RE: Breaking the speed of light.
Login  | |
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/28/2008 11:08:26 PM
|
|
|
Joolander
Posts: 1706
Joined: 4/25/2007
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2000AZ5.0GT
well, technically we are all familiar with all four dimensions, including time, we all experience it, and while we usually don't think of it in this way, it isn't too difficult to do so, whereas the other 7 spatial dimensions are so small that they cannot be experienced in the same way, and are much harder to conceptualize
let me try to at least....
is electron spin that i heard about in chemisrty II and marterials engineering one of those other 7 dimensions?
btw are you like a physicist or something?
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: QatarStang
You know I''ve always had a boner for your car, Joo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/28/2008 11:58:15 PM
|
|
|
2000AZ5.0GT
Posts: 675
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline
|
no, electron spin is completely different, in fact, it is now a little more than a theory that every particle technically has spin, well, okay if you are one to believe in Point particle physics, and quantum field theory (basically the idea that particles such as protons, gluons, and such are the most basic parts of the universe) particles have spin. If you are studying what I am working on, which is superstring theory, then everything is basically made up of tiny little rubber bands, one billionth of a billionth of a meter in size, that is vibrating, through each of these dimensions. It's really hard to vizualize, because the dimensions I'm talking about are about the Plack length in size, smaller than one billionth of a billionth of a meter, whereas the smallest distance we can probe is about one millionth of meter. There is a big gap in the technology available to confirm an experiment, and the theory behind it.
So far, there are three different spins that a particle can have, 1/2 , 1, and 2. The only particle theorized to have the spin -2 would be the Graviton, a massless particle that is the "messenger" particle of gravity, basically the particle that travels at the speed of light that in essence communicates gravity. Particles such as the Muon, gluon, and a whole bunch of others, (there are three families of particles) all have spin's such as 1, these are messenger particles. Then there are normal particles, such as electrons, which exhibit a spin of -1/2, and the cancellations of such spin's is generally what causes an electric charge (Generally, this is the most basic way I can put it)
The dimensions that exist are what make each of things possible, and so far, the indirect observations of some physics has provided alot of evidence for the existance of such dimensions called a Calabi-Yau Spatial Dimention. It gets pretty damn complex, so I don't think I'm going to write a textbook here
_____________________________
2000 mustang GT
553rwhp
3.4 Whipple on the way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:05:21 AM
|
|
|
Joolander
Posts: 1706
Joined: 4/25/2007
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
|
so, are the particles actually spinning in 3 dimensional space? forgive me, im just a lowly engineering undergrad right now 
also i found this, and thought it was funny, and it gives some of the other people that don't know what were talking about something to laugh at
< Message edited by Joolander -- 4/29/2008 12:06:45 AM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: QatarStang
You know I''ve always had a boner for your car, Joo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:10:16 AM
|
|
|
trickdriller
Posts: 1026
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
You also have to think that your "pole" will be attached to the Earth and, therefor, be pulled by the Earth's graviational pull. That means, that your stick and the vessle attached to it will all have weight according to the Earth's gravity (measured in the usual: Pounds or Kilograms). That kind of weight alone is astronomical. Add to that, the rotation and tilt of our Planet, and you're screwed:) Your ship will always be moving around and not doing what you want it to do.
_____________________________
01 Bullit suspension, 01 Bullit Brakes, Spec Stage 3, Rear Seat Delete
Now for sale: $4000
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:21:30 AM
|
|
|
2000AZ5.0GT
Posts: 675
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline
|
yeah, actually the particles are spinning in 10 dimensional space, with another dimension being the time dimension. These are just mathematical representations of how much these particles are Vibrating/spinning.
Remember that even with point particle physics (basically quantum mechanics without anything related to string theory) still believes that these particles that make up atoms, and the quantum field, act like waves, as well as particles. These values of spin, are merely the fluctuations, similar to the wavelength, frequency and amplitude when you first get in to chemistry. This is but one of the concequences of the uncertainty principle founded in the 1900's.
This level of physics is far beyond the scope of anything that you will study with a basic undergraduate degree, unless you specialize in something such as this. In fact, I believe I had to get advanced standing in my class to take classes this high.
I don't know if you know, but the importance of string theory is quite big. With point particle physics, and quantum feild theory, it is believed that there is chaos at the plack length, and at tiny little distances, which is incompatable with General and Special Relativity. This is pretty huge, because these are our two theories of the way the universe works at it's big scales and on its small scales. String theory calms all of this, and actually incorperates gravity into the framework of both theories, and unites them, so that we have one unified theory of everything, in fact most the time it's reffered to as the T.O.E., something that is the wholy grail to physicists, The Theory Of Everything.
_____________________________
2000 mustang GT
553rwhp
3.4 Whipple on the way
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:32:52 AM
|
|
|
Joolander
Posts: 1706
Joined: 4/25/2007
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
|
i understand the importance of string theory in relation to the theory of everything. i also get the 4th dimension bein time, thats no strech of the imagination. the webcomic i posted is really just something i found funny, as string theory is still a relatively new concept for most people
even though im an undergrad, i am at the top of all my classes, and i still love all the theoretical applications of the (for lack of a better term) more advanced sciences. i'm not going into those fields because i suck at forging new scientific ground
still when you say that there are 7 more dimensions, it boggles my mind because i can really ony visualize a total 6 dimensions if i really try (im a visual learner)
if you don't mind i'd like to hear about the 7 other dimensions sometime
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: QatarStang
You know I''ve always had a boner for your car, Joo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:34:09 AM
|
|
|
trickdriller
Posts: 1026
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)
Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?
And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?
_____________________________
01 Bullit suspension, 01 Bullit Brakes, Spec Stage 3, Rear Seat Delete
Now for sale: $4000
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:39:41 AM
|
|
|
Joolander
Posts: 1706
Joined: 4/25/2007
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: trickdriller
Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)
Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?
And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?
its all in Einsteins theory of Relativity, in the famous equation E=mc²
i'm gonna link you to wikipedia because im tired and shouldnt be up right now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
< Message edited by Joolander -- 4/29/2008 12:40:46 AM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: QatarStang
You know I''ve always had a boner for your car, Joo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:40:04 AM
|
|
|
Joolander
Posts: 1706
Joined: 4/25/2007
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
|
whoops, double post
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: QatarStang
You know I''ve always had a boner for your car, Joo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 12:43:33 AM
|
|
|
2000AZ5.0GT
Posts: 675
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: trickdriller
Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)
Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?
And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?
E=Mc^2
where E= Energy, M= mass, C=speed of light (2.99x10E8). If you plug in experimental values to the equation, you will find that the faster an object goes, or the more energy it posses, the more mass it "aquires". As it's energy increases (speed/velocity), the more massive, in a literal sense, it becomes.
basically M=(c^2)/E
If you graph the equation, your going to see that as the energy increases, the Mass increases exponentially (literally). The closer you get to the speed of light, the heavier you become. Plain and simple
_____________________________
2000 mustang GT
553rwhp
3.4 Whipple on the way
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 1:18:55 AM
|
|
|
trickdriller
Posts: 1026
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
No, not plain and simple. E=Mc2 is nothing more than an equasion made by a man. Yes, to this day it has yet to be DISproved, but that doesn't mean it wont be. You said it yourself, Newton's laws were disproved by Einstein. Back in the day, people just as you were saying the EXACT same thing about Newton as you are now about Einstein.
I believe that the speed of light is nothing more than a number; and that it can be exceeded. I do not have a reason to back this up, nor do I have the eduaction. But I can tell you that based on trends throughout history, we are wrong. Humans are almost always wrong. We have been known to be correct about some things. The Egyptians had it right in their Astrology. They were right, even if it is basic stuff now; they were right. I believe, however, that we are wrong about the speed of light. I think it is perfectly attainable. We just don't know HOW yet. Just as the speed of sound was "unattainable" at one point. No, we just didn't know how yet.
That's just my 2 cents.
_____________________________
01 Bullit suspension, 01 Bullit Brakes, Spec Stage 3, Rear Seat Delete
Now for sale: $4000
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Breaking the speed of light. - 4/29/2008 1:30:04 AM
|
|
|
2000AZ5.0GT
Posts: 675
Joined: 7/17/2007
Status: offline
|
The problem is that this equation hasn't been proved to be infallible at all. In fact, a particle that has been accelerated to roughly 95% of the speed of light (this is one particle, and it takes 54 miles of the strongest electromagnets known to man), normally less than one millionth of a gram, becomes about 22ounces at 95% of the speed of light. This is exactly predicted by this equation. There have been countless things proving this "theory", so it isn't like it was just his opinion. People who used to resist what he said more than anything were the ones to prove him right, by trying to prove him wrong.
And no, they weren't saying the same thing about newton. The only thing that Einstein proved wrong about newton is that newton said that gravity was communicated at the speed light. Thats it, the only thing that was disproven. Newtons theory never said what gravity was, and that's what Einstein's theory predicts, and ultimately spells out (what gravity is)
In fact, Newtons laws, specifically that of gravity, is still used, some 300 years after it was developed. So are you completely sure that it is wrong? in fact, I don't think that anyone has proved anything that newton said, other than the speed of light not being a limit, to be false. In fact, he was one who believed, as you do, that it is just a number. You don't seem to understand what would happen if it were to ever happen. You would literally go Back in time, which means that we would have already experienced something that happened traveling at faster than the speed of light.
If you turned on a light, and somehow the light particles (photons) traveled faster than 670 million miles per hour, you would see that the light beam would get to where they were going, before you flipped the switch.
_____________________________
2000 mustang GT
553rwhp
3.4 Whipple on the way
|
|
|
|
Contact Us |
Add to Favorites |
Advertising |
Automotive Directory |
Mustang Links |
About |
Archive |
Legal |
Privacy |
Sitemap |
Ringtones |
Link to us |
Top Mustang Sites
MustangForums.com is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.
|
Printable Version
