| Author |
Message |
|
Rezek
Better Than You
Calc Guru
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 1229
|
 Posted: 20 May 2006 01:34:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: What if everything could just be turned into light, sent to where ever it has to go, an unpackaged pack into its constituient matter particles?
This would work to go as fast as light, but it has several problems, notably that the speed of light isn't that fast- it's still many lightyears to the nearest star. And how do you propose to turn us into light? Don't forget, you have to have something on the other end to 'catch' the light-us's and make us back into humans, so how do you put that machine on the other end? :)
Don't take me seriously, this is all just an interesting thought-game for me. I'm not saying it's impossible either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LolBbq
Advanced Member
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: 20 May 2006 09:42:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm curious, but what are the speeds of the other types of electromagnetic energy in the electromagnetic spectrum relative to visible light? If they're close, you could choose radio waves instead of light (like how we listen to the radio now). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liazon
title goes here
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2007
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 09:36:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shouldn't Gamma Radiation travel the fastest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
todlangweilig
Advanced Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 470
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 11:03:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
LolBbq wrote: I'm curious, but what are the speeds of the other types of electromagnetic energy in the electromagnetic spectrum relative to visible light? If they're close, you could choose radio waves instead of light (like how we listen to the radio now).
[post="79904"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
It would be the same. Speed = Wavelength * Frequency. in the case of EM waves it would equal c. So all EM waves travel at the speed of light in a vaccum, the only difference is the amount of "data"(ie the frequency) that can be transmitted in one second.
This probably explains it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LolBbq
Advanced Member
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 11:31:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So...then we could, in theory, be changed into data and then sent to a receiver half a world away and get there in less than a second? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexrudd
pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 2335
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 12:30:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In theory. How would you disassemble and reconstruct yourself, though?
And even if it were possible, scientists have no idea whether or not you would be conscious at the other end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious726
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 284
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 04:01:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fr0stbyte124 wrote: Just to clear something up; time is not the fourth dimension. However, it is only feasable because of the extra dimension. Otherwise space-time would take up too much space to exist. Secondly, you see the fourth dimension all the time. That's what gravity really is: the bending of the fourth dimension around an object of mass.
When a planet orbits the sun, its actually going in a straight line, but that straight line exists in 4D space, which is curved due to the mass of the sun. That curve ends up with that straight line creating a bend in 3D space to where the planet will come back to where it started. That bending manafests itself as acceleration, even though it doesn't follow Newtonian physics to do so. In fact, this is the reason light can be pulled by gravity even if it has no mass.
Something to think about: when you are in freefall, you are actually staying in place from a 4D perspective. [post="79781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
No: first off, because the dimensions can be reordered anyway we want (don't believe me? turn your head pi/2 rad to the side and then tell me x and y weren't reversed) for this post I'll define 1-3 to represent the spatial dimensions 4 to represent time and 5 to represent another dimension to explain gravity through general relativity. First off they are all the same; there is no magic rule saying time isn't space and visa versa; when a planet is rotating around the sun it is because the sun's mass bends the dimension 5 (remember the only difference is our perspective of them) and so the planet is in an inverted dome; the reason it doesn't go to the bottom is because it has its spatical speed acting on it so it wont fall to the bottom of the dome (the bottom of the dome does indeed have spacial cordinates; just like a point in z has x and y coordinates)
IAmACalculator wrote: Rezek wrote: The current theory for a working hyperdrive (rather, faster-than-light travel)...[post="79825"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Isn't travelling faster than light impossible? I understand from the Theory of Relativity that light is always the same speed relative to you, no matter how fast you go. And even if you could, the Theory of Relativity also states that wherever you're travelling to will have aged millions of years at such enormous speeds. [post="79849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
everything travels at the speed of light according to special relativity; it's just that most of that speed is pushing us through time rather than space (imagine an x.y plane; you can only move so fast; you can go in a strainght line through x (say the 3 spatical diminsions) or you can be going in between x and y (y representing time) your speed is constant at the speed of light; so the speed is going inbetween x and y; though the amount of speed never changes)
Liazon wrote: Shouldn't Gamma Radiation travel the fastest? [post="79935"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
all EM radation (which is just light) put all of its energy to going through space - none through time - so light dosent age but ALL light moves through space at the same speed
Yes they have made light do some interseting things; in my post above I described the two theories of relativiity, it is simply a model for the universe, nothing more; the silly things that they have made light do could be explained by the maximun speed being even greater and it being shared by even more diminsions; a situation I find quite likely
Last edited by Guest on 21 May 2006 06:22:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmaster
Active Member
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 601
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 05:25:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tiberious, that makes a lot of sense (about the all things go at light speed but some of that speed is in different dimensions--time in most cases), but I have a question. I know that when an object is going at the speed of light it doesn't age or ages slowly whichever it is. But, why isn't there a significant change in say the difference between sitting and flying in a plane...Or maybe there is and we just don't notice it. Maybe they should survey airline attendents to see if they live longer 
But, then how can you define moving and not moving. I mean, there is no single reference point to determine whether you have moved or not. Sure you can say your not moving if you are sitting, but you are really moving with the earth. And you could say that if you were falling that you are moving, but isn't it also true that you aren't moving and that the universe itself is moving up towards you...  Without a definitive point of reference in the universe, how can you define movment? I guess you could (and have to) resort to movement relative to other objects, but wouldn't that mean that speed is based on where you observe it from?
Look at it this way. Assume a blank stretch of highway with no roadmarks or any other markings. If you pass another car, it appears to you that you aren't moving, and the other car is flying by. The same can be said if you were in the other car. But, from an observer outside of the cars, he can see the "true" speed of each.
Now, how can we claim to know the speed of anything when we could be just as blind to the "true" speed as the people in the cars. (the reason I am putting true in quotes is because I realize there is no true speed, but rather relative speed. But still, how can we say that light goes at a certain speed?).
I guess I just have a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious726
Advanced Member
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 284
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 06:58:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chipmaster wrote: Tiberious, that makes a lot of sense (about the all things go at light speed but some of that speed is in different dimensions--time in most cases), but I have a question. I know that when an object is going at the speed of light it doesn't age or ages slowly whichever it is. But, why isn't there a significant change in say the difference between sitting and flying in a plane...Or maybe there is and we just don't notice it. Maybe they should survey airline attendents to see if they live longer
this is because the speed of light is around 670 million miles per hour; atomic clocks put into your senario do notice a slight difference; but the percentage of the speed of light that a plane travels at is very small (and anything going at the speed of light doesn't age at all )
Quote: But, then how can you define moving and not moving. I mean, there is no single reference point to determine whether you have moved or not. Sure you can say your not moving if you are sitting, but you are really moving with the earth. And you could say that if you were falling that you are moving, but isn't it also true that you aren't moving and that the universe itself is moving up towards you... Without a definitive point of reference in the universe, how can you define movment? I guess you could (and have to) resort to movement relative to other objects, but wouldn't that mean that speed is based on where you observe it from?
you cannot (see below)
Quote: Look at it this way. Assume a blank stretch of highway with no roadmarks or any other markings. If you pass another car, it appears to you that you aren't moving, and the other car is flying by. The same can be said if you were in the other car. But, from an observer outside of the cars, he can see the "true" speed of each.
unlike newtonian physics in releativity there is no true speed; so according to each car they are at rest; and according to the outside observer they are both moving (and according to them the observer is moving);; what will really give you a headach is all three will expericance time dialation from the observertion point of the others (so according to A B is moving slower through time than it is while according to B A is moveing slower) basically releativity says that there can be no magic observer that can observe everything from all points of view
Quote: Now, how can we claim to know the speed of anything when we could be just as blind to the "true" speed as the people in the cars. (the reason I am putting true in quotes is because I realize there is no true speed, but rather relative speed. But still, how can we say that light goes at a certain speed?).
because the speed of light is not releative; say someone shot at me with at laser and i could run at 100 million miles per hour you would expect it to approach at 570 million mph; but instead it still approachs at 670 mph; it is always the same regardless of your speed
Quote: I guess I just have a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers.
[post="79967"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
c'est la vie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmaster
Active Member
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 601
|
| Posted: 21 May 2006 11:17:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, you really cleared some things up for me.
I find that amazing that light is not relative. So, your saying that if we were to go at near light speed, and have a person standing flash a light in our direction, it would still pass us by going 670 million miles an hour relative to us. Ok, I can buy that even though I find counterintuitive, but what would this look like to the observer who flashed the light??? If it's still going 670 million miles an hour relative to us, I would think that it would look like it was going twice that speed to the observer because it would rocket past the runner. Let's say the runner was going 669 mph, and as you say, light passed him by at 670 mph, wouldn't that look like the light was going 1339 mph to the observer when the light passes the runner?
I dunno, I believe you, but it seems so...weird, but that's Einsteinian physics for you  . I'm going to give it some thought. I'll probably be back later with some more weird situations. ;)
Edit: How can we even say that it is possible to get close to light speed when light still goes 670 mph faster relative to us at that speed. It seems to me that we don't get any closer.
Last edited by Guest on 21 May 2006 11:19:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
negativezero48
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: 24 May 2006 04:27:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the fourth dimention to me is the intersection of a 1 dimentional universe and a 3 dimentional universe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weregoose
Authentic INTJ
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 3976
|
| Posted: 24 May 2006 06:09:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could you define that?
You say that's what it is for you, but can you back it up with a
solid argument that might convince others to agree with you?
Last edited by Guest on 26 May 2006 11:33:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IAmACalculator
In a state of quasi-hiatus
Know-It-All
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 1571
|
| Posted: 24 May 2006 06:47:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That makes sense. As long as the infinite line wasn't completely inside the infinite volume (along the fourth axis of movement), then you'd have enough there to define whatever comes after a volume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fr0stbyte124
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 07:22:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mathematically, yes. In practice, this is not the case because only gravity has been confirmed as able to traverse the w-axis (though scientists are trying somewhat unsuccessfully to cheat with some exotic particles.)
Also, I think I mentioned it before, but time does not have its own designated dimension. This is a common misconception. Time is relative based on point-of-reference, but this is simply a byproduct of the increased-power complexity of a 4D system.
And yes, lightspeed is non-relative, which is why it such an important constant in physics. Some would argue that it is the only true constant, and everything else can be derived from it. I don't believe that personally, but I can't disprove it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deathwarder
Newbie
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 01:12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Liazon wrote: Shouldn't Gamma Radiation travel the fastest?
[post="79935"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
nope, it has a shorter wavelengt, but a higher frequency, multiplied together they hit the same speed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liazon
title goes here
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 2007
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 01:16:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
then how come sound travels slower than light? i thought it was also a form of radiant energy? or maybe i'm getting things really confused right now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 01:33:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds is energy transferred between particles through vibration of those particles. It's speed thus relies on the efficiency of transfer which relies on the ability of intermediate particles to vibrate. Eg why air pressure and other differences between volumes result in different speeds of sound.
Light is energy traveling as a particle.
It's like dominos vs a bullet.
Last edited by Guest on 28 May 2006 01:33:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deathwarder
Newbie
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 03:05:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fr0stbyte124 wrote: Mathematically, yes. In practice, this is not the case because only gravity has been confirmed as able to traverse the w-axis (though scientists are trying somewhat unsuccessfully to cheat with some exotic particles.)
Also, I think I mentioned it before, but time does not have its own designated dimension. This is a common misconception. Time is relative based on point-of-reference, but this is simply a byproduct of the increased-power complexity of a 4D system.
And yes, lightspeed is non-relative, which is why it such an important constant in physics. Some would argue that it is the only true constant, and everything else can be derived from it. I don't believe that personally, but I can't disprove it.
[post="80627"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
what about pi? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SilverCalcKnight
|_
Active Member
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 577
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 04:14:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: It's like dominos vs a bullet.
[post="80883"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
I certify this as the greatest analogy ever.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deathwarder
Newbie
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: 28 May 2006 06:49:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| true, except the speed difference is somewhat greater, also their is a theory that the constants are changing based on deep space observations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Math and Science => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
