Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:58:41 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Looks like semamntics to me. Whenever you see "c" in the special or general
theories,

Hi Dan,

It is not semantics, it is circumstance, and clearly the phenomenon of
v exceeding c follows circumstance - it is regarded so by many
competent authorities and circumstance is the cornerstone of
"relativity" through the metaphor of gedanken experiment.

it means exactly 299,792,458 meters/sec.

Now, THIS is semantics.

You should not use the
designator "c" to express the speed of light in other media such as water.
It will always be a smaller number. The designator "c", meaning "constant",

Actually, the historical basis of c comes from the latin celeritous
(or some such spelling) explicitly meaning fast or speedy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:58:41 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Looks like semamntics to me. Whenever you see "c" in the special or general
theories,

Hi Dan,

It is not semantics, it is circumstance, and clearly the phenomenon of
v exceeding c follows circumstance - it is regarded so by many
competent authorities and circumstance is the cornerstone of
"relativity" through the metaphor of gedanken experiment.

it means exactly 299,792,458 meters/sec.

Now, THIS is semantics.

You should not use the
designator "c" to express the speed of light in other media such as water.
It will always be a smaller number. The designator "c", meaning "constant",

Actually, the historical basis of c comes from the latin celeritous
(or some such spelling) explicitly meaning fast or speedy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

From _Latin For Today_ by Mason D. Gray, and Thornton Jenkins (1927),
Celeritas; speed, swiftness.

(In the flyleaf is written in a female hand:

Latin is a dead language.
It's as dead as it can be.
It killed off all the Romans.
Now it's killing me.
-Shakespeare-

)
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:43:26 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Any gedanken experminent involving a mass with a velocity being greater than
299,792,458 meters/sec leads directly to the quantity under the square root
sign for (1 - v**2/c**2) [where c = 299,792,458 meters/sec] to become a
negative number. Impossibly absurd.

We have progressed from your statement that:
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)
to an absurdity where at the time of Einstein's theory (or in the
historical neighborhood of 1926 which I have pegged at Michaelson's
most accurate determination) that light at 299,796 kilometers per
second most certainly is a speed sufficiently in excess of the speed
of light (by later accurate determinations), and yet this present
speed proves nothing could exceed the speed of light (begging the
question, of course, which speed of which light) whereby we are
inescapably faced with the prospect of a negative number dashing one
proof of Einstein's or another (the same one?).

For those confounded by the turns in the road for a varying constant
(you have every reason to be confused): The speed of light in 1926
clearly results in a -1 solution for today's speed of light proving
that light traveled faster than the speed of light in 1926.

Imagine the egg on Einstein's face for thinking c = 299,796
kilometers per second for the identical gendanken experiment at its
inception so it appears that -1 has no particular significance rooted
in a fundamental law to be so accommodating to a wide variety of
assigned constants for the identical, immutable law of the universe.
It would only take another measurement, adding a jot to the decimal
place, to dash all other proofs which hinged upon those prior
determinations. It would be safer to simply express that NO-THING can
travel faster than some suitably buffered number with a margin added
such as 305,000,001 m/s (±3dB). Something that a greater number of
reasonably minded folk could agree with (or simply bump the number
higher to achieve consensus).

Summing it up: a negative outcome seems to be more fashion than proof
if the logic follows the historical whim of error.

So, as to your assignment to Einstein's confirmation of "this." What
"this" were you speaking of, when was "this," and which Einstein?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:41:22 +1300, cliff wright
wrote:


Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is
emitted from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist
for that "wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a
medium where the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or
coaxial cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then
time ceases to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a
single point from the quantum's point of view.
A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!


Hi Cliff,

You have contradicted yourself. Your second sentence above has the
premise there is no time. Your last sentence ends with time
explicitly allowed.


This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.


How so?


Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?


The contradiction offered.


If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results
of the famous single quantum slit experiment?


Dismissing absurdities, the single slit experiment has its own
explanation.


BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite.


As the lawyers would say "FTL communication" is a fact not shown in
the evidence offered here; so the rest of the statement does not
logically follow.


Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?


It would be more meaningful to demonstrate it got there 1.00000000001
times faster. If you cannot establish this mark, 1000 time faster
isn't on the horizon.

As one other poster was abashed to discover, you probably could
witness that first demonstration if you were a fish. A fish swimming
in the cooling pond of a nuclear reactor would be hit by a neutron
(one bit of information) before the radiation (light, the other same
bit of information) that catapulted it from the pile. Now, getting
that neutron up to 1000 times faster (in terms of information flow) is
unlikely; but if you were to choose to inhabit a pool of somewhat
greater density (1000 times more so?) - then perhaps arguably so. I
don't think we need hold our breaths and wait for AT&T stock to mature
into Billion$ on that idea.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Ah Richard! I see where I didn't make myself clear.
There are 2 points of view here (or 2 observers).
For the mythical observer on the "wave packet" as special relativity
tells us, at c time ceases to pass. The corollary of this is that the 40
million years it takes a quantum of light from M104, for example, to
reach my eye at the eyepiece of my telescope does NOT exist from the
Quantum's point of view. Or from another aspect the space between the
galaxy and Earth doesn't exist from the same point of view since it was
traversed in zero time.
From my point of view at relatively zero velocity there is a 40 million
LY gap to traverse in ~40MY but surely if special relativity is correct
this is not what the quantum "experiences" at all. Presumably it
"experiences" emission from an atom in M104 and absorbtion by an atom in
my retina as extremely (perhaps 2x Planck times) close events, unless it
passea through a medium in which the velocity of light is less than c on
the way.

Certainly I agree with you that electromagnetic radiation cannot travel
faster than c in this universe. But that is not to presume that other
forms of energy tranfer may not be possible at higher velocties.
A possible example is "gravitational radiation" which although it is one
possible explanation for certain astrnomical phaenomena has NOT yet been
detected. My research into such instruments as LIGO shows that a major
factor in the hoped for detection is an assumption that this radiation
travels at c. This is neccessary for correlation of signals and observed
events. If this quadrapole radiation travels at some other velocity then
null results are just what one would expect.
The null results of SETI do not surprise me for a similar reason. If
there are advanced starfaring races out there radio or other EM
communication would be woefully inadequate and either not used at all or
only for very specialised (and slow) directional links which are
unlikely to send data towards Earth. If not then we are just an anomally
and we won't be around for long enough to matter on the cosmic scale.
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA

Waves vs Particles
 

cliff wright wrote:
The null results of SETI do not surprise me for a similar reason. If
there are advanced starfaring races out there radio or other EM
communication would be woefully inadequate and either not used at all or
only for very specialised (and slow) directional links which are
unlikely to send data towards Earth.

If I was a member of an advanced race, I would be using
entangled particles for FTL communications. However, I
would also be listening for those primitive slow obsolete
EM waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:43:26 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Any gedanken experminent involving a mass with a velocity being greater than
299,792,458 meters/sec leads directly to the quantity under the square root
sign for (1 - v**2/c**2) [where c = 299,792,458 meters/sec] to become a
negative number. Impossibly absurd.

We have progressed from your statement that:
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.
Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)
to an absurdity where at the time of Einstein's theory (or in the
historical neighborhood of 1926 which I have pegged at Michaelson's
most accurate determination) that light at 299,796 kilometers per
second most certainly is a speed sufficiently in excess of the speed
of light (by later accurate determinations), and yet this present
speed proves nothing could exceed the speed of light (begging the
question, of course, which speed of which light) whereby we are
inescapably faced with the prospect of a negative number dashing one
proof of Einstein's or another (the same one?).

For those confounded by the turns in the road for a varying constant
(you have every reason to be confused): The speed of light in 1926
clearly results in a -1 solution for today's speed of light proving
that light traveled faster than the speed of light in 1926.


Einstein's equations use the speed of light in a vacuum, Michaelson
conducted his experiments in unstandardized air. c in air does change
and c(air) can be exceeded.


Imagine the egg on Einstein's face for thinking c = 299,796
kilometers per second for the identical gendanken experiment at its
inception so it appears that -1 has no particular significance rooted
in a fundamental law to be so accommodating to a wide variety of
assigned constants for the identical, immutable law of the universe.
It would only take another measurement, adding a jot to the decimal
place, to dash all other proofs which hinged upon those prior
determinations. It would be safer to simply express that NO-THING can
travel faster than some suitably buffered number with a margin added
such as 305,000,001 m/s (±3dB). Something that a greater number of
reasonably minded folk could agree with (or simply bump the number
higher to achieve consensus).

Summing it up: a negative outcome seems to be more fashion than proof
if the logic follows the historical whim of error.

So, as to your assignment to Einstein's confirmation of "this." What
"this" were you speaking of, when was "this," and which Einstein?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:28:16 -0600, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

Einstein's equations use the speed of light in a vacuum, Michaelson
conducted his experiments in unstandardized air. c in air does change
and c(air) can be exceeded.

Hi David,

And thus it follows that Michaelson's "faster than light" speed is due
to the effects of the atmosphere? I would believe from the
conventions offered by Snell's law, predating this work, that all the
scientists would have been astonished at this inversion of
expectations.

But we know better. The speed of light's shift in speed would have
been far in excess of the difference found between 1926 and 1956, if
due to the presence of the atmosphere - and its effects were well
considered at the time.

No, this is simply a matter of experimental error as the range of
speed has over the years tightened. However, all of this begs the
issue why would Einstein's work (theoretical not experimental) pivot
on a number that fluctuates with time, over time? In fact it does
not, and Einstein did not confirm the speed of light, nor did his
theory preclude nor deny Cherenkov's observation of solid matter
(neutrons albeit) traveling faster than quite obvious light
(irrespective of how fast it was "defined" to travel). Einstein has
not been limited to the vagaries of observation from any experimenter
and that is his accomplishment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If I understand it correctly, a cornerstone
concept of QED is that nothing exists except
particles.

And, if I understand string theory and Dr. Michio Kaku, everything
consists of vibrations--go figure! grin

Regards,
JS

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If I was a member of an advanced race, I would be using
entangled particles for FTL communications. However, I
would also be listening for those primitive slow obsolete
EM waves.

You mean the "Devoted Alien CW'ers" have dropped CW and finally jumped
to the present? Imagine that, if only they would have held on until
SETI, we would/could have found them! :-(

Regards,
JS

Waves vs Particles
 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:07:17 +1300, cliff wright
wrote:

Ah Richard! I see where I didn't make myself clear.
There are 2 points of view here (or 2 observers).
For the mythical observer on the "wave packet" as special relativity
tells us, at c time ceases to pass. The corollary of this is that the 40
million years it takes a quantum of light from M104, for example, to
reach my eye at the eyepiece of my telescope does NOT exist from the
Quantum's point of view. Or from another aspect the space between the
galaxy and Earth doesn't exist from the same point of view since it was
traversed in zero time.

Hi Cliff,

Yes.

From my point of view at relatively zero velocity there is a 40 million
LY gap to traverse in ~40MY

Yes.

but surely if special relativity is correct
this is not what the quantum "experiences" at all.

Experience necessarily connotes a "before" and "after." There must be
some interval of time. Hence quantum, by your first observation,
cannot experience anything as everything is simultaneous.

Presumably it
"experiences" emission from an atom in M104 and absorbtion by an atom in
my retina as extremely (perhaps 2x Planck times) close events,

The time to convert a photon to a photochemical response runs to
several femtoseconds.

unless it
passea through a medium in which the velocity of light is less than c on
the way.

That would have nothing to do with anything, except for a second
observer who is the only one to gain by "experience."

Certainly I agree with you that electromagnetic radiation cannot travel
faster than c in this universe.

And it would be remarkable if it did seeing it is light anyway.

But that is not to presume that other
forms of energy tranfer may not be possible at higher velocties.

That has already been demonstrable for 70 years. However, what has
been demonstrated was perfectly within the context of pre-existing
theory, math, and experimental observation.

A possible example is "gravitational radiation"

Coining new terms where gravitation already has a body of science
behind it does not further the dialog.

which although it is one
possible explanation for certain astrnomical phaenomena has NOT yet been
detected.

An unusual comment given it is an ordinary experience available to
even the tribesman of sub-Saharan Africa.

My research into such instruments as LIGO shows that a major
factor in the hoped for detection is an assumption that this radiation
travels at c.

What you are talking about is gravity waves (let's at least use the
terminology of research rather than substituting in "radiation" to no
obvious gain). There are those who would say it is instantaneous
throughout the universe, and does not propagate at all. Hence the
inability to detect them.

It kind of goes with the old real estate saying that they are not
making any more of it (land/gravity).

This is neccessary for correlation of signals and observed
events.

Neither of which have been detected. Do you note a contradiction
here?

If this quadrapole radiation travels at some other velocity then
null results are just what one would expect.

But by your earlier statements, there are some who do not expect this
at all. Given the contrary positions, neither of which that can be
proven, much of this is fevered thinking.

The null results of SETI do not surprise me for a similar reason.

No reason has been proposed.

If there are advanced starfaring races out there radio or other EM
communication would be woefully inadequate and either not used at all or
only for very specialised (and slow) directional links which are
unlikely to send data towards Earth. If not then we are just an anomally
and we won't be around for long enough to matter on the cosmic scale.

Well, this has scant relation to the start of the post, except both
suffer from lack of demonstrables. There is an infinity of negative
relations that cannot be supported, and these are only two of them.
Sounds like the beginning (or ongoing) of entropy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC