Light speed is not what we think.

Originally posted by Yarium

Originally posted by IronMan
Please keep this discussion up, my son and I are learning a lot!

Do black holes REALLY REALLY exist?
Is there any proof that other dimensions exist?
Finally, is there an edge to the universe?

I'm glad to see that I'm getting your son interested!

Answer 1: Yes, they exist, if by exist you mean that there's mass in the area where a Black Hole is said to be. If you mean exist as in... well.. EXIST. That'd up to debate. I'd have to say yes, they exist. I'd say that it's matter brought down to its very basic element (whatever that is), and there is NO space inbetween these carriers of mass.

Answer 2: Depends what you mean. If you mean dimensions as in alternate universes, then no. The closest thing would be the photo-electron effect, where electrons behave like light. The classic experiment with light is to set up a light source, then a thin slit for light to come through, then an open area, then two more slits for light, then another open area, then a wall. You'll notice that the light forms "bars" of:

I_I_I_I_I (where "I" is illuminated, and "_" is dark)

They did the same thing with electrons, shooting them out one at a time. Odd things began to happen as it formed the same pattern, which meant that SOMEHOW the electrons were acting like a wave, which is impossible since they're matter and were being sent through the "slit" one by one, and so couldn't tell where the other electrons were going.

The proposed theory is that the electrons (remember that they shift into another spatial dimension when they go between orbits) were interacting with electrons from other alternate universes, where the electron went through another slit. The average is what appears at the end, which is why it looks like it behaved as a wave.


Now, if you mean other spatial dimensions, then the electrons changing orbits is the best proof we have of this, but space-time could also be said to be an effect of this. So, yes.


Answer 3: According to most astronomers and theorists, no. Here's why.

Take a basketball. Draw a dot on it. This dot represents your placement in the universe. If you then draw a line from that dot in any direction on the ball, you will never reach an edge. You'll just keep circling the basketball.

If the 4th spatial dimension indeed exists as it is believed to, then the same thing happens in our universe, except that it's a strange kind of 4-d sphere that we could circle an infinite number of times without coming to an edge. This is also why there's no center to our universe - because it doesn't exist in 3-dimensional space.


Here's my theory:

The "center" of the universe is the Big Bang - the point from which it all began. We are living in but one of a near-infinite number of universes, where different chaotic events (events with no predictable outcome) occur in each one. Our universe is but part of this grand supra-verse. It is because of this connection that so many things which are thought to be impossible sometimes happen.

For example, have you ever had a dream which then came true?

It's happened to me many times (though with much less regularity now), and has helped me to avoid arguments and dilemmas.

So, on one hand I said to myself, there must be Fate - since how could I know what would happen (often of places and people I had never met at the time of the dream - roughly 6 months before the event)? But then, there couldn't be Fate, because I would change what would happen in my dream, and what happened in real life (due to my interjection... before this it became so bad that I used to say "Man, I'm having Deja-Vu" whilst in my dream before the Deja-Vu).

Now I believe that my soul (many more theories have I on that) travelled to another quantum universe which was exceedingly similar, but not entirely, like my own. Since it was another "me's" universe, it was not fate, but instead what was simply likely to happen. Whether I let it happen that way or not was up to me, since my future in THIS universe is not yet determined.

Ah That's what I thought (Phnnaaar)!

The Deja-Vu 'thing' may be you coming to terms with your mortal existence, don't worry I ain't gonna get heavy on ya.
It's just the idea of a 4-d sphere etc, is a little 'head hurting' and I'm tempted to run to the way that I think the person who started this thread went.
You know,... nah I think it's all a little easier than that (no insult meant to the ATSer who's thread this belongs to)
The vastness of these theories leaves one puzzled at times, but I suppose it because of our perception of our minds in these puny bodies.
Of course, saying that leaves us with the idea that we're not as powerful as we thought.
It's a little unerving for the top-of-the-tree species.

its obvious that you havent a clue about basic elementary phsyics this is all provable and your argument sounds like a creationist arguing with a darwinian the facts are self evident also id like to add that travelling at light speed or greater in our solar system would be a very bad idea indeed until we had tried it far from our planet as it would theoretically rip off the atmosphere of earth as we the craft or object shot past im not sure what distance would be safe but to be on the safe side we would have to get far enough away from earth which in its self would mean it would take a very long time by conventional craft to reach a safe distance to test any such theories mind you theyd be back before they left ....maybe

Originally posted by IronMan
The vastness of these theories leaves one puzzled at times, but I suppose it because of our perception of our minds in these puny bodies.
Of course, saying that leaves us with the idea that we're not as powerful as we thought.
It's a little unerving for the top-of-the-tree species.

Revel in the head-hurting IronMan! It's only when we push ourselves to ideas that are just almost beyond our reach that we grow as a person. It's at the extremes that we learn more about ourselves, because we force those parts of ourselves to show up and mingle with the norm.

And, yeah, it can hurt because, yes, it's our perception of the world that limits us. If we could only percieve black and white, would the idea of colour have any meaning to us?

And, yes, it may unnerve some who believe us to be at the top - that we can understand all. Because we can't. And frankly, I would never want to know all the answers - that would mean I have nothing left to question. Just look at my quote man, it says a lot about me.

Originally posted by Yarium

Originally posted by IronMan
The vastness of these theories leaves one puzzled at times, but I suppose it because of our perception of our minds in these puny bodies.
Of course, saying that leaves us with the idea that we're not as powerful as we thought.
It's a little unerving for the top-of-the-tree species.

Revel in the head-hurting IronMan! It's only when we push ourselves to ideas that are just almost beyond our reach that we grow as a person. It's at the extremes that we learn more about ourselves, because we force those parts of ourselves to show up and mingle with the norm.

And, yeah, it can hurt because, yes, it's our perception of the world that limits us. If we could only percieve black and white, would the idea of colour have any meaning to us?

And, yes, it may unnerve some who believe us to be at the top - that we can understand all. Because we can't. And frankly, I would never want to know all the answers - that would mean I have nothing left to question. Just look at my quote man, it says a lot about me.

You're right on the button!
Oh, before I forget, I saw a documentary yesterday about the discovery of the 'second' electron? I believe the programme was about understanding why the energy in the 'first' electron did add up to what was lost when the particles 'jostled' together... or something!

Hard to believe i know but think with me for a sec if some one said that they travialed light speed you wouldnt believe it because they would older then you due to what we believe what light speed does to you.

Of course you would not believe them because it is impossible for any physical object, outside particles/waves like a photon, to travel at the speed of light. It is only possible to increase constantly towards it but never obtain the full velocity. Like an asymptote.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Frosty]

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Frosty]

well news paper man, present your math. I am interested in seeing what you think light speed really is.

Originally posted by jinxville
its obvious that you havent a clue about basic elementary phsyics this is all provable and your argument sounds like a creationist arguing with a darwinian the facts are self evident also id like to add that travelling at light speed or greater in our solar system would be a very bad idea indeed until we had tried it far from our planet as it would theoretically rip off the atmosphere of earth as we the craft or object shot past im not sure what distance would be safe but to be on the safe side we would have to get far enough away from earth which in its self would mean it would take a very long time by conventional craft to reach a safe distance to test any such theories mind you theyd be back before they left ....maybe

Hi Jinxsville,
Do you think it's appropriate to comment that someone hasn't a clue about a subject that is still in the theoretical stage?
My son and I came here to 'pick the chaff from the wheat' as such and if this negative comment offensive. I can only presume you meant it another way.
Still, Yarium had some interesting facts.

Well Iron Man, sorry to leave you hanging for awhile there...

I pulled some research on this "second electron" thing - and I couldn't find anything on it. Perhaps you're talking about the positron? The positron is an electron that exists in antimatter and is the exact same as an electron, but with a positive charge instead of a negative one. It can orbit a anti-matter nucleus, with anti-protons (same as protons, but negative in charge) in its center instead of protons.

It is interesting to note that anti-matter and normal matter would be likely indistinguishable from each other, if not for their violent interactions with each other. They behave in the exact same way, and scientists have created "Anti-Hydrogen", and it appears so far to function the same as regular hydrogen, but will have a 100% efficient mass to energy change if it encounters normal matter.

Which is also then interesting to note why our universe is so matter dominant instead of anti-matter dominant... why was one favoured over the other? We don't know.


Also, since I last posted, I've looked a bit more into the nuances of the electron, and watched the fascinating movie "What the Bleep do we Know?".

Remember how I said electrons whiz around an atomic nucleus, and then shift between dimensions to get to other orbits? Well, it turns out that it's not just when moving between orbits... it's doing this all the time.

Okay, this may spook you out, and it may sound so impossible that you'll pass your mind over it before really coming to terms with it...

... but electrons only exist in a specific place when we are there to observe them.

If we aren't there to observe where they are around an atom, then they are EVERYWHERE around an atom at the same time. However, when we take a snap-shot (ie, when we observe it), then we see it in only one place. This is where Quantum Physics takes a dive into probability mechanics. The electron can NOT be said to be anywhere, or determined where it MIGHT be.

Not only that, but even the nucleus of an atom is not necessarily where it should be. Pieces of the nucleus can only be probabilistically determined to exist.

Dive deeper, and you get into quarks (these I already knew about). Quarks are, currently, said to be "leptons" - which are thought to be indivisable, which is to say that they are what they are and there is nothing that makes them. The electron is a lepton.

The unfortunate thing about leptons is that they are dimensionless points - that is to say they are 0-D. There is no up, across, and into an electron. How it even exists is an enigma.

Want more wierd info, go to your local Blockbuster or movie rental and get What the Bleep do we Know?

and check out this article:
www.reasons.org...

Hah, I seem to remember something from my classes about how one couldn't
guarantee that an egg in the rack inside the fridge would stay in the same
slot when one close the door! The first step of quantum physics.

Of course, you're correct about the spooky bit, it does blow one's mind.
So this 'maybe there, maybe not' aspect is real or theory? I mean, it sounds
chaotic to an average guy and yet there seems to be order in another form.

The only Quark I know about is Quark Express software and wasn't Lepton
a gangster played by Dustin Hoffman?!
"...nothing that makes them..." okay, now my ears are bleeding.

Originally posted by IronMan
Hah, I seem to remember something from my classes about how one couldn't
guarantee that an egg in the rack inside the fridge would stay in the same
slot when one close the door! The first step of quantum physics.

Yup, the next part is to realize that this egg is in every single slot once you close the door - but when you open it again it will only be in one spot.

Let's say there's only two kinds of pop in the universe - Root Beer and Cola. If a box of pop is unopened and unlabelled, then either Root Beer or Cola could be in that box, and they could be arranged in any way that's allowable. However, when we open the box, we will find if it's Root Beer, or if it's Cola, and where in the box it is. However, if we close the box again, then it's POSSIBLE that there is only Root Beer, or only Cola inside the box, perhaps arranged in any of the possible ways.

The tragedy of the observer is that when we open the box, we distort what was inside. If there was Root Beer in the box, when we picked it up to open it, we jostled around the pop, and so the arrangement of the Root Beer was changed.

When we look at an electron, we input energy (usually in the form of photons) in order to reflect off of it. However, that changes what we're looking at, because the energy is first absorbed and then the energy we get back is actually different. This is why 0 degrees Kelvin (absolute zero) is only theoretical. We can't observe it, because when we go to look at it, we put energy into the system, and it becomes greater than 0 degrees Kelvin again.

Originally posted by Yarium

Originally posted by IronMan
Hah, I seem to remember something from my classes about how one couldn't
guarantee that an egg in the rack inside the fridge would stay in the same
slot when one close the door! The first step of quantum physics.

Yup, the next part is to realize that this egg is in every single slot once you close the door - but when you open it again it will only be in one spot.

Let's say there's only two kinds of pop in the universe - Root Beer and Cola. If a box of pop is unopened and unlabelled, then either Root Beer or Cola could be in that box, and they could be arranged in any way that's allowable. However, when we open the box, we will find if it's Root Beer, or if it's Cola, and where in the box it is. However, if we close the box again, then it's POSSIBLE that there is only Root Beer, or only Cola inside the box, perhaps arranged in any of the possible ways.

The tragedy of the observer is that when we open the box, we distort what was inside. If there was Root Beer in the box, when we picked it up to open it, we jostled around the pop, and so the arrangement of the Root Beer was changed.

When we look at an electron, we input energy (usually in the form of photons) in order to reflect off of it. However, that changes what we're looking at, because the energy is first absorbed and then the energy we get back is actually different. This is why 0 degrees Kelvin (absolute zero) is only theoretical. We can't observe it, because when we go to look at it, we put energy into the system, and it becomes greater than 0 degrees Kelvin again.

It's quite a quandry to have a situation where one can only discover something by not interacting with it!
An article I read also says that for the 'egg scenario', that the egg can also be in ALL the slots in the fridge door at once. This would lead most laymen to ponder whether all this is the equivalent of a fairground caller!
You can see why the chap who started this thread thought it was all gobbledigook!

Originally posted by the news paper man

i also thought what else could have done it to that clock. the one in the satlite to move those speed had to hit a prety desent Gforce and that what could hav corupped the clock or by the means of Gforces stoping could have done it also. Gforece is something that is very compilacated. like you are going 100mph then you sudenly stop to 0mph you will feel those G's but in your going 100mph and slow down till 90mph you dont feel much do you.

just to get this question answered as i never saw anyone answer it and i wanted to know if I am correct...

in news paper mans theory he says g force could be the reason for the slowing of the clock...out of intrest do you think its got hands and a mechinism like a standard analogue clock?

As far as i know of an atomic clock works by the half life of an element does it not...and should not be effected by geforce and if it was you think they would facter this in since they have known about geforce longer.

TIME IS RELATIVE

It is in know way a force that cannot be changed. Simply said, it is hard for humans to understand this, but it makes a lot of sense.