Real Physics in Modern Comics

[ImplicitDemands]

I've been reading a 2023-2024 Flash Comics storyline "Dawn of DC": 'Siege of Stillness'-'Flash in The Hand' and these story-arcs are employing three quantum effects, some having been known for around one hundred years as the Koppenhagen Interpretation. 

Anyway there are three older superpowers, two of which the Flash already had and one in which his son has, described in a more modern way. The two powers the Flash uses are phasing through solids, and creating an Alcubierre Warp Bubble around his person in order to achieve superspeed. The third power of his son is teleportation. These are known ?s in physics that have words put on them like "Neutrino", or "Dark Energy/Matter", or "Superposition". The truth is, not only do we know nothing about these names we've given to what we've observed, we also know nothing about light or what it is other than matter contains a certain quantity of it that we can only get a fraction of in uncontrolled bursts via fusion and fission. Some of which can be harnessed to power our devices. Even if we don't know about these elements they do exist, we can know this with more certainty than we know God to be a man as opposed to a woman. 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

The two powers the Flash uses are phasing through solids, and creating an Alcubierre Warp Bubble around his person in order to achieve superspeed. The third power of his son is teleportation.

These are science fiction, not physics. (the Alcubierre warp drive, while treated in some physics, depends on fictional material)

It’s a comic book.

Quote

we also know nothing about light or what it is other than matter contains a certain quantity of it

Who is “we”? (matter contains very few photons)

[ImplicitDemands]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

(the Alcubierre warp drive, while treated in some physics, depends on fictional material)

Now hang on, if dark energy expands space, and dark matter holds galaxies together against dark energy - and the alcubierre warp bubble is by definition the expansion of space behind the spaceship and the contraction of space in front of it - than this matches the description of the AWB. 

Looking at the definition of dark energy, I would have started with the idea that it turns gravity off before finding a mechanism that does just that. Looking at the definition of dark matter I would have started with singularities above the planck particle scale but below anything that lasts long enough to detect with our instruments. 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

“we”

The collective.

Although if I were an individual of the collective and I had the answers I'd keep them to myself. But that's just me. 

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s a comic book.

I never thought of it that way. How intuitive you are. 

11 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I would have started with the idea that it turns gravity off before finding a mechanism that does just that

Scratch that, reverse it. I would have found the mechanism first like with the micro-singularity. It looks less suspicious if I wasn't trying to find something for convenience but it accidently came up on some table for rate of change, for something else entirely. 

Edited June 23 by ImplicitDemands

[swansont]

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Now hang on, if dark energy expands space, and dark matter holds galaxies together against dark energy - and the alcubierre warp bubble is by definition the expansion of space behind the spaceship and the contraction of space in front of it - than this matches the description of the AWB. 

It depends on making a region with a lower energy density than the vacuum, which requires negative mass. Which, at this time, is fictional.

Can I let go now?

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

The collective.

There are people who understand something about light. I am one of them 

Light is electromagnetic radiation and can be polarized. That’s two things “we” know about light.

 

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

 

I never thought of it that way. How intuitive you are. 

It would seem that thought was not a large part of this process

 

[ImplicitDemands]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It depends on making a region with a lower energy density than the vacuum, which requires negative mass. Which, at this time, is fictional.

Can I let go now?

While it's true turning gravity off can only leave you with a perfect vacuum, the rates that can be achieved by gravity alone in front of the craft is potentially limitless - if the fact that light is unable to escape the event horizon can be taken at face value. Especially if you're removing 100% of the drag behind the ship. 

Or you could just teleport through a superposition/entangled states depending on which view of the Copenhagen interpretation you take. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There are people who understand something about light. I am one of them 

Light is electromagnetic radiation and can be polarized. That’s two things “we” know about light.

So you've contributed to what I said about the maximum energy output being the square of a given unit of mass times the speed of light.

I actually have a youtube video showing how you don't even need modern technology to get an approximate speed of light. I can't share it for personal reasons. 

"We" still don't know everything about it. Let's brainstorm some unknowns:

1. The quantum venn diagram paradox,

2. Why matter can be transformed into it

3. Why it possesses particle wave duality

4. We don't even know why particular wavelengths are produced under various conflicting conditions

In essence, if we really don't understand light how can we understand the three effects in the opening post? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It would seem that thought was not a large part of this process

The point of bringing it up is that the real science garners enough interest for someone to devote their work to appealing to a new generation 100 years after these problems were posed. Just look at the layers of separation between the Copenhagen interpretation and DC comics. It permeates everything because it is real, and it is mysterious. I'm simply saying if I were to claim how much power it actually has. Wouldn't dare compare it to religion though. 

Edited June 23 by ImplicitDemands

[swansont]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

While it's true turning gravity off can only leave you with a perfect vacuum, the rates that can be achieved by gravity alone in front of the craft is potentially limitless - if the fact that light is unable to escape the event horizon can be taken at face value. Especially if you're removing 100% of the drag behind the ship. 

Claimed without support or evidence.

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Or you could just teleport through a superposition/entangled states depending on which view of the Copenhagen interpretation you take. 

Word salad.

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

So you've contributed to what I said about the maximum energy output being the square of a given unit of mass times the speed of light.

That’s not correct.

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I actually have a youtube video showing how you don't even need modern technology to get an approximate speed of light. I can't share it for personal reasons. 

Rømer estimated it in 1676, so this isn’t exactly a secret.

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

"We" still don't know everything about it.

That’s quite a different claim from we know nothing about it

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Or you could just teleport through a superposition/entangled states depending on which view of the Copenhagen interpretation you take. 

In weightlifting, this is similar to tricep extension, where your lunges and squats deload the plyometrics of the overhead press, depending on which bicep curl gives you a good standing row.

[ImplicitDemands]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Claimed without support or evidence.

When you consider the problem with surpassing the speed of light is that the object takes on greater and greater amounts of drag as it accelerates close to the speed of light. So then if the spacecraft is accelerated by gravity/mass/drag in front then the problem is that drag ends up decelerating it when it moves said distance. So what if one were deleting the drag in the spaceship's wake as it is moved forward. Again, I'm not saying that this is the dark energy causing galaxies to gain separation as that hasn't been officially established. Should there already be any such proposals, I'll have a look. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Word salad.

Not enough information was provided to establish that I don't know about the double slit experiment and it's theorized implications. It's obvious I quoted the Copenhagen interpretation because I was tired of writing it. That doesn't mean I just looked it up, maybe I just didn't like spelling it out again. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not correct.

Okay, "contributed" wasn't the right word, I guess annexed was a better word. Einstein gave us most of this information in the 1905 paper "Photoelectric effect" and "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Content?" that same year. These are just matters of semantics. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Rømer estimated it in 1676, so this isn’t exactly a secret.

I did not know someone else attempted this. So it would be interesting to see how we differ. I'll have to self-check it. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s quite a different claim from we know nothing about it

I was being melodramatic because I feel having an incomplete picture is as good as having nothing. Even if the incomplete picture can still be used for all kinds of advantages they'd still pale in comparison to the complete picture. 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

(matter contains very few photons)

Photons are the quanta of energy. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. You know this. Okay, this is given matter and its mass are inseparable or rather one and the same. If you take away the entire mass of a body of matter, it becomes energy and nothing is left over. I've heard claims that they've created antimatter, however I have my own thoughts on the matter. Again, I'll have to fall back on my research. 

Edited June 24 by ImplicitDemands

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Then there's nothing to support or deny it.

Precisely. 

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Not enough information was provided to establish that I don't know about the double slit experiment and it's theorized implications. It's obvious I quoted the Copenhagen interpretation because I was tired of writing it. That doesn't mean I just looked it up, maybe I just didn't like spelling it out again. 

“teleport through a superposition/entangled states” in nonsensical 

 

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Okay, "contributed" wasn't the right word, I guess annexed was a better word. Einstein gave us most of this information in the 1905 paper "Photoelectric effect" and "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Content?" that same year. These are just matters of semantics. 

The main issue is that m^2c is incorrect (square of a given unit of mass times the speed of light)

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I did not know someone else attempted this. So it would be interesting to see how we differ. I'll have to self-check it. 

A number people have, through the years

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I was being melodramatic because I feel having an incomplete picture is as good as having nothing. Even if the incomplete picture can still be used for all kinds of advantages they'd still pale in comparison to the complete picture. 

Precision is much better, if communication is the goal. One must assume you mean what you say.

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Photons are the quanta of energy. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. You know this. Okay, this is given matter and its mass are inseparable or rather one and the same. If you take away the entire mass of a body of matter, it becomes energy and nothing is left over. 

Energy is given by E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
It reduces to mc^2 for objects at rest. For photons the mass term goes to zero and E = pc
You’re equating things that are not, in fact, equal

Energy in massive objects is generally not in the form of photons; mass is a property of matter — they are not one and the same.

You can’t “take away” mass in an arbitrary fashion. You can annihilate matter with antimatter, but that’s a very specific situation.

[MigL]

Is all of your life 'fantasy' ???

If I was you I would stick to trying to pick up women, as you don't seem to know anything about science.
Oh wait ... you don't know anything about that either.

[ImplicitDemands]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In weightlifting, this is similar to tricep extension, where your lunges and squats deload the plyometrics of the overhead press, depending on which bicep curl gives you a good standing row.

I was more along the lines of a single jump. Destination would need to be an atmosphere. A star has the particles, any planet does, but only an atmosphere could support the integrity of the craft. But there's a lot I need to look over according to ^

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

I was more along the lines of a single jump. Destination would need to be an atmosphere. A star has the particles, any planet does, but only an atmosphere could support the integrity of the craft. But there's a lot I need to look over according to ^

My point was that I don't know squat about weightlifting, so my statement about it was just a word salad jumble of buzzwords that I thought sounded pretty good. But of course, to someone who has studied it, my comments are gibberish.

Similar to what you're proposing here. "Only an atmosphere could support the integrity of the craft"?! Are we still talking about a craft with an imaginary Alcubierre drive? Why would a craft capable of some fraction of the speed of light need an atmosphere? At those speeds, an atmosphere would mean instant destruction of the craft as it slammed into atmospheric molecules. 

I was very excited about the Alcubierre drive back in 2016 until I talked to an astrophysicist at the International Aeronautical Congress in Guadalajara. I'm not a maths whiz, but he showed me how the calculations that allow for the "bubble" to be manipulated can be legitimately adjusted to remove the possibility altogether. IOW, the "bubble" might go away when our maths regarding it become more accurate.