ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Quatum Interactions - 10,000 times faster than light

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Apr. 12 2013, 7:57 pm

K_tigress

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3761

Report this Apr. 14 2013, 8:21 pm

I always thought they were going to find something that was faster. But I know there’s probably something even faster then that yet to be found and figured out. Science and its theories are always ever changing and not to mention always playing catch-up.


Thanks for the intresting thread. "Thumbs up"


He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it. -Douglas Adams (1952-2001)

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Apr. 15 2013, 9:25 am

Here is one way to prove that light speed is not the fastest velocity  that is obtainable by a particle or even humans.


Most physicists and physics tend agree with Einstein that light speed or the velocity of the photon is the fastest velocity obtainable and that there is nothing that can travel faster. But what the scientists usually forget is that a light photon is created within the center of sun and does not come from any other source other than a sun.


Since gravity pulls on objects in space in order for the light photon to escape the suns gravity a stronger gravitational force would need to be present in order to pull the light photon out and away from the sun over millions of years.


Such a force would be micro black holes that are located all over the Universe. Since light photons are created at the center of a sun that also creates a black hole when the sun has used all of its energy up there is an interesting effect taking place that is often times overlooked in the process of light speed.


First off we know that when a sun collapses it forms a black hole where large amounts of gravitational forces then spread out across an area of space consuming everything in its path including light photons. The thing is the center of the black hole is present within the the center of the sun and is the inside of the suns processes turned inside out. So the process that we see in a black hole are actually taking place within the center of a sun but opposite of the effects of the blackhole.


This would lead me to believe that a certain percentage of the sun's core is acting like a black hole but in reverse. Meaning that instead of pulling particles into the center of the sun the reverse operation of the black hole would actually be pushing particle matter away from the center of the sun at light speed velocity. This would occur most likely at the Quantum level where the gravitational field of the black hole within the sun forces the light photon out of the sun over millions of years. But why does it take millions of years for the light photon to escape the sun? Most likely because of small Quantum Strings attached to the black hole at the center of the sun fluxing in an out of normal space time. These Quantum Strings create barriers that the light photon bounces off of possibly creating small amounts of thermal energy due to the collision.


Once the photon has been able to escape the sun the reverse gravitational effect of the inverted black hole expels the light photon at the speed of light out into the Universe that coupled with the gravitational force of other suns, black holes and micro black holes keeps the light photon traveling for many millions of years until its wavelength is stretched to the point of dissipating like smoke in a strong breeze.


Such gravity would not have been present prior to the Big Bang because suns had not yet formed to create the velocity of lighpoint of collision is where the center of our Universe would have been created. As the explosion cascaded outwards t speed based upon the sun/black hole inverted theory above.


Before the Big Bang Quantum particles would have been careening throughout the Universe in all directions and would have been most likely traveling around 10,000 X the speed of light if not faster. Then there would had to have been a moment when two or more Quantum collided together.


The resulting collision released an immense amount of energy. At the greatest point of collision is where the center of our Universe and other Universes would have got their start from. As the central explosion cascaded outwards the extreme amount of energy could have caused other smaller Quantum pockets to spontaneously combust because of the galaxies in our Universe you will not find any rocky planets just suns where the greatest amount fo heat and pressure would  pressure and heat placed upon them. This would theoretically be true because at the center of our Universe and all have been present. As the initial shockwave spread spread throughout our Universe it would have ignited such pockets with larger galactic centers being closer to the Universe core where smaller galactic centers would have been created farther away from the initial explosion to the point where matter that was expelled was able to cool and form in to planets such as Earth.


The same process could have occurred within each Solar System as well where after the primary explosion triggered the galactic explosions to occur the galactic explosions would have triggered solar system sized sun Quantum to erupt. The smaller the Quantum explosion that occured meant that more debris that would form into solid chunks and later planets would be present.


 


This theory could possibly be true because if the Universe did not evolve in the manner stated above then all of the planets and suns would have been pulled into an orbit around the center of our Universe the same as the planets orbit around the sun of our solar system except that all of the galactic centers would have revolved around the center of the Universe without forming galaxies around them.


Basically Einsteins theory of a light photon being the fastest possible velocity is incorrect for the simple fact that prior to the Big Bang there would not have been any light which comes from a sun because the suns of the Universe had not been created yet. In order for the Big Bang to occur Quantum particles would have to have  collided at faster than light speed velocities because gravity was not present. Maybe even on the magnitude of 100 suns collapsing into a single black hole at once.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Apr. 17 2013, 2:50 pm

When trying to understand Light Speed and Faster Than Light Speed velocities we have to remember that the speed of light is a by-proudct of a process within the center of a sun that is influenced by a local black hole.


Without the gravity of the sun or black hole being present then there is no process based upon such gravitational forces that create the speed of light.


This means that before the Big Bang when suns and black holes were not present and such gravity created by a black hole or sun then particles at the Quantum level and lower would have been traveling through out the Universe at faster than light speed velocities.


Proving this is rather easy. If you remove the processes involved with the creation of the speed of light which are the sun and black hole then a light photon cannot exist without such gravitational forces which means that particles do in fact travel faster than the speed of light.


The Universe is like a layered cake. If you slowly remove one layer from the other then you can see how each layer works seperate from the other.


Traveling at the speed of light is possible. You just have to make a tunnel through the gravity of the Universe so that an area around a ship is like the space around our Universe. Free of Solar and Black Hole Gravitatioanl forces so that particles would then be free to travel at faster than light speed velocities.


It doesn take advanced physics or a brain like Einsteins to figure this out.


Progress in scientific thinking will create progress for humanity which most if not all humans are scared of just like the ancient cave dwellers that were scared of venturing out of the cave.


Humanity needs to venture away from Earth and settle on planets such as the Moon and Mars instead of being scared procrastinating cave dwellers because it is easier to be lazy and not try.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 22 2013, 1:56 pm

Dude, this is almost as facepalm worthy as your blather about "the god particle" which has NADA to do with god or theism.


You stated, "most physicists and physics tend agree with Einstein that light speed or the velocity of the photon is the fastest velocity obtainable and that there is nothing that can travel faster." This is an oversimplification. A particle with a subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. I.E., matter and information as we know it can't travel FTL. Special relativity does not forbid other theorized particles from being superluminal at all times. In fact, space itself can expand FTL. Also, there are theories that would allow information and matter to travel great distances in a short amount of time but do not in fact travel FTL. These are loopholes that involve manipulating space itself or creating/finding shortcuts.


Second, all stars do not form black holes at the end of their lives. Our sun is not massive enough to form a black hole. After it's red giant phase, it will throw off it's outer layers and become a white dwarf. Slightly larger stars (1-3 solar masses) collapse into neutron stars at the end of their lives. Stars about 4 solar masses or larger collapse into black holes.


Third, there is no center of the universe. The expansion of the universe did not occur in a linear matter (i.e., point A--time and distance--point B). Space itself, not just the matter that eventually coalesced, is expanding in all directions and is accelerating.


Your grasp of string theory is, gah. Just, no. And it doesn't take a photon millions of years to leave the sun.


Just so folks know I'm not making stuff up and picking on you:


The sun and photons: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php


Faster than light: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light


White dwarfs: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/planneb/planneb.html


Black Holes: http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q8.html


http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes/


Expanding universe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe


String theory: http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 201

Report this Apr. 22 2013, 6:12 pm

 photo popcorn.gif


 



I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Apr. 26 2013, 12:53 pm

Treknoir.


You need to read the post first before commenting.


I said it takes 1 million years for a photon to leave the sun.


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980414a.html


I didn't say how long it takes a light photon to travel from the sun to the Earth.


There is a difference.


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Apr. 30 2013, 10:29 am

First, I specifically said," . . . it doesn't take a photon millions of years to leave the sun."


Second, your reference is from 1998. Mine is from 2007. The "million years" claim is based on incorrect information.


BUT, even if we assume that a million years is correct, it in no way, shape or form supports any of your previous assertions. Are you really trying to claim that the time it takes photons to leave the sun is the foundation for your "proof"?


http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php.


Most textbooks say that it takes light between 100,000 years and 50 million years to escape. You would be surprised to know that this simple, and very popular, question seems to be without a firm answer! The reason has a lot to do with the assumptions that textbook authors use in making the calculation. Most astronomers are also not particularly interested in a high-accuracy answer, so they tend not to bother doing the tedious calculation exactly. It is actually a very complex problem in physics!


Once a photon of light is born, it travels at a speed of 300,000 km/sec until it collides with a charged particle and is diverted in another direction. Because the density of the sun decreases by tens of thousands of times from its lead-dense core to its tenuous photosphere, the typical distance a photon can travel between charged particles changes from 0.01 cm at the core to 0.3 cm near the surface. As a comparison, most back-of-the-envelope estimates assume that the sun's interior has a constant density and that the 'free path' distance for the photon is about one centimeter. It is these estimates that find their way into many popular astronomy textbooks.


Once you know, or assume, a typical distance between collisions, you also have to figure out how many steps the photon has to take to travel from the core to the surface. This is called the Random Walk Problem. The answer is that, if you take a sequence of N random steps, each for example of one meter length, the distance you travel from the starting point will be the square-root of N. After 100 random steps you will travel about 10 meters, but it will take 10,000 steps to travel 100 meters, and one million steps to travel about one kilometer, and so on. Because the density of the sun changes from the core to the surface, it is common to represent the interior of the sun as a collection of nested shells of matter, each with a typical average density. You then calculate how many steps it takes for a photon to travel through each shell. During each step, the photon travels at the speed of light so you can calculate the time required for each step. By multiplying this by the number of steps taken, you can calculate how long it takes the photon to traverse each shell, and then add up all the times for the other shells.


When this random walk process is applied to the interior of the sun, and an accurate model of the solar interior is used, most answers for the age of sunlight come out to be between 10,000 and 170,000 years. Rarely do you get answers greater than a million years unless you have made a serious error! Why do you still see these erroneous estimates of '10 million years' still being used? Because textbook authors and editors do not bother to actually make the correct calculation themselves, and rely on older published answers from similar textbooks.


So, sometimes a simple question can have many inaccurate textbook answers because it is not considered a very important question to scientists, and no one bothers to take the time to really work out the answer to their best ability! As another example, in 1971, the physicists Alfred Goldhaber and Michael Nieto at the Los Alamos Laboratory estimated the maximum mass of the hypothetical graviton particle - the carrier of the force of gravity. Their answer of 10-62 grams seemed incredibly insignificant. Over a decade later they published an improved version of his original paper. They noted that they had originally made an error in their 1971 paper, so that the calculated mass was actually over a billion times larger. In all that time, no one had ever caught the published error!


References:


Mitalas, R. and Sills, K. 1992, "On the photon diffusion time scale for the sun", The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 401, p. 759-760.
Odenwald, S. F. 2004 - "How old is sunlight?" A classroom activity on the random walk problem. http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/MathDocs/sunlight.html


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this May. 01 2013, 11:36 pm

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11354.html


How long does it take light to get out from the inside of the Sun?


 


According to the famous 'drunkard's walk' problem, the distance a drunk, making random left and right turns, gets from the lamp post is his typical step size times the square root of the number of steps he takes. For the sun, we know how far we want to go to get out....696,000 kilometers, we just need to know how far a photon travels between emission and absorption, and how long this step takes. This requires a bit of physics!


The interior of the sun is a seathing plasma with a central density of over 100 grams/cc. The atoms, mostly hydrogen, are fully stripped of electrons so that the particle density is 10^26 protons per cubic centimeter. That means that the typical distance between protons or electrons is about (10^26)^1/3 = 2 x 10^-9 centimeters. The actual 'mean free path' for radiation is closer to 1 centimeter after electromagnetic effects are included. Light travels this distance in about 3 x 10^-11 seconds. Very approximately, this means that to travel the radius of the Sun, a photon will have to take (696,000 kilometers/1 centimeter)^2 = 5 x 10^21 steps. This will take, 5x10^21 x 3 x10^-11 = 1.5 x 10^11 seconds or since there are 3.1 x 10^7 seconds in a year, you get about 4,000 years. Some textbooks refer to 'hundreds of thousands of years' or even 'several million years' depending on what is assumed for the mean free patch. Also, the interior of the sun is not at constant density so that the steps taken in the outer half of the sun are much larger than in the deep interior where the densities are highest. Note that if you estimate a value for the mean free path that is a factor of three smaller than 1 centimeter, the time increases a factor of 10!


Typical uncertainties based on 'order of magnitude' estimation can lead to travel times 100 times longer or more. Most astronomers are not too interested in this number and forgo trying to pin it down exactly because it does not impact any phenomena we measure with the exception of the properties of the core region right now. These estimates show that the emission of light at the surface can lag the production of light at the core by up to 1 million years.


The point of all this is that it takes a LONG time for light to leave the sun's interior!!


 


http://www.astro.cornell.edu/share/sharvari/websiteV7/Etransport.htm


I was wrong in my statement of it taking a light photon 1 million years to leave the suns core. This wiki article which I put my trust in reports that it could a light photon upwards of 50 million years to 17,000 years to leave the core of the sun.


The high-energy photons (gamma rays and x-rays) released in fusion reactions take a long time to reach the Sun's surface, slowed down by the indirect path taken, as well as by constant absorption and reemission at lower energies in the solar mantle. Estimates of the "photon travel time" range from as much as 50 million years[5] to as little as 17,000 years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core


http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46378/photons-arriving-from-the-sun


 


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 03 2013, 8:15 am

"I was wrong in my statement of it taking a light photon 1 million years to leave the suns core. This wiki article which I put my trust in reports that it could a light photon upwards of 50 million years to 17,000 years to leave the core of the sun." ~ Dryson



*sigh*


Your additional links don't contradict the 2007 NASA link I posted.


Look, I tried to meet you halfway by asking, "are you really trying to claim that the time it takes photons to leave the sun is the foundation for your 'proof'?"


And you still haven't addressed the flawed information you posted on:


1) Black holes and "inverted black holes". I can only assume you mean the hypothetical white hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole) when you say inverted black hole. Nope, not in our sun.


2) The ability of an object with mass to accelerate FTL. Just how is this supposed to happen in light of the limitations of Special Relativity?


3) The "center of the universe". There is no center. The expansion of space isn't linear. The Big Bang did not spew matter into the universe. Space itself expanded rapidly and had to become less dense and cooler before subatomic particles could form.


4) Your use of the terms "quantum" and "strings". Look, the math works. But there have been no observed or tested proof that tiny vibrating strings make up everything in the universe as opposed to point particles. And there is no proof that we live in a multiverse or that anything exists outside the universe. And your explanation of quantum strings attached to a black hole at the center of the sun shows a lack of understanding about the sun, black holes and quantum strings.


Anyway, I'm over this thread and topic. Good luck on whatever you're trying to accomplish.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this May. 07 2013, 7:11 pm

1) Black holes and "inverted black holes". I can only assume you mean the hypothetical white hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole) when you say inverted black hole. Nope, not in our sun.


An inverted black hole relates to the same processes involved with creating a black hole being present in the core of the sun prior to the suns collapse.


If such processes are not present in a sun that causes the sun to collapse into a black hole to begin with then the sun would never collapse into a black hole to begin with.


Basically the inverted black hole theory is similar to a Red Oak Tree. The Red Oak Tree would never have been unless it had come from something called a seed. The same theory is present within the sun. If there is not a process already within the sun to cause it too collapse into a black hole then the sun would never collapse into a black hole.


This means that the processes of the black hole after it has come into being are present in the sun even though the sun is still burning and alive.


The only reason that we have not discovered such a process is because our sun does not possess the processes involved with a collapsing sun. If our sun did have such processes then we would be able to understand such a process first hand where we would better understand the effects of gravity on a light photon and light speed in general.


 


3) The "center of the universe". There is no center. The expansion of space isn't linear. The Big Bang did not spew matter into the universe. Space itself expanded rapidly and had to become less dense and cooler before subatomic particles could form.


If the entirity of space itself expanded in the manner that you said it has then that means that the entirity of space would have been very compact similar to a universal space singularity. Like you expanded, expand means that the energetic release of energy would have been very compact like all energetic releases have been discovered to be.


With that in mind it also proves that the Universe is infinite because if space expanded outwards like you say then where would space have come from and what would have been present around space? What more infinite space?


A bullfrog with a light in its belly is nothing more than a glutton looking to shine otherwise.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum