An update to this topic:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkfLaeunLaU[/youtube]
This is all very interesting but practical demonstrations are more valid than either computer simulations or elegant theories. Potentially falsifiable hypotheses subjected to the rigour of the scientific method are what is needed here. Without that it is just speculation. Even if what you propose is actually true there is
no way of knowing. Your own self confidence is simply not good enough and so try and work towards testing these theories of yours if you can. I am especially
interested in the theory of faster than light travel regarding semi particles. Have you run that past any theoretical physicists and if so what was their reaction
Already been done. You are merely not in a situation to be able to know it. And it wasn’t a “simulation”, but rather an emulation. There is a very serious and relevant distinction. An emulation is a type of proof because the actual principles are being used so as to cause the result. If the theory isn’t right, you don’t get the right result. A simulation is merely for display purposes, often not using any of the principles involved but rather merely moving pictures around as per its program directive.
As with ALL modern day Science, YOU cannot know but only speculate that what you have been told in magazines is true. You will believe what I have been saying only when they tell you to believe it. And yes, I have taught it to practicing physicists. It all takes time and they don’t really care.
RM:AO rationally explains what has already been witnessed without having to twist space or time concepts. It is philosophically clean. But there is very little that it proposes as practical advantage over formulas already being used whether those formulas make any rational sense or not. So it is not like a grand revelation for practicing physicists. It is instead mostly just a unified, rationally consistent explanation with nothing to prove other than the consistency of the logic involved. They already know how to accomplish what they are after. RM:AO merely yields a logically consistent explanation for WHY what they do works. For instance, RM:AO gives the first rational explanation as to why the Young Double-slit experiment works the way that it does. But it doesn’t change the outcome. The RM:AO explanation can be falsified by a process described below.
The subject of faster than light travel is a little complex and probably not as interesting as you think. The idea of people or space ships traveling faster than light is not at all reasonable. There is a lot of explaining to do merely to understand the subject.
One does not have to believe any thing scientists say for two reasons. Firstly belief is an article of faith and has zero place in science
Secondly all scientific experiments can be replicated or explained. So it is not necessary to have to just accept the word of scientists
Regarding faster than light travel : objects of mass cannot travel faster than light because time would stop and start going backwards. Which would
violate the law of cause and effect so it is not physically possible. For even photons cannot travel faster than light and they do not experience time
But YOU are not a scientist or ontologist. All you can do is read what they tell you, not really any different than the Church.
It is true that mass particles can only travel faster than light for the very brief time while they are forming. But the reason isn’t because of time stopping. That is just another effect. Mass cannot be a particle if it is propagating at the speed of light. It would merely become light. And of course, there is no such thing as time running backwards (not counting the act of moving particles forwardly into a prior situation. Some magazines will call that reversing time).
And you are right that light photons do not experience time. Time is the measure of relative changing between two things and a light photon doesn’t have anything changing relative to anything else. The affectance that makes up the photon is all propagating together in the same direction as a single clump. As long as the photon is traveling in a straight line, no part of it is changing any differently than any other part, thus there is no time to be measured. While passing a gradient mass field, one side of the photon will be slowed slightly more than the other, causing the photon to bend its trajectory. During that process, the affectance that wasn’t slowed is lost while more is gained in the new direction.
This clip shows “Afflate” travel. An afflate is basically the same thing as a light photon, merely much smaller and simpler, thus afflates and light photons are “virtual particles” and behave the same:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teddr0p__xQ[/youtube]
These are some related anime gifs:
[/quote]
But your text here just indicates that you seem to “believe any thing scientists say”. I mean: You are told by scientists (namely by the current mainstream physicists), and obviously believe in their saying, that “time would stop amd start backwards”, if “objects of mass” travelled “faster than light”.
If the photons are particles and nothing else (thus also no waves), what are those indicated waves then? Do you think that they are merely a scientific mistake or a mistake of the observer?
Is it right that light photons are “virtual particles”, whereas photons are “particles”? I mean: Photons (thus: all photons) have always to do with light.
In English, “virtual” means “might as well be, even though technically not”. A photon (of anything) and all other so-called “virtual particles” are not physical particles yet largely behave as if they were particulate in that they maintain a large degree of cohesion, maintaining themselves as an object for at least a short time. Mass particles are extremely stable objects. Virtual particles might not remain cohesive for long at all.
The concept of the virtual particle stems from Quantum Mechanics translated into Quantum Physics. In Quantum Mechanics averages of millions of trials determine what is or isn’t a particle or property of a particle. It is a misuse of the language so as to confound students into a misrepresentation of reality (aka. “false ontology”, “Quantum Physics”). The good of it is merely that very accurate predictions can be made due to the millions of trials being the basis for the prediction. Any one singular incident can never be predicted in Quantum Mechanics, only the average behavior of a great many. If on average a certain amount of energy leaves from an interaction, that particular clump of energy is given a name and dubbed a “virtual particle”.
It is best to translate “virtual particle” as “sort-of-like particle” or “almost particle” or “amount of energy”, and in all cases, “not a stable mass particle”.
And the word “photon” somewhat graduated from referring only to clumps of visible light into referring to clumps of any EMR. A photon of EMR, visible light or otherwise, is merely a “puff of affectance traveling in a single direction”.
The current mainstream physicists say that the photon is an exchange particle too, namely an exchange particle of the electromagnetic “force” (interaction).
Ah … now getting drawn into the myth.
In the mythology of Quantum Physics there are the Newtonian forces; gravitation and electromagnetism, as well as the Particle Physics forces of Strong and Weak. These magical forces are theorized as having the ability to reach out from a source and affect a distant object such as another subatomic particle. And in order to explain how such forces get around and affect particles, the mythical “force carrier particles” had to be imagined (gluons, gravitons, photons, and W&Z).
With force carrier particles, one can then imagine that a small portion of each force is carried from one force source particle to another force destination particle thus allowing for the “exchange” of the substance called “force”. Whatever happens during a nuclear interaction can then be explained by proposing that the appropriate force carrier particles exchanged whatever force was necessary so as to achieve the witnessed result. Each of these carrier particles is a “virtual particle”, meaning "not really a particle but we are going to talk about each tiny amount as if it was an actual particle".
In reality, and in Einstein’s understanding, there is no force and thus no force carrier particles. No such particles have ever been observed but only proposed to be responsible much as fairies in the forest being responsible for the dew on the leaves. In modern mythologies, in order to explain the unknown, one need merely refer to “subatomic carrier virtual particles” rather than fairies or spirits.
In RM:AO, the Afflate is the only “virtual particle” and it “carries” (is actually made of) a small puff of affectance. The propagation and accumulation of the affectance causes the end resultant effects. There are no forces in RM:AO. There is only the propagation and accumulation of affectance. And the exact process and cause of such propagation and accumulation as well as all end subatomic effects witnessed for centuries is fully understood. There is nothing mythical, magical, nor lacking in full and complete understanding within RM:AO (very unlike Quantum Mythology and Relativity).
The reason why virtual particles are so called is because they just exist for an infinitesimal period
of time. It is not therefore to distinguish them from real particles. Because they are real particles
No. They are not, unless you want to define a “particle” as merely anything chosen to be called a particle. It hasn’t anything to do with how long they exist. It has to do with the fact that they are not discrete entities, but rather merely “an average amount”. In QM, waves of energy traveling through space are referred to as “particles of energy”, of which ever type.