Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: geordief on 20/03/2017 11:00:08
-
It is not ruled out by Relativity ( quite the contrary).
I am just referring to the instance when we shine a laser on the moon from a distance such as the Earth. The line drawn by the passage on the surface of the Moon can be seen to move at any arbitrary speed only limited by the speed of rotation of the source and the distance between the source (the Earth) and the Moon (in this instance)
If an observer in situ (on the surface of the Moon) were to examine this line ,perhaps by means of some photosensitive material ,he or she would find no causal relationship between adjacent points on the line ,even though both points would share a common source whereas the two corresponding emissions (from the laser on the Earth) would in fact be causally connected (in a standard less-than -the-speed -of-light way)
Can any more be said about this circumstance or is it as simple as that?
-
Maybe this. Using the argument we also can propose that by turning my head (and possibly oculars) I now can 'see' faster than light :) Depending on the distance of what you're looking at. I'll leave it to others to define wether this can be considered me having a 'flt vision'.
-
Observationally "faster-than-light" events like this are allowed so long as they cannot be used to transmit information faster than light (and therefore violate causality). I'd say your analysis sums it up pretty well.
-
Also, the light is not actually moving across the face of the moon, it is just that the photons are hitting at different points. The photons from the light are still travelling at c towards the moon (ignoring GR effects :) )
-
There are some other scenarios, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion
-
I am personally not satisfied by the optical illusion explanation.
-
I am :)
Then again, I still have to see a proof for ftl
-
What I can say Jeffrey is that when you consider it a ' continuous wave' It creates questions. If you consider it 'wave packets' or 'photons' it seems more correct. I've always been partial to the idea of 'photons' myself. To me it seems to fit Quantum mechanics better, then again :) I also think of 'time' as a continuous process. Maybe the simplest answer is the one is where one is weaved into the other?
but yea, it's a good question.
-
You could of course combine the idea of time as discontinuous with an idea of 'wave packets' or 'photons'. And so reach a conclusion in where we would have no possibility to measure if it was continuous or not.