where light goes faster
One of the central tenants of my idea is not to find examples of light deviating from it's set speed but to answer why does it always want move at that speed. What is it about the constant that makes it this way not just for light but all energy. So I started pondering the meaning of Einstein's famous equation and it's implications. e = mc2 implies that energy is a function of an interaction between mass and the constant. It implies that energy is irrelevant and only mass and C matter. Most of the widely accepted theories are rooted in this. If we switch things up, the equation takes on a whole new meaning. m = e/c2 implies that mass is a function of an interaction between energy and the constant. It implies that mass is irrelevant on only energy and C matter. More to the point, since energy is in a constant state of acceleration, the mass of a particle is a direct result of energy shedding velocity due to the C. The caveat is that if we could figure out what the universal principal is that causes all energy to shed velocity to make mass, we could figure out how to negate it, thus making faster-than-light travel possible. I may be off my marks but I've asked several physicists about this without a straight answer; even emails to NASA and FermiLab got me nowhere. The answer was always make up a mathematical model and prove it. It's the same exact model they have now just a different way of looking at it. Never did get anywhere with it so far. The only nice thing is that it offers an explanation for electron quantum jumping. I've got theories on gravity too but I can never get any help from physicists on that one either. Not even a suggestion on where to start.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
Possible and achievable are two different things. Something may be possible, yet we may not achieve it. I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I don't think we'll achieve time travel.
According to Hawking the fact that we haven't already been visited by some future time traveler pretty much "proves" it's impossible. :~
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan