Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: chuckspirit on 03/03/2010 18:40:13
-
Has the idea of modulating time ever been discussed??
If time could be modulated and the X axis was brought to zero, seems that travel on the X axis through time could be instantaneous. Speed of light would no longer be a constraint.
-
If you were to travel alongside a photon, the time dilation curve would reach the maximum and time would be zero. We all know that faster than light travel is impossible with current technology, thousands of years from now, who knows. But there must be some reason that both matter and light do not travel faster than light. Could the speed limiter for light and matter be the same thing? If matter could travel at the speed of light, what would it become? Who knows?
-
It's mass would become infinite. That might present a problem for the Universe.
-
Guess this also says that speed would be infinite. Wow that means that I could be everywhere at the same time and this would be a problem for the universe.
-
Chuck, your clock would be moving infinitely slow so that from your frame it would appear you were traveling infinitely fast.
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'modulating' time, but it would be as reasonable as 'modulating' space.
That both can be distorted, and that nowhere do either seem to be perfectly flat or linear, has been pretty clearly established though.
-
I simply viewed time as a sine wave on a scope, then made mental adjustments to bring the waves together so they formed a single verticle line. I thought this possible since time has no thickness, or does it?
-
...since time has no thickness, or does it?
Relativistic time dilation suggests that we do actually have some 'thickness' in the time dimension. As our speed approaches 'c' our length in the direction of travel appears to contract, but just as an object with non-zero mass can never actually achieve 'c' neither can its length actually become zero. Consequently, our rate of time can never actually reach zero (at least by relativistic movement), which implies that our length in that dimension cannot become zero either.
Neither time nor space show wave properties: they're properties of the stuff that exists within space-time.
-
And that's another strange thing :)
Considering that all matter have a 'wavelength' why shouldn't our 'vacuum' have one too? After all, if the idea of an 'Rindler observer' and 'virtual particles/vacuum energy', normally under Plank length, becoming 'visible' as 'real photons' for them, why can't we give our 'free falling' state observing that vacuum a 'wavelength' too?
And why doesn't a 'photon' contain a wave length?
Or does it? Maybe their reasons are related?
Can you give a photon a wavelength?
==
Better expressed, is the relation true.
Is there any experiment proving that one..Single.. Photon have a wavelength?
Not several over 'time'. One only.
-
For example, splitting a photon in a beam splitter can't be a correct expression according to "B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics (Wiley, 1991)". If I get this right it states that "experiments confirm that the photon is not a short pulse of electromagnetic radiation; it does not spread out as it propagates, nor does it divide when it encounters a beam splitter"
Anyone like to comment on this?
So discussing photons in form of a beam splitter seems to me only be appreciable when 'detected' as a particle? And the detection is not the 'split', is it?
-
A beam splitter should give the photon a 50% chance to go one way and a 50% chance to go the other way. It doesn't split its intensity or change its shape at the detector, though, which is the point of that quote, I think.
A beam splitter acting on a classical pulse would send half the intensity one way and half the other way.
Does this have anything to do with the original post's question, by the way, or should we start a new topic? :p
-
I vote for a new topic! Yeah!!!
I'd like it to refer to Brigitte Anne-Marie Bardot if possible.
-
Like when she goes in a revolving door :)
splitting herself in one in , and one out ::))
==
Hey btw, have you changed the policy?
splitting the post at the least change of subject?
It's mostly a organic thingie, all posts are.
Disputations ain't of course, but I thought I was on TNS?
-
JP, that's perfectly correct, but after the probability falls out you will have only 'one path', ain't that right? Or do QM expect a 'quasi photon' to exist after that, in its own bifurcation?
==
"Now Courtial's team has used a sequence of interferometers to sort single photons into four different orbital angular momentum states. They split a beam of light into two, rotated one of the resulting beams through 90° with respect to the other, and recombined them to produce an interference pattern.
If the original beam had an even value of orbital angular momentum, the beams interfered constructively, but if it had an odd value, they interfered destructively. This enables the team to separate the photons with even and odd values of orbital angular momentum into two different detectors."
I may see the light some day :)
But until that this kind of self-assured statements hurt my head :)
It's the question about how 'free' you can be in mixing metaphors here.
So I use a 'beam', ain't no single photon that one, are there?
And then I call the result for 'photons' then I use a beam again, call the result photons, etc etc..
It's a mess.
I can see why though, the thought behind seems to be that "If I wanted I could measure it as a particle, even though it would 'lock it' in one state."
Maybe it's me getting old :)
-
And that's another strange thing :)
Considering that all matter have a 'wavelength' why shouldn't our 'vacuum' have one too?
Because matter (and EMR) is 'something', whereas a vacuum is an absence of any 'something' i.e. nothing. You seem to be suggesting that things that do not actually exist should still have a wavelength (but a wavelength of what? for there is nothing there for the wave to be expressed with). This would lead to a lot of problems, for there is an infinite amount of stuff that does not exist, which would lead to an infinite amount (quantity) of 'wavelength' (being expressed by nothing?).
-
Yeah, a vacuum is in the classical sense a 'nothing'. but for a Rindler Observer its virtual particles becomes real. In our frame those particles doesn't 'exist' as they are outside Plank time, as I understands it. In a QM sense the vacuum seethes with 'energy' though?
And that's the question, if a vacuum is 'something' and most of the ideas we have, from 'energy' to 'virtual particles' to 'expansion' involves the concept of a vacuum as a 'something'. Why not assume that it can have a 'wavelength'. Considering that most here like to see everything as ultimately being described as 'waves', well knowing that the 'vacuum' grows, that is, creates a larger 'distance' through 'expansion'. If that greater 'distance' also is thought to contain all those other aspects, 'virtual particles' and 'vacuum energy' where would they come from?
And why would something able to do those remarkable things not be a 'something'? But it's no statement from my side, more of a question :)
-
Ahem! (interlocks fingers and cracks them, then leans back in chair, followed by long pause for maximum effect)
Referring to the original topic, "Is it possible to modulate time?"
Of course it is.
Matter and time interact. By merely waving my hand in the air (see below), I am modulating time.
(If you had given me my Bardot thread when I asked, you might not have to deal with this.)
-
By merely waving my hand in the air (see below), I am modulating time.
Cooeee!! <LeeE waves back>
-
Hey, you got two?
-
If you two keep modulating time, you're going to create a singularity that will swallow us all!
-
If you two keep modulating time, you're going to create a singularity that will swallow us all!
Nah! Only if we are perfectly synchronized, and how likely is that?
BTW, are you receiving our gravity waves yet? They should be quite detectable.
-
I've gotten three Higgs bosons, a tachyon and some particle that looks like a sheep with two heads, but no gravity waves yet. Maybe you need to wave harder?
-
I've gotten three Higgs bosons, a tachyon and some particle that looks like a sheep with two heads, but no gravity waves yet. Maybe you need to wave harder?
You may have to crank up the gain on your gravitometer a bit. You have it tuned to 2.37585176596753 Hz, right?
-
Oops! I forgot to reverse the polarity on my Heisenberg compensator! It's working now!
-
I'm receiving your graviwave reply as we speak.
Wait a minute! That image looks a bit naughty. Sorry, but we can't display this on TNS.
(BTW - Heisenberg certainly has a lot to answer for.)
-
(BTW - Heisenberg certainly has a lot to answer for.)
Are you sure about that?
-
(BTW - Heisenberg certainly has a lot to answer for.)
Are you sure about that?
Ah! Right. I should have said "Heisenberg has a lot to answer for uncertainly."
-
You know that I need that image for my thesis Geezer.
I will need to study it, over and over..
I will complain to the board about this..
This is no light matter Mr Geezer...
And stop waving your hands at me..
-
You know that I need that image for my thesis Geezer.
If you have any problems during your dissertation, use the Geezer method. (see below)