[yor_on]

heh :)

I'm here so seldom, I stay in 'New theories'. Not a explanation, just an excuse.

[Virtual State (OP)]

I've been getting hostility (not from you) because people don't want potential answers to questions that currently have none.

[yor_on]

It's not as much hostility as it is the idea behind the forum. It has become a sort of 'self help' to physics as it is thought to work today. And there are people putting a whole lot of time and thinking into what we call physics, and they are just as smart as you and me, or possibly smarter. So if you want to change or extend physics we have a place for that called 'New Theories'. It was more fun before, but it is what it is.

[Virtual State (OP)]

If speed is scalar, what is c in a vector quantity?
Can c be described in imaginary numbers?

[yor_on]

Not sure that makes sense wondering if 'c' differ?   https://byjus.com/physics/scalars-and-vectors/

'c' is a speed, no vector, a measurement you make in f.ex a two mirror experiment. A 'photon' is slightly different as it has a 'force', a momentum and a defined vector to it too depending on how you define it. But 'c' is more of a (local) value you get to, defining a lot of different things, like information flows in modern physics. It gets involved in everything, at least when I think of it, but it's still a abstract definition.

[yor_on]

When it comes to using 'c' as a imaginary number we have this.

" ABSTRACT

The quest to find faster‐than‐light particles has intrigued physicists for decades, though it has yet to turn up any real candidates. Even if a superluminal universe does exist, we have no way to reach it given that we must go through the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is impossible. In this paper, I show that by making speed complex, we can go around the speed of light in a manner analogous to the way a car faced with an infinitely tall road block might leave the road to go around that barrier.

The treatment is a mathematical device; no known physical interpretation exists for the imaginary part of a complex speed. However, it can provide an entertaining problem in special relativity, one that may encourage students to think about the connections between equations and the physical universe. "

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/12643-can-imaginary-numbers-solve-the-problem-of-faster-than-light-travel

and imaginary numbers do have their place in physics. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html

[yor_on]

If you want to see how she does it, download ' Aurora in Four Voices ' a science fiction by by Catherine Asaro. Tried to find a free access to that paper she wrote but it's unfortunately behind a paywall.

[Colin2B]

I've been getting hostility (not from you) because people don't want potential answers to questions that currently have none.

It’s not hostility (unless you wish to think of it that way), but the way we divide up the forum. The main objective of the forum is education and answering questions on established science. We have a section for new ideas and changes to existing ideas, see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

There is still plenty of fun to be had in that section if your thinking is clear and well supported. There you can expound your ideas of scalar volume and universal wave etc.

[evan_au]

If speed is scalar, what is c in a vector quantity?

Speed has a magnitude, but no direction; as you say, this is a scalar quantity.
- This speed can be c for massless photons and gravitons,
- but massive particles can't reach a speed of c as it would require an infinite amount of energy
- There are theoretical ways that a massive particle might exceed a speed of c and still have a real energy, but quantities like time or length become imaginary; we don't know if it is really possible, or how to do it.

Velocity has a magnitude and direction; this is a vector quantity, eg 1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri.
- This velocity can be c for massless photons and gravitons,
- similarly, massive particles can't reach a velocity of c as it would require an infinite amount of energy

You can easily convert a velocity to a speed (just ignore the direction).
- But converting a speed to a velocity requires extra information about the direction.

c is always the same speed because it is virtual.

Please clarify what you mean by "virtual" in this context.

Does it have something to do with virtual particles?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[Virtual State (OP)]

That paywall does make me sad as it is exactly what I want. I did find this https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128072/can-speed-be-defined-in-the-complex-plane which makes me wonder if Vector is the complex plane.

@evan_au can you pick a direction and give me some kind of number for velocity (magnitude and direction) for c?
Is this already one? "1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri."

I say virtual because it is required for all paths of interference to be taken at the same time, virtually.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Force is a Vector property, maybe I should consider the Lorentz Force (it has velocity in it).
https://www.quora.com/How-does-electric-field-equal-the-product-of-speed-of-light-and-magnetic-field

[Colin2B]

which makes me wonder if Vector is the complex plane.

You have to ask which vector and which complex plane? You say 'the complex plane', why just one?
Most people think of some properties as 2 valued eg spin up or down, polarisation H or V, however, they are better described by complex numbers in QM, these also describe a vector representation of the property.
 

can you pick a direction and give me some kind of number for velocity (magnitude and direction) for c?
Is this already one? "1000km/sec towards Alpha Centauri."

Yes, that is one vector, another would be to point a laser from Berlin to the moon, that would give at least 2 vectors direction/distance and direction/speed (c).
Note that if we describe position by a coordinate system we automatically describe it as a vector relative to the implied origin.

I say virtual because it is required for all paths of interference to be taken at the same time, virtually.

As @alancalverd pointed out, try not to confuse the models models we use with an implied reality.
Put a stick vertically in a pond and then throw a pebble in the pond, the wave radiates out from the impact point and encounters the stick, it does not take all possible paths. However, if we calculate what would happen if it took all possible paths we would find that they all cancel out except the shortest time. We can perform similar calculatons with cannonballs, using least action.

[Virtual State (OP)]

You think there is a complex plane for each vertex property? That's fine with me, but I think scalar properties are only using real numbers when physical.

A tunneling wave might not have taken the path with the shortest time. Interference did not cancel out the possible paths, but maybe it does for a physical scalar volume particle. This thread is about how tunneling can happen and I don't think scalar can do it.

Are probabilities about which path had the shortest time?

[Colin2B]

You think there is a complex plane for each vertex property?

I didn’t say that

That's fine with me, but I think scalar properties are only using real numbers when physical.

That’s nonsensical. Spin is physical, polarisation is physical, we can measure them.

This thread is about how tunneling can happen and I don't think scalar can do it.

Then explain why not. Here in NewTheories you are free to do so.

Are probabilities about which path had the shortest time?

Which path do you think is most probable?

[Virtual State (OP)]

I meant "Vector" for "vertex"

Scalar has two problems for tunneling.
1. It is a scalar volume which means it is physical.
2. It has one path of all possible paths - and it is going to travel on it physically.

A physical volume can have spin. Polarization is EM which means it is vector. You are measuring a virtual/vector quantity.

I'm asking if time is involved in the landing position (path) of a particle on an interference pattern.

[alancalverd]

Causality isn't always the best starting point in quantum mechanics. You end up asking why stuff is quantised. Fact is that if it wasn't, the world would collapse into  a singularity of infinite density, so you might as well begin with the observation that it just is.

Tunneling is observed, and is adequately modelled by probability functions. Modelling, however predictive, is not the same as explanation. 

[Virtual State (OP)]

Causality is good for figuring out what Time is.

Tunneling is observed after it happens.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Discrete fixed values are what Scalar can handle because it is based off of Phi.

[evan_au]

I meant "Vector" for "vertex"

Please explain how vertex applies in this discussion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex

Scalar has two problems for tunneling.
1. It is a scalar volume which means it is physical.

How are scalars a volume?
- Atmospheric pressure is a scalar, as is temperature. How are these a volume?

In the case of tunneling, an important parameter is the thickness of the barrier. This is a length, not a volume.

[Virtual State (OP)]

Vertex doesn't apply, I typed the wrong word.



Vector waves can bypass length.