• Welcome to Subliminal Talk!
  • The best in subliminal audio
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Title: I'd like to understand this better, if anyone can help.
Thread Modes
#1
Okay, so this gets into a rather deep subject.  I am trying to understand what seems to be a paradox in currently accepted quantum mechanical thought.

The statement is that the speed of light is fixed at c.  The statement is that regardless of the relative motion of the observer, light remains traveling at fixed speed c, even if the motion of one observer forces light to travel further.  This is true because of time dilation, the slowing down of time as we approach the speed of light.

Speed = distance/time.  S=d/t

All of these are established and empirically proven facts.

But...

If time slows down as we approach the speed of light, then it stops at the speed of light.  If time stops at the speed of light, then we have a situation in which light cannot be moving, because the value of t (time) is 0.

So light is therefore stationary, yet we observe it moving?  It has the fastest possible speed, but it cannot be moving?  How does light have speed at all when time for the photon = 0, and this means that S = d/0?

If mathematics claims that anything divided by 0 is 0, then all possible speed calculations for time must result in a speed of 0.

Surely I am misunderstanding something here? Because this looks like a pretty glaring error in the thinking resulting from the current understanding.  It also makes me wonder of perhaps the secret to faster than light travel does not reside in this either proving there has been a mistake somewhere, or that light is in all possible locations at once, and we only experience it as quanta as a result of the passing through many universes where the quanta exists in that location, but outside of time?  Is time just the illusion of change created by the effect of passing through many universes with slight changes, but each having no time?

I just figured someone might be able to explain to me where I am misunderstanding something in all this.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator

The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
 
Reply
#2
Apparently, at the "speed of light in a vacuum", there is no such thing as time. Velocity is an observation from at "lower than speed of light in a vacuum" relative speed. Some postulate that there do exist things that can move faster than light, and for some it's literally "nothingness" (space itself), and space is constantly expanding faster than light can travel through it (because otherwise it'd be, I guess, stationary? But empirically, it isn't).

From a relativity point of reference, of course.

I guess if we postulated the existence of a dimension above spacetime, it'd be stationary together with everything else that's "slower" than light. But funnily enough some stuff appears to be moving faster-than-light (with emphasis on "appears": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion)

For us, light is observable because it does not exist in a vacuum, is all I've gathered. Can't say I'm an expert. But, as you've mentioned, all attempts at testing this empirically are providing evidence that it is indeed so.

As far as I know, nobody really knows yet why that is. We've got mathematical speculations, though.

You are not the first to ponder this, though: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5995...ary-light/ Try googling "stationary light", there's tons of various theories and explanations as far as I can tell. Maybe some other forumite would be able to expand on this.

According to the Lorentz factor, as far as I can tell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor), the observable t gets really, really close to 0, but never does indeed reach 0. I may be mistaken on this though.

The trouble with the theory of relativity, and the special theory of relativity, as far as I can tell, is that they do become illogical when you start thinking about them.

Fascinating subject, though. If I run into someone who has studied quantum physics extensively (I used to now a guy who worked at the LHC for CERN), I'll be sure to ask them.
"A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him." - A. Crowley
 
Reply
#3
So if there is no time for a photon, there is no space either, because time and space are parts of the same thing.  As stated in the one post on the other forum.  

This would mean that we have found the limits of our understanding because we are either missing something or misunderstanding something.  Remember that it is entirely possible to "empirically prove" something and have the logic be in error, but that error isn't caught because we are close to the limits of our capacity for comprehension.

Quote:The Lorentz factor for time dilation is sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2). For v = c, the Lorentz factor equals zero!

If v = c then we get sqrt(1 - x/x) = sqrt (1-1) = sqrt (0) = 0.  So it's not a very small t value, it's literally 0 unless the formula is wrong.

That means that light must exist outside of space and time, thus meaning it must be existing in a higher dimension and it is a warped experience of light that we get here as a result, since that would mean we could not perceive light as it actually is, but as we experience it being within the reference of and limitations of time and space, which it would exist outside of and beyond.

To understand light, then we must consider it in higher dimensions.  Unfortunately, this is where my ability to continue stops, because I don't know how to work with dimensions above 3+timespace.  

But this is indeed very interesting, and it strongly implies that superluminal travel is possible, as long as we interact with enough dimensions in the right ways.  Maybe superluminal travel is traveling interdimensionally.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator

The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
 
Reply
#4
In my opinion, space as we see it now is "dense" from a higher dimensional view (like how we view water as "dense" but deep sea creatures who have never seen the surface would not even understand the concept. Just like how everything would be slower in water, I believe that is why light is slower in this dimension.

This probably goes for time too: if space and time are interlinked like how scientists say they are, time must be more "fluid" in a higher dimension also.

There probably are particles that travel faster than light even in this dimension but they most probably have not been detected. I mean we can't even detect the majority of matter in this universe (dark matter) so we would have no way of knowing what kind of particles are interacting with them.
Appreciate anything that you want to grow

Fearlessly, harmoniously and deeply penetrate every moment

The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way
 
Reply
#5
(04-21-2019, 06:17 PM)Shannon Wrote: So if there is no time for a photon, there is no space either, because time and space are parts of the same thing.  As stated in the one post on the other forum.  

This would mean that we have found the limits of our understanding because we are either missing something or misunderstanding something.  Remember that it is entirely possible to "empirically prove" something and have the logic be in error, but that error isn't caught because we are close to the limits of our capacity for comprehension.

Quote:The Lorentz factor for time dilation is sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2). For v = c, the Lorentz factor equals zero!

If v = c then we get sqrt(1 - x/x) = sqrt (1-1) = sqrt (0) = 0.  So it's not a very small t value, it's literally 0 unless the formula is wrong.

That means that light must exist outside of space and time, thus meaning it must be existing in a higher dimension and it is a warped experience of light that we get here as a result, since that would mean we could not perceive light as it actually is, but as we experience it being within the reference of and limitations of time and space, which it would exist outside of and beyond.

To understand light, then we must consider it in higher dimensions.  Unfortunately, this is where my ability to continue stops, because I don't know how to work with dimensions above 3+timespace.  

But this is indeed very interesting, and it strongly implies that superluminal travel is possible, as long as we interact with enough dimensions in the right ways.  Maybe superluminal travel is traveling interdimensionally.

Sure, superstring theories have been attemtping to reconcile just that I think. They are, as far as I can tell, unfalsifiable as of yet for the most part, but appear to be logically solid (again, as far as I can tell, lol). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

I learned this from "True Detective", lol. Matthew McConaughey seems to be travelling through higher and higher dimensions as his acting oeuvre expands, because in "Interstellar" he was messing around with potentiality itself! Wink

Now that I think about it, I do not think light can be considered stationary as in order for something to enter stasis it must be confronted by something that has enough energy to keep it in place (which has actually been done experimentally with light). Were it not so, everything would just keep moving and expanding, I guess? I'm not quite sure on the physics of this.
"A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him." - A. Crowley
 
Reply
#6
By the way, I just learned from the Interwebz that Einstein himself came to the conclusion that light, indeed, could technically be static according to his theory - but the experimental data belied that fact and he was reportedly sad about this Sad Wink I think it was his only theory that was actually disproven. I'll try to find out more and link it up here.

I think he should have had gone the Bohm route more than the Bohr route, but Bohr was more *in* at the time. Poor Bohm never got any love (apart from Einstein, actually, IIRC).
"A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him." - A. Crowley
 
Reply
#7
Some thoughts/questions to ponder...

What is the speed of thought?
Is thought faster than light?
Is light a particle or a wave?
Cool
No unsolicited advice please. Thank you.
 
Reply
#8
(04-28-2019, 02:41 PM)Djinnni Wrote: Some thoughts/questions to ponder...

What is the speed of thought?
Is thought faster than light?
Is light a particle or a wave?

The speed of conscious thought (thought translated into the physical reality) is constrained to a speed limit defined by the number of pulses per second at which the brain is functioning, the speed of electricity through a neuron, and how many "units of thought information" can be translated into pulses per second, as well as how many pulses per second are required for each "slice of conscious awareness".  Since we have no way to measure units of thought, the equation resulting would always produce meaningless answers.

The speed of thought unrestrained by limitations of translating it into the physical is unrestrained.  

Consciousness translated into the physical is very slow.  Nonphysical awareness is easily faster than light, as again, it is unrestrained.

Light is neither a wave nor a particle, but it appears to be one or the other depending on how you observe it because of the limits of the dimensions we are capable of perceiving through the limited physical nervous system.

I believe that science will eventually realize that "you can't go faster than light" is laughably wrong, and that faster than light speed is not just possible, but very common.  There is something that has been deeply misunderstood at a fundamental level somewhere, or there is some variable that hasn't been discerned yet, or both, which will eventually reveal that to be the case.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator

The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
 
Reply
#9
(04-29-2019, 05:32 AM)Shannon Wrote:
(04-28-2019, 02:41 PM)Djinnni Wrote: Some thoughts/questions to ponder...

What is the speed of thought?
Is thought faster than light?
Is light a particle or a wave?

The speed of conscious thought (thought translated into the physical reality) is constrained to a speed limit defined by the number of pulses per second at which the brain is functioning, the speed of electricity through a neuron, and how many "units of thought information" can be translated into pulses per second, as well as how many pulses per second are required for each "slice of conscious awareness".  Since we have no way to measure units of thought, the equation resulting would always produce meaningless answers.

The speed of thought unrestrained by limitations of translating it into the physical is unrestrained.  

Consciousness translated into the physical is very slow.  Nonphysical awareness is easily faster than light, as again, it is unrestrained.

Light is neither a wave nor a particle, but it appears to be one or the other depending on how you observe it because of the limits of the dimensions we are capable of perceiving through the limited physical nervous system.

I believe that science will eventually realize that "you can't go faster than light" is laughably wrong, and that faster than light speed is not just possible, but very common.  There is something that has been deeply misunderstood at a fundamental level somewhere, or there is some variable that hasn't been discerned yet, or both, which will eventually reveal that to be the case.

Will we ever able to change physical matter through the non physical using subs? (beyond brain neurons and the electricity that goes between to communicate as that seems to be physical?)
Appreciate anything that you want to grow

Fearlessly, harmoniously and deeply penetrate every moment

The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way
 
Reply
#10
We already do, as a natural part of living and being conscious. With or without subs.  Matter is just coagulated energy.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator

The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
 
Reply
#11
Hmm. I think science has realized long ago that you can technically go faster than the speed of light, you just can't do it with a material substance (so as long as you have a mass, I think). C is often defined as the limiting velocity for the propagation of signals and material particles. What about... immaterial stuff? I mean, e=mc2 - so potential kinetic energy of a body is mass times speed-of-light(squared). Squared speed of light? That's speed of light x speed of light... that's waaaaay faster than light! Quantum woo ahoy! Wink
"A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him." - A. Crowley
 
Reply
#12
A number divided by zero is not zero, though. Approaches infinity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Thoughts, opinions and beliefs subject to change without prior notice.
 
Reply
#13
(04-29-2019, 06:53 AM)Shannon Wrote: We already do, as a natural part of living and being conscious. With or without subs.  Matter is just coagulated energy.

Ding!! Bonus Round!!
A True Formula is BOTH,predictable & Repeatable
Fear Remover=A Titanium Excalibur to SLAY the DRAGON!!-Keith
Night Bird,Morning Badger!
Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of Lack! Believe-Envision

 
Reply
#14
(04-21-2019, 06:17 PM)Shannon Wrote: If v = c then we get sqrt(1 - x/x) = sqrt (1-1) = sqrt (0) = 0.  So it's not a very small t value, it's literally 0 unless the formula is wrong.

That means that light must exist outside of space and time, thus meaning it must be existing in a higher dimension and it is a warped experience of light that we get here as a result, since that would mean we could not perceive light as it actually is, but as we experience it being within the reference of and limitations of time and space, which it would exist outside of and beyond.

To understand light, then we must consider it in higher dimensions.  Unfortunately, this is where my ability to continue stops, because I don't know how to work with dimensions above 3+timespace.  

I saw once a documentary saying that matter can't be accelerated to 100% light speed because the energy amount would go up to infinity. Not sure if this is still up to date because it has been a long time since I saw it but it would also indicate that lights operates somehow outside of the time system as the time for normal matter would never become absolute 0.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Help Me Understand Global Warming SargeMaximus 23 3,109 07-15-2017, 03:44 PM
Last Post: RisingSon

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)