VWBB - Theoretical Physics (Warning! Weirdness within)

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 29 posts from this thread on one page

VWBB (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/index.php)
- General Discussion (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=7)
-- Theoretical Physics (Warning! Weirdness within) (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/showthread.php?threadid=8457)

Posted by Jokoto on 03-15-2003 05:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Fetty
also on first post as we all should or shouldt not know gravity affects light black hole for example

Of course it affects light, gravity bends light's course because it curves the space around gravity wells.

quote:
Originally posted by Fetty
now if you remove the sun/bringer of light wouldnt that also have an effect on the already traveling light ?

Of course not! If you throw a ball and walk away/get removed, does the ball move differently because you're not there anymore? Of course not!

Edit:
I read that article... Very interesting for sure. It doesn't claim that light could be sped up, not to mention saying that any experiments had been done. It's a theory that's being formed, and these things take years, be patient.

I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one (among other things) - there might even be some subtle evidence turning up in less than a decade!

Posted by Siebren on 03-15-2003 11:23 AM:

Re: Re: Re: More weirdness on the subatomic level

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Vega

And since gravity only moves at c, scratch one FTL travel idea.

Well, not entirely (not entirely with theoreticla limits). Tachyons (yes, thay are real - theoretically

) travel faster than light. I know it's impossible for things to exceed c because the energy needed would be so enormous, and the mass would be compressed to zero th particle would cease to exist as a particle - however, there is nothing to stop matter from pre-existing in a fTL state, ie; when tachyons form they are already FTL, thus they never exceed c - its the reverse of normal matter; where as normal matter can get faster at an exponential rate, getting infinitely closer to c but never reaching it, the tachyons are the opposite. They pre-exist in a state above c and can go infinately slower, yet never reaching c. Tachyons (taken from the word tachus meaning time - i think) are considered to move backwards in time.

Now, the question, where I'm probably wrong as I'm only 19 and making assumptions based on (my) general knowledge, is that were there an inverse bonding force between a tachyon and normal matter, or if normal matter were in an exited enough state to be influenced by the tachyon field (every particle has a corresponding energy field, and for every energy field there is a corresponding particle) would it not be possible that the tachyon's energy, far surpassing normal matter, would be enough to form a pair? Perhaps the enrgy would invert the particle into its antiparticle, enabling it to travel back in time? Well anyway, gravity is a field, and thus, the graviton is it's corrsponding particle. The anti-graviton is a repulsive (like margaret thatcher

) particle, as opposed to an attractive (demi moore) particle.

So now the situation is a tachyon-antigraviton pairing - if this is even possible without the antigraviton repulsing the tachyon, i don't know. Im not a physicist. I dont even take physics.
Now, the tachyon and the anitparticle would both now be, theoretically, traveling backwards through time. So now, we can state it is possible for antigravity to have an inverse time state. But how would we get normal gravity to travel back in time?

Lets think bout gravity backwards .... wouldn't that be matter moving apart? just like antigravity? But wouldnt that mean the antigraviton going backwards in time would have the same affect as gravity in forward time?The joys of being up late and being young and full of caffeine... I confused myself. So am I saying that gravity can not exist in a FTL state? It looks like this huge explanation was merely to support the initial quote afterall.

But perhaps .... perhaps we are wrong. We can't PROVE that gravity cannot exist FTL .... so let us imagine it can. Let us dream that FTL gravity exists in some far part of the universe, where the huge gravitational force exerted (naturally, to increase its speed would decrease its mass or increase its energy - or perhaps in some fantastic mathematical ratio both?) has warped and twisted the universe so time loops and weaves through space. . . . . Let us imagine this... and assume that long ago, in a galaxy far far away, a hard-science author is wriitng about that very galaxy, and the sub-universal planes that co-exist within its twisted boundaries.

Posted by Siebren on 03-15-2003 11:27 AM:

Imagine the inhabitants of this galaxy full of free-floating margaret thatcher and demi moore particles .....

Posted by kode on 03-15-2003 02:18 PM:

this was what I vaguely recalled hearing about some time ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/

__________________
I don't get it.

Posted by Siebren on 03-16-2003 01:20 AM:

Interesting article .... I guess it's like our elementary school teachers always told us - nothing is impossible. Who are we to decide how something as incomprehensible as the universe functions and say it without a doubt. After all, rules were made to be broken.

__________________
If I had a dime for everytime I heard that... I could buy a sock for my other foot.

Posted by Fetty on 03-17-2003 05:47 AM:

quote:
Of course not! If you throw a ball and walk away/get removed, does the ball move differently because you're not there anymore? Of course not!

of cource not because i dont weight as much as the sun does and the ball has a mass, light doest

and thers my problem gravity affekts light yet light has no mass
now lets say we take 1 sun and 1 beam of light
sun emmits beam of light and the disapears meaning the gravity forces change

__________________
See the great Centauri republic
open 9-5 earth time

Posted by Siebren on 03-17-2003 11:18 PM:

Light has no mass? That's debatable. Afterall, wave-particle duality exists because light exhibits signs of being both wave-like and particle-like. It is particle-like because it is affected by forces in the way particles are, such as by gravity.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, for every particle there is a corresponding field, and vice versa. Gravitational force affects waves not neccessarily in a particle interaction, but through its own field. Matter does not need mass to be affected by this field. However, the Higgs' Boson (the particle PROVEN to exist that is responsible for mass) also has a Higg's field. This field attributes mass to matter through a wave interaction, and it's only reasonable that, since all matter co-exists with this field, that mass can be so infinately small we regard it as zero, even though it is higher than that. So the Higg's field can attribute mass-like qualities to other energy fields such as light.

Not to mention light DOES exist in a particle as well as in a wave-form, so light can be affected by gravity because a) the photon particles do exhibit mass, and b) the electromagnetic field interacts with the Higg's field attributing mass to the light waves.

PS. It's good to finally have an intelligent conversation with someone and not the boring rubbish about war and politics and weather and other non-plus subjects that I don't give a sh*t about.

__________________
If I had a dime for everytime I heard that... I could buy a sock for my other foot.

Posted by Jokoto on 03-18-2003 02:08 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Siebren
Light has no mass? That's debatable. Afterall, wave-particle duality exists because light exhibits signs of being both wave-like and particle-like.

To be precise, photons have no rest mass, but photons that move at relativistic speeds carry a very significant momentum. That's what, by the way, makes [url=http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/index2.html]solar sails[/url] work. They are a very interesting subject too... A practical way of actually reaching other stars in just decades!

quote:
Originally posted by Siebren
PS. It's good to finally have an intelligent conversation with someone and not the boring rubbish about war and politics and weather and other non-plus subjects that I don't give a sh*t about.

Absolutely. At least in science like this there's no room for fearmongering hotheads or other misguided individuals.

Posted by Siebren on 03-19-2003 11:57 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Jokoto

If you throw a ball and walk away/get removed, does the ball move differently because you're not there anymore?

Well ... it depends on how fat you are. If you're really fat, then i guess your absence will cause the ball to travel faster as your gravitation exertion on the ball would be gone (or at least, dramatically reduced) .... something to do with those margaret thatcher particles i believe.

__________________
If I had a dime for everytime I heard that... I could buy a sock for my other foot.

All times are EST. The time now is 06:22 AM.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 29 posts from this thread on one page