(c) as a constant, ever ask why!, Can we look deeper, many have asked?

Hi to all

I will only post a small observation of me.

I am following this thread very closely. I think that yquantom is only an imposter.
In the sense than he has some higer knowledge on this subject.

I think he is playing with everybody. I am sorry if this isn't true but look closely at his posts.

They are to strange-fishy ...

Regards

I never pay any attention to those who do not log in for real....

Hi Good Elf and unreg/guest,

Read what you had to say, feel bad about the other post I can sympathize with his/her statement. Two things:

1, No games – if we fall in the trap of institutional thinking as absolute truth, then we will bring an end to creative thinking, and discovery, I believe we make our world to specialize and overlook the obvious that is all around us.

2, I do not have some higher knowledge, if I and do you remember when I said I would never say 100% sure, well that goes for all theories from my frame of reference. Like I have said many times, the more I research the less I know.

It is like watching a chess game, between to Grand Masters, you think you know, but they will make a move that is just pure genius and completely set you back.

So, on this site you never know what the Grand Master of Physics will say to evoke some thought that has never crossed your mind or way of calculating, that is what I love about this place.

I have not seen the end game completed because the technology is new, but I hope we will see it soon I hope, when the opportunity presents itself to be tested?

I understand how we feel about unregistered, but it I feel it is a valid point that needs to be addressed.

I will respect the next to the last statement. We all are imposters; we use pseudo names to protect us from humiliation I think, I know I have made some very ignorant statements in the past.

Now back to your question, I really think you are going down the right path, from my humble reference frame Good Elf, your smart; you have been given a tremendous gift which you do not keep to yourself. I am very jealous of your freedom to express points of view.

Stay the course, if you want to start a new site, and let this one fade into radiation, then so be it. You know me; I do not worry about such trivial matters.

Ciao_
yquantum

Maybe he have played with these applets 1, 2 ?

Quick question here guys, my brain is having a hard time wraping around Cherenkov radiation. If the radiation given off or manifested photons are traveling faster than the relative speed of light in that material, then couldnt we then in turn use that idea to speed up the speed of light in the material that is the universe, like some sort of sp shift or deformation of wavelengths to allow ftl movement. Or do I have it completely wrong


This is just soooo much to wrap my head around

Hello Guest_Steve.

Cerenkov radiation cone (like 'cone' of sonic shock waves from sonic/supersonic planes in air) is produced by a body ONLY WHEN IT IS TRAVELLING AT THE MAXIMAL PROPAGATORY SPEED IN WHATEVER MEDIUM APPLIES. For our 'false vacuum' MEDIUM that some call 'space(time), the maximal speed is that at which an electro-magnetical 'disturbance' (such as photon) would travel...and here's the thing: the photon structure/propagation is in the nature of being OF the medium, rather than as moving IN the medium...so the PHOTON is NOT STRICTLY a 'body' going THROUGH the false-vacuum stuff (like an aeroplane 'body' going through the air stuff), it is more in the nature of a DISTURBANCE OF the false-vacuum stuff propagating along AT THE MAXIMAL SPEED ALLOWED BY THE NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT FALSE VACUUM STUFF (just as a 'sonic' disturbance of the air stuff travels at the maximum velocity called speed-of-sound).

So, just like in air it is the plane body travelling at sonic/supersonic speeds which produces the 'sonic' boom 'cone', it is the matter body travelling at luminal/superluminal velocity (IN A PARTICULAR MEDIUM) that produces the 'light' boom 'cone'.

And that MEDIUM is important to identify for the case being observed. If we consider the false-vacuum medium, then NO 'body' will BE travelling at luminal/superluminal velocity in it, SO NO CERENKOV RADIATION 'LIGHT CONE' WILL BE PRODUCED IN VACUUM!...HOWEVER, if we are considering a 'body' going through glass, for instance, then since glass has propagating characteristics which 'slow' light down to a speed (through the glass as a whole, and not in-between its individual atoms/bits that absorb/re-emit light), then if some body going through that glass (like a proton) travelling fast-as/faster-than the propagating speed for light IN that glass, then the speeding proton WOULD PRODUCE A CERENKOV 'light cone' 'LIGHT-BOOM' WAKE behind it.

In short, Cerenkov radiation doesn't occur in 'free space' travel because no 'body' goes as fast/faster than the 'light' disturbances it creates. Cerenkov radiation 'cone' occurs ONLY in more dense media than vacuum stuff, and ONLY when the 'body' going 'through' the media is travelling as fast/faster than the speed of light IN THAT MEDIA.


I hope this has helped.

Best clarified regards from: RealityCheck.

Zephir,

It does get old, and I do see your perspective. Nice thing is that research, it pays very well do not know about applets, unless you work in some ?, to play with,

So, I will live my dream as long as 'we,' see results and can make predictions I will stay where I am, even if you see it as delusional. The rewards are great and even delusional reality from your point of reference, pays very well but more important very rewarding in research, and is a dream come true for me, and that is all that is important here.

You know Zephir, I see mysteries and complications wherever I look, and I have never met a steadily logical person.

Oh, by the way well said. I do respect you opinion very much! But it does not mean I agree, but is physics not the greatest adventure going?

Best on your journey, and fare well my friend! I really do not need this, and as I see it you do not as well..............................it is no longer fun, stay in your cave Zephir. But please remember children read these post.....

Ciao_
yquantum be happy, I will not be back, this post will just fade away!

Hi yquantun and zaphyr,

I am very impressed with the two applets that zephyr found.I have no idea what the second one is supposed to be illustrating... is there a reference page? They lack one more crucial point. Though it has illustrated the effect of "locality" and timing relative to the observer it does not deal with the timing of the high velocity particle itself. The clocks are not necessarily synchronized (or able to be) and therefore we are interpreting the "equal interval" between successive wavefronts from the point of view of the observer not allowing for the timing of the observed. What it is not apparently showing that the maximum receding velocity is only 1/2 ©. Another point in fact is that we know that the Universe is expanding so points in spacetime are "roughly" all moving away from each other there is a regime of "high velocity away from us" and "distance" such that straight geometric analysis indicates that wavefronts will never ever reach the observer since they are forever outside the light cone of the observer. This means that from straight theory alone and including Hubble Shift some events in the "continuum" are no longer accessible to our part of the Universe. The question is, just from that point of view alone, how much of the Universe is beyond our range of observation? Not only what you see is not what is happening but when it is happening depends on the observation as well.

The next question to ask is can an object move in such a way even if it is predominantly "local" such that it is "invisible" to observation? In extra dimensions it is definitely possible. The only questions to ask... are there extra dimensions and does the quantum qualify as such a particle? I think the odds are that it is.

The question of frame dragging is also an interesting exception. I have discussed this before but a long time ago. You will need to dig back into my history track... If you want to know... all my posts are available by clicking on "Good Elf" at the top left and then on that link beneath my name you will see how to access them if you are interested.

Yquantum I hope you had a look at what I said about gravity (ref. previous post here... and below). This is relevant to the discussion of the velocity of light and to a great many things.
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"? - Good Elf

One of the most significant papers I have seen for a "semi-classical" approach to particles was presented by apeman...
electron is a topological photon...
His thread is here... He has top points to me for his ability to "dig stuff up".
Electron is close-looped photon?, Any further work in semi-classical?
This is a very well researched, thought out and refereed paper and I predict that it will influence the "future".

If you draw a line between all these points and then throw in a healthy dose of "string theory" plus a completely geometrodynamic interpretation of "everything" you end up with a new way to look at the quantum. There is a lot of work to be done in there but it is "do-able". It may not look "simple" but I think it is far simpler than alternatives that have a lot of operational rules built in from the floor up (such as all the postulates of the quantum physics). It is "possible" to start with a "clean slate" and "empty space" and build as many Universes as you like.

Cheers

Hi zephyr, yquantum, Guest_Steve and RealityCheck,

One more point... Cherenkov Radiation is NOT a way forward past the speed of light. RealityCheck is dead right on that matter. Those applets (I hope... referring page please?) refer to a particle travelling near © in a vacuum and show wavefronts and indicates "when" an observer "sees" the particle. I "hope" it is emphasizing part of the effects of "locality". The other point I would also like to point out is the "place" it appears to be seen in 3D space is "not obvious" as you may (or may not) expect. A single observer will have some difficulty determining "locality". I leave that one for a gedanken experiment for you all to ponder.

The applets have a problem with my browser. Only IE seems to work with them.

PS: Yquantum... stick around. I am unhappy to hear that you still can't express your ideas freely. I understand... but we are all the "poorer" for it. It is a sad reflection on the realities of the world but luckily we "elves" are not worried by these matters... as well as nobody believes "in" us... nobody believes us either... he he he!

Cheers

Hello Good Elf and all.



In your clarification of the nature of the radiation (photons) by which one detects a relativistically travelling particle (in vacuum), you pointed out (quite rightly) that the referenced material...

“.....refer to a particle travelling near © in a vacuum and show wavefronts and indicates "when" an observer "sees" the particle.”


It might be further clarifying if it is stressed that in your referenced demonstration, the ‘light’ photons by which the observer would ‘see’ the particle are REFLECTED AMBIENT PHOTONS STRIKING THE PARTICLE AND BEING RE-DIRECTED to the observer; as in such case as described, NO LIGHT PHOTONS ARE GENERATED BY THE PARTICLE ITSELF IN VACUUM (unless of course it is made to travel through/along a ‘medium’ like that electro-magnetic medium found within the evacuated torus of a fusion-power torus set-up which is literally ‘swamped’ by the magnetic fieldline energy ‘medium’ generated by powerful superconductor electro-magnets).


Just thought it prudent to further refine your own clarification, Good Elf.


Best refined regards from: RealityCheck.

Hi RealityCheck,

You are probably right with what you say. I assumed (without commentary) this could be a "spaceship" traveling near the speed of light and emitting equal spaced flashes. If the "particle" was a quantum particle it might never be seen at all. In the same vein as a relativistic electron exhibiting a de Broglie wavelength and moving as a matter wave. It potentially could scatter photons but would then depend on the photons out there available to scatter. For instance if the only photons available were longer in wavelength than the size/wavelength of the particle (electron) it would be "totally invisible". You would need to "harden" the radiation (shorten the wavelength) in the area of inspection in order to see the electron by a scattering event. It is actually very subtle. This "trick" only works as long as the wavelength of the de Broglie wave is longer than the size of the particle. Below a certain wavelength (absolute particle size) the electron will be possible to see... this will depend on the minimum size of the electron (that is an interesting question in itself). The other point is you can also detect electrons by their electric field... that is another story eh!

That quantum particle might engage in quantum tunneling... the reciprocal situation to what I am discussing here. This could utilize the interesting properties of the Aharanov-Bohm effect. Such a particle could be "transmitted" from a source to a destination across "infinite" space utilizing the principle employed by Tonomura (and exploited by me... he he he!) This is a teleport system for particles with de Broglie wavelength... see this reference.
The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter, The Key To Teleportation?
With such a system it travels almost all in "Uberspace". Shortcut to the stars (for electrons).

Cheers

Why is c c?

If this is a riddle, I would be looking for a quantum of time -- a shortest time in which something can happen. Since time doesn't pass "inside" the photon, its self-substance must be a form of mass (since it IS a quantity of energy).

But the space it travels through would be like the instrument that this energy "strums", and space would possess the energy over the span of some unit of space-time that represents the most immediate access energy has to space.

In other words, I'm lost.

nsstone, riddler

The well known Einstein's twins paradox reason and principle, of course (i.e. local time inconsistency as the result of motion) - please note the applet title...

Hi zephir,

The well known Einstein's twins paradox reason and principle, of course (i.e. local time inconsistency as the result of motion) - please note the applet title...

In general terms I gathered that. Sorry zephir I see no applet title. We are discussing "2" above aren't we?
Zephir Posted on Sep 9 2005, 08:52 PM
The first one could do with some explanation as well although I think I understand. I am not sure what the problem is but all I can see is the applet window in IE. The applet does not work in my other browser.

Cheers

Hello Quote,

in the case of IE6+ you can try the doppler and twins paradox applets - or you can see just a video snippet of it 1 and 2 in WMV format in external video viewer.

The very same relativistic effects are observable on water surface, after all - so you can visit your bathroom for further experiments, too.