Listen To This

[U3D]

Today I was at the barber shop and read "Science Discoveries" (or something like that). "If an electron can be in two places at once, why can't you?" that was the front page title. This, I wondered, could make time travel possible in some way, but anyway, I watched something on the science channel that said they found these particles showing up at random. Then they introduced the parallel universe theory to help explain it. But back to the particles, I think that the particles don't go to other universes, if they did wouldn't one universe lose to many electrons and eventully causing the atom to collapse? Which could probly cause entire objects to just appear and disappear in this universe. I think that electrons can move faster than the speed of light as they orbit a nucleus. But only for a very short time. And I think if it moves faster than the speed of light then we can't detect it unless it gave off energy that we could detect, like ultraviolet or x-ray. Creating the illusion that it appears in two places at once. Like in the movie clockstoppers, when the watch accelerated their atoms, to an outside observer they would have disappered. And also if you had the watch you technicly could be in two palces at once. If you were in, say, New York and you could go faster than the speed of light with a certin object (lets use the watch) you could be in New York one nanosecond then in Washinton, DC, the next. Then, I think, you could go from New York to DC and back, like a million times a second. To an outside obsever, you would seem like you in two places at once........does anybody understand this?......Head hurts

[DQW]

If you were in, say, New York and you could go faster than the speed of light with a certin object (lets use the watch) you could be in New York one nanosecond then in Washinton, DC, the next.

No, that's not right. You would be in DC earlier than you left New York, according to an observer at rest on earth. But of course, you haven't specified the rate at which the person slows down to a stop and then chenges direction, so the time interval can be tuned.

 

Then, I think, you could go from New York to DC and back, like a million times a second.

If it did take a nano-second, that would make it a billion times a second.

 

To an outside obsever, you would seem like you in two places at once

You know at an average speed of 1 m/s I can shuttle back and forth between two points a billion times a second, if the points are a nanometer apart. To an outside observer, it would seem like ....

 

....does anybody understand this?......Head hurts

Yes. I understand that your head hurts !

 

Give it a rest.

[YT2095]

there are particles that can move faster than the speed of light, that`s not a problem.

 

if memory serves me correctly Electrons are not those particles, not withstanding that, your body has protons and Neutrons in it too (most of your body mass "weight" is made up of neutrona and to a lesser extent protons) so you`de be rather ineffectual even if you Could "teleport" your electrons all over the place

[Guest AnTi MinD]

i did not understand how u can be at dc earlier than u left new york please explain

[YT2095]

to an observer in the rest frame, so imagine you can see both locations at the same time (good binoculars!). he saying that when the person leaves your side and goes to the other place that fast, it`ll take light a while to get back to your eyes to confirm this.

 

it`s not technicaly breaking any rules as faster than light travel is perfectly real and observable. although I`m not sure the effect would be as profound as my exagerated example, since Air as a medium wouldn`t be dense enough over that short a distance and that assuming it wasn`t Electrons moving.

[swansont]

Today I was at the barber shop and read "Science Discoveries" (or something like that). "If an electron can be in two places at once, why can't you?" that was the front page title. This, I wondered, could make time travel possible in some way, but anyway, I watched something on the science channel that said they found these particles showing up at random. Then they introduced the parallel universe theory to help explain it. But back to the particles, I think that the particles don't go to other universes, if they did wouldn't one universe lose to many electrons and eventully causing the atom to collapse? Which could probly cause entire objects to just appear and disappear in this universe. I think that electrons can move faster than the speed of light as they orbit a nucleus. But only for a very short time. And I think if it moves faster than the speed of light then we can't detect it unless it gave off energy that we could detect, like ultraviolet or x-ray. Creating the illusion that it appears in two places at once.

 

The reference was most likely to quantum mechanics, where the electron is described in terms of the probability of being in various places, and you don't know where until you make a measurement.

 

Relativistic QED does a pretty good job of describing things without resorting to atomic electrons travelling FTL (which it couldn't, really, because relativity doesn't have any usable solutions for that case)

[YT2095]

Swansont, just a quicky and still marginaly on topic, How fast do or can Electrons travel?

 

I know that some particle can (and do) go FTL, and equaly certain it isn`t electrons

 

has it even been established yet?

[ydoaPs]

afiak, tachyons haven't been detected and probably can't interact with "normal" matter if they did exist.

[YT2095]

Tachyons are hypothetical particles that allegedly can only exist faster than C, personaly, until I see proof, I`ll leave all that stuff to the star trek guys

[ydoaPs]

then what are you talking about?

[YT2095]

then what are you talking about?

 

which part? I`ve said many things here, can you be a little more specific?

[ydoaPs]

ftl, but not tachyon

[YT2095]

Tachyons haven`t been proven and thus are still in the realms of Fantasy as there`s been no event or evidence take place that exceeds C.

FLT isn`t impossible as light speed isn`t a constant.

[ydoaPs]

what happened to photons always traveling at c?

[YT2095]

who told you that?

 

they were wrong anyway

[ydoaPs]

isn't that the basis for relativity?

[5614]

Tachyons haven't been detected.... FTL particles do not exist (and if they do (they don't!) then they haven't been detected (which is impossible because they don't exist!) yet.)

[YT2095]

Tachyons haven't been detected.... FTL particles do not exist (and if they do (they don't!) then they haven't been detected (which is impossible because they don't exist!) yet.)

 

I agree about the tachyons totaly, as for the rest you`re WRONG just as Totaly!

 

 

isn't that the basis for relativity?

 

no, relativity is based on C.

[ydoaPs]

ok, when don't photons travel at c?

[5614]

YT: I said FTL particles do not exist (ie. particles which travel faster than c) I didn't say that something being FTL was not possible, indeed things can be FTL, just not data transfer... are you sure I'm wrong?!?

 

[edit] c is constant to all inertial observers

[YT2095]

for a start no one mentioned data transfer?

 

youdad: on many occasions photons travel slower than C, for instance I`de hazzard to say this chat wouldn`t be anywhere near as fast if it wasn`t for this fact (think fiber optics).

 

FLT happens all the time, faster than C does not. light will slow down in a medium, C is taken at Vacuum conditions and IS a constant (and thus far inviolable).

[5614]

YT: I agree with your post #21 entirely!

 

Cerenkov radiation is but one example of your bottom para (about FTL as opposed to FTc)

 

The speed of light is generally referred to with a lower case c as opposed to a capital C... I'm not sure if it makes a difference (especially if it's in context) but still...

[swansont]

Swansont' date=' just a quicky and still marginaly on topic, How fast do or can Electrons travel?

 

I know that some particle can (and do) go FTL, and equaly certain it isn`t electrons

 

has it even been established yet?[/quote']

 

Electrons can traval arbitrarily close to c. It's a matter of giving them enough energy. Their mass energy is only .511 MeV, so even a KE of only ~11 MeV means a speed of 0.999c

 

There is an important distinction to be made: faster-than-light and faster-than-c may not mean the same thing, depending on context. c is a constant, and massive particles cannot travel faster than that. But light travels slower in a medium (v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction) so particles can travel faster than light travels in that medium, and those particles will emit Cerenkov radiation. However, the photons are traveling at c - the longer propagation time is due to absorption and re-emission in atoms in the medium. (From a wave standpoint it's because the wavelength is [math]\lambda /n[/math]) So saying that photons always travel at c is correct.

[YT2095]

so in effect since the electron can get very close (but never attain Photon speed due to if having Mass) even G T or Pev wouldn`t get it "up to speed", could it be fast enough to "Overlap" the speed of light in Air at STP I wonder? where would the crossover point be, between slowing the photons travel and Pev stimulation?

 

just some questions, mostly rhetorical I`m wondering about now

 

 

eitherway, the OP content needs further ellaboration/definition for me.

[ydoaPs]

youdad: on many occasions photons travel slower than C' date=' for instance I`de hazzard to say this chat wouldn`t be anywhere near as fast if it wasn`t for this fact (think fiber optics).

 

FLT happens all the time, faster than C does not. light will slow down in a medium, C is taken at Vacuum conditions and IS a constant (and thus far inviolable).[/quote']

light doesn't slow down. it always travels at c. it gets absorbed and reemitted by matter which makes it appear to go slower because total distance/total time doesn't account for the stopping.