|
So, technically, nothing actually leaves a black hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ether (cosmic, not medical) was once known as fact of the base material of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the same argument as the flat earth.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are missing the point.
There are particles that travel faster than light.
I believe we will be able to develop a warp drive. Where we either travel using another dimension, or we effectively fold space.
It reminds me of a sci fi story where Battlestar Galactica Meet Star Trek. They were discussing how fast they travel. ST guys were "Oh, we top out at Warp 9". The BSG guys are like "No way. Faster than light? We can only do X speed". And ST laughs... Then they realize how far they traveled...
And BSG asks "Oh, you are measuring your speed OUTSIDE of the warp field". Turns out BSG travels much faster. LOL
The point being is that our limitations are based on our understanding. As programmers, we do this stuff all the time. Add a level of indirection or abstraction to get what we need.
There was a show with Dynamic Window Tinting in the 1980s. My friends and I marveled and realized it was IMPOSSIBLE to tint glass on the fly, and let it untint. USING LCD crystals between the glass, it is available and has been for a while.
THAT is when I learned. Guessing it is not possible is never a good guess.
We are 3-D printing skin graphs, and soon ORGANS. We have amputees that can run faster than able bodied humans.
We will eventually travel faster than light. At least relative to our current geometry.
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk 10389821 wrote: There are particles that travel faster than light.
Last time I checked, there was no single particle universe faster than light.
Kirk 10389821 wrote: I believe we will be able to develop a warp drive. Where we either travel using another dimension, or we effectively fold space.
That is correct; you are believing, which belongs to the realm of religion.
Kirk 10389821 wrote: We will eventually travel faster than light.
Nothing that mass has will.
Kirk 10389821 wrote: We have amputees that can run faster than able bodied humans.
Yes, but that does not mean that we will land on the sun, simply because "we have invented a lot". There are limits to what we can do, also in the future.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur C. Clarke's Law:
"When a distinguished, but elderly, scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. When, however, he says that something is impossible, he is almost certainly mistaken."
Clarke goes on to define "elderly": "In mathematics, physics, and chemistry, it means someone over 30. In the biological sciences, senile decay is sometimes postponed until the 40s."
At present, there seems no economical way to travel faster than light (creating a wormhole with an energy budget greater than that of a star doesn't count). However, we already know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incomplete; it could be that whatever unifies them will re-open the possibility for FTL.
Even if the theory is advanced in the next few decades, I doubt that the hardware will be built fast enough for old farts like us to use.   
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
|
|
|
|
|
Phase velocity can exceed the speed of light - it may be exploitable, but for sending information and not any physical objects.
It all comes down to the relativistic mass of any object with mass. As it approaches the speed of light its mass approached infinity - so acceleration becomes impossible. An interesting caveat to that could be that as anything with any mass approaches c, they all approach the same mass. Which causes all sorts of conflicts, logically - and one might as well accelerate an entire planet as accelerate a grain of sand as they'll take the same effort in the end.
Special relativity does bend the brain, a bit.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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: Phase velocity can exceed the speed of light
True, but it can't be used to transfer information.
Many other things can also "travel" faster than light; for example, a laser dot shined onto the moon will, if the laser is moved at more than ~43 degrees of arc per second, "appear" to move faster than light. However, this dot cannot be used to transfer information.
W∴ Balboos wrote: It all comes down to the relativistic mass of any object with mass.
I am well aware that Special Relativity does not allow travel at faster than the Speed of Light. I was speculating on the possibility that a marriage of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics would allow for FTL travel.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Not sending information via phase velocity at greater than c: I had that explained to me ca. 30 years ago. I had suggested a physical device, essentially a giant scissor, which could open and close and non-relativistic velocities with respect to it's physical form, but the point at which the two parts of the scissor meet (a phase) moves faster than the scissor if the scissor is long enough.
So - make the scissor long enough so that the intersection exceeds c whilst no actual parts do - but the signal is sent from end-to-end by observing the motion of the tips of the scissor.
The physicist said what would happen is that the scissor would actually bend (relativisticly) to prevent the signal from exceeding c. This would, I suggest, connect with your wording "appear" to exceed see with your laser-spot-to-the-moon concept.
But wait! Stuff does exceed c under certain circumstance: if moving at c to begin with, a photon entering a new medium with a higher index of refraction will, momentarily, exceed see. This is observed as the bluish glow observed in the cooling water around a nuclear reactor (Cherenkov radiation). So - their is ever so small a chink in the armor of no-way, albeit admittedly it wouldn't help out much if traveling in a vacuum.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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: if moving at c to begin with, a photon entering a new medium with a higher index of refraction will, momentarily, exceed see.
Special Relativity does not forbid a photon (or other particle) moving at higher than the Speed of Light in a medium. It only forbid moving faster than the Speed of Light in vacuum.
EDIT: As for the scissors' blades, the question is - what started them moving? The signal that the part of the blade closer to the join is rotating cannot move faster than the Speed of Light, so at any time - the blade will not be moving faster than light. Note that this problem involves acceleration (any point on the blade is moving in a circle), so it can't be solved by using Special Relativity.
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
|
|
|
|
|
So, now I have a question:
One is in a medium with n > 1 looking out into a medium with a lesser n
How does the external light appear to them from the point of view of their higher n medium?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Light (but not necessarily other particles) is affected by a move between media. You get effects such as refraction, total reflection, etc.
If you want to see how the outer world looks when looking out from a medium where n > 1 to a medium where n == 1, dive into a pool and open your eyes. Experiment always trumps theory. 
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
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Experiment always trumps theory.
So theory is fake news! 
CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, until it is verified by 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
|
|
|
|
|
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 ?).
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "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
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was only things with mass that cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but it is possible for things without mass to exceed the speed, even in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
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 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....
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
(I'm currently chasing down his other videos)