It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"FTL" light trick may lead to much better astronomy

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
remember that non material things can travel FTL no problem. like the intersection point of the two blades of a giant pair of sissors as the blades close or the illuminated spot on a surface a long distance away or the phase velocity of any waveform can move FTL.

phys.org...

Scientists think that an effect analogous to a sonic boom but with light similar to cherenkov radiation may light up objects in a way that will reveal more details about those objects than standard astronomy instruments. For nearby objects we could project laser beams on them to generate the effect. but for stellar distant objects we would rely on such things as pulsars, Gamma gay bursts novae and similar things.

the key thing is the illumination must sweep the intervening objects at greater than light speed.

so there you have it We haz FTL sensors! kinda.

(I can hear the veins popping in the skulls of internet know-it-all science debunker types even as i type.)



edit on 8-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the key thing is the illumination must sweep the intervening objects at greater than light speed.

so there you have it We haz FTL sensors! kinda.

(I can hear the veins popping in the skulls of internet know-it-all science debunker types even as i type.)


Not so much. The problem is one you get in your first year of calculus based physics. Sweeping a beam of light (the problem generally involves a searchlight) does not cause the beam to exceed the speed of light.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the key thing is the illumination must sweep the intervening objects at greater than light speed.

so there you have it We haz FTL sensors! kinda.

(I can hear the veins popping in the skulls of internet know-it-all science debunker types even as i type.)


Not so much. The problem is one you get in your first year of calculus based physics. Sweeping a beam of light (the problem generally involves a searchlight) does not cause the beam to exceed the speed of light.


i said nothing about the speed of the beam itself.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


remember that non material things can travel FTL no problem.

"non material things"…

Pulls ripcord…



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
By non material things do you mean massless?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: stormbringer1701


remember that non material things can travel FTL no problem.

"non material things"…

Pulls ripcord…

Anything you can name is a thing. phase velocity in EM waves is a thing but it has no mass. the intersection of a closing pair of sissor blades is a thing. it can be named but it has no mass.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
double post: please delete.
edit on 8-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
By non material things do you mean massless?


yes. it can also be said it can convey no information. no communication by itself. Apparently some secondary effects can generate information and light which cannot travel faster than light. but that is irrelevant. a FTL effect enables sensing methods via secondary effects that are not FTL. that still does not negate the fact that the enabling factor is FTL.
edit on 8-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj
By non material things do you mean massless?


yes. it can also be said it can convey no information. no communication by itself. Apparently some secondary effects can generate information and light that itself cannot travel faster than light.

I always assumed that a theoretically massless particle would be incapable of reacting with matter, and be unmeasurable, or at least impossible to interact with?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj
By non material things do you mean massless?


yes. it can also be said it can convey no information. no communication by itself. Apparently some secondary effects can generate information and light that itself cannot travel faster than light.

I always assumed that a theoretically massless particle would be incapable of reacting with matter, and be unmeasurable, or at least impossible to interact with?



kind of. there are some very weak interactions possible if i recall correctly but i may not be. but the phenomenon in question is not a particle and by itself has no energy either so that does not pertain to the present subject



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


Anything you can name is a thing.

Yes, everything is a thing.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj
By non material things do you mean massless?


yes. it can also be said it can convey no information. no communication by itself. Apparently some secondary effects can generate information and light that itself cannot travel faster than light.

I always assumed that a theoretically massless particle would be incapable of reacting with matter, and be unmeasurable, or at least impossible to interact with?



kind of. there are some very weak interactions possible if i recall correctly but i may not be. but the phenomenon in question is not a particle and by itself has no energy either so that does not pertain to the present subject




Now i'm confused. Weak interactions between a massless ...energy? and a particle with mass...I know quantum theory is weird but...what?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

edit on 8-1-2015 by Jonjonj because: double post



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think light is massless (it only has momentum). So we can definitely perceive and interact with stuff that doesn't have mass.

I don't believe that scissors can go faster than light though.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Jonjonj
By non material things do you mean massless?


yes. it can also be said it can convey no information. no communication by itself. Apparently some secondary effects can generate information and light that itself cannot travel faster than light.

I always assumed that a theoretically massless particle would be incapable of reacting with matter, and be unmeasurable, or at least impossible to interact with?



kind of. there are some very weak interactions possible if i recall correctly but i may not be. but the phenomenon in question is not a particle and by itself has no energy either so that does not pertain to the present subject




Now i'm confused. Weak interactions between a massless ...energy? and a particle with mass...I know quantum theory is weird but...what?


i'm not sure but there should be interactions like entanglement or perhaps some sort of rare inelastic collision between like particles. And some massless particles decay into particles with mass. E.G; Neutral pions are created by antimatter annihilation travel 1.6 kilometers and then decay into massive and charged particles that can be used for thrust.
edit on 8-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: supermouse
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think light is massless (it only has momentum). So we can definitely perceive and interact with stuff that doesn't have mass.

I don't believe that scissors can go faster than light though.

it's not any part of the scissor itself. it's the point at which the blades intersect as they close or open. it has no mass. it's not a particle.

photons have no rest mass but they have mass energy equivalence and mass due to motion.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: supermouse
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think light is massless (it only has momentum). So we can definitely perceive and interact with stuff that doesn't have mass.

I don't believe that scissors can go faster than light though.



Photons have not been proven to be massless, their possible mass has been restricted to very small numbers, but massless...nope



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i said nothing about the speed of the beam itself.


The spot isn't a tangible object, it's where the photons from the beam hit. Sweeping the beam doesn't move anything faster than light, even if the location of the spot is changing in a way that appears to be moving faster than c.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Photons have not been proven to be massless, their possible mass has been restricted to very small numbers, but massless...nope


They have 0 rest mass.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Photons have not been proven to be massless, their possible mass has been restricted to very small numbers, but massless...nope


They have 0 rest mass.


A photon's rest mass can't be measured. Taken from here.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero.  The best we can hope to do is place limits on it.  A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces.  That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified.  An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields.  The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty.  This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance.  The new limit is 7 × 10−17 eV.  Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10−27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

From here: source

edit on 8-1-2015 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join