Light Speed (and faster...)

[thigle]

as was said thousand times (and ignored thousand times):

no mass can PASS speed of light from either over or under.

now let me know how massive information is .

einstein's flaw is his unnecessary constant.

which he implemented due to his personal preference of euclidean paradigm - to get rid of non-euclidean effects on micro-scale.

[moonlord]

Information does not have mass, since it can be stored as energy. Or maybe it does...

[jinydu]

My understanding so far is that if information is travelling faster than light in one frame of reference, then it will be observed to be travelling back in time in another frame of reference, which violates causality.

[thigle]

but accords with experience, which ain't purely causal.

acausality is actually so ubiquitous that noone seems to care to even notice.

why is it that people want to stick with causality so much ? is the habit of perpetuating habits stronger than desire for freedom & truth ? for how long ?

actually, once people realize that physus is just a dual of logos, both of which are bifurcation from peiron (finite, bounded), which itself is dual to apeiron (unbound, infinite), we will step out of reductionist frame, right here into the Open.

causal order floats over acausal. the ordered is ordered by ordering which ain't fully causal.

so why is it called 'violation' of causality ? due to the habit of causal mind (or more broadly due to the deeply rooted dualizing tendency of our Western Indo-European tradition) which tends to dualize and see this duality as a conflict, instead of understanding polarities as COMPLEMENTARY.

if you check our mythologies, you gonna find countless images of 'defeating the Dragon', which ain't nothing other than repression/killing of the 'Wild' by masculine logocentric rationality.

[jinydu]

but accords with experience, which ain't purely causal.

acausality is actually so ubiquitous that noone seems to care to even notice.

why is it that people want to stick with causality so much ? is the habit of perpetuating habits stronger than desire for freedom & truth ? for how long ?

actually, once people realize that physus is just a dual of logos, both of which are bifurcation from peiron (finite, bounded), which itself is dual to apeiron (unbound, infinite), we will step out of reductionist frame, right here into the Open.

causal order floats over acausal. the ordered is ordered by ordering which ain't fully causal.

so why is it called 'violation' of causality ? due to the habit of causal mind (or more broadly due to the deeply rooted dualizing tendency of our Western Indo-European tradition) which tends to dualize and see this duality as a conflict, instead of understanding polarities as COMPLEMENTARY.

if you check our mythologies, you gonna find countless images of 'defeating the Dragon', which ain't nothing other than repression/killing of the 'Wild' by masculine logocentric rationality.

... Another rant against science, with no evidence to back it up.

Sorry thigle, but "duality" (if I understood your use of the term correctly, which is not guaranteed) and "causality" is the way the universe works. I drop a rock; therefore it falls, not the other way around.

[thigle]

and now give a shout out to all those who know how universe work !
and to all scientists ! (if they have evidence to back it up )

jinydu, don't dumb yourself. you wouldn't even be able to think, if there was ONLY causality.

poor causality.

[houserichichi]

General relativity is built upon Lorentzian manifolds wherein the speed of light is the invariant speed of the underlying transformation group (Poincaré). The only way to travel faster than light is to not exist on a Lorentz manifold which, as far as any evidence has shown, is not the case.

[thigle]

nor has it shown that it IS the case.

[houserichichi]

Asking to "prove" a scientific theory is asking a scientist to not do science at all. It is a method of matching experimental evidence to theoretical frameworks created to describe the universe in which we live. Since human knowledge is only ever finite we can't possibly create a scientific "proof" in the same definition as, say, a mathematical one.

Relativity is the nugget of information that all major experimental evidence points to. That literally translates to relativity (the general case) being the best description we have of the universe on macroscopic scales. Asking for any more than that is not science but a lack of understanding therein.

It all sounds very "I'm right and you're wrong" but that's really what science is - a cold, unforgiving bitch. When something works you run with it for as long as you can until a new, more refined version comes about and then repeat the process ad infinitum. If an idea runs out of predicting power before a replacement has been created you stop and consider your options. It's the scientist's ultimate goal to describe everything in the universe in his language to the best of his ability...proofs are not part of his vocabulary.

[thigle]

general relativity being the best we have for macroscopic scale and QM best we have for the microscopic scale, still we have not the good theory under/over the micro/micro scales, nor for the life-scale in between.
these 2 are just extreme theories. beautiful indeed, but oh so incomplete.

this complexity of consciousness/life/social organisation right here before us, on this very SpaceshipEarth, stays without fitting any 'scientific' explanation yet. maybe the warmth it glows is too much for the cold bitches.

it's unnecessary to keep sciences distinct, and even more unnecessary to hold theories within sciences strictly distinct. they are in constant touch from within anyway, and they fuse gradually anyway, and thus old theories/'sciences' die periodically and 'new' ones emerge.

not all sciences are cold bitches.

[jinydu]

general relativity being the best we have for macroscopic scale and QM best we have for the microscopic scale, still we have not the good theory under/over the micro/micro scales, nor for the life-scale in between.
these 2 are just extreme theories. beautiful indeed, but oh so incomplete.

Actually, both quantum mechanics and general relativity are accurate on "everyday" scales, since they both reduce to Newtonian mechanics, which is of course accurate on everyday scales (as shown by centuries of experiments).

this complexity of consciousness/life/social organisation right here before us, on this very SpaceshipEarth, stays without fitting any 'scientific' explanation yet. maybe the warmth it glows is too much for the cold bitches.

"Consciousness" - We're making progress, although there is still a long way to go
"Life" - Already done, just ask a biologist. It's now just a matter of working out some specific details.
"Social organization" - Strictly speaking, this falls outside the scope of natural science. But there have been attempts to study it using a similar method.

it's unnecessary to keep sciences distinct, and even more unnecessary to hold theories within sciences strictly distinct. they are in constant touch from within anyway, and they fuse gradually anyway, and thus old theories/'sciences' die periodically and 'new' ones emerge.

not all sciences are cold bitches.

Some scientific fields are in touch with each other, but individual scientific theories are definitely distinct, as they start from different axioms and thus lead to different conclusions.

In Newtonian mechanics, p = mv
In special relativity, p = gamma * mv

I don't see how you can get much more distinct than that.

[Kahlar]

I think that sooner or later we will be able to travel as fast/faster than the speed of light. You say that it takes infinity amount of energy to reach that speed, but then how does light waves do it?

[PWrong]

I think that sooner or later we will be able to travel as fast/faster than the speed of light. You say that it takes infinity amount of energy to reach that speed, but then how does light waves do it?

That's an interesting question. Basically, the answer is that light has no mass, but it's a bit trickier than that (for me at least).

Normally, the energy of an object is something like m c^2 * gamma. At rest, gamma = 1, so we get the famous equation E = m c^2 .
As we approach lightspeed, gamma gets closer to 0 [EDIT from jinydu: He means infinity]. That's why the energy approaches infinity. But if the mass is also zero, we get something different, E = 0/0.

0/0 is undefined, which is generally interpreted to mean, "E can be any number". So a photon, which travels at c and has no rest mass, can have any finite amount of energy (as long as you have enough energy to produce it). That's also why we have a (potentially) infinite range of colours.

This is a pretty crude explanation, I know. I hope it makes sense.

[moonlord]

...and it's energy would reflect in its wavelength, right? One cannot have a wave with infinite frequency, therefore no infinite energy. Otherwise said, finite energy, finite frequency.

Am I wrong?

[bo198214]

Am I wrong?

P wrong

[moonlord]

So, I should gather P is wrong. Right? Left?

[bo198214]

So, I should gather P is wrong. Right? Left?

No, you are PWrong *just joking*
I meant you are the same opinion as PWrong, but really I only wanted to tease.

[houserichichi]

Try this. The invariant mass of a particle is m = sqrt(E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2) and since E=pc for a photon we see that its mass is zero. What E=mc^2 is referring to is relativistic mass - that is mass and energy are related by the conversion factor c^2. By that logic, since a photon necessarily has energy then it would have a mass as well, a relativistic mass, which is an outdated concept. Since E=pc = h / w (where w = wavelength), increasing wavelength would decrease energy of a photon and vice versa as h is a constant.

Did that help?

[moonlord]

Thanks, it confirmed my thoughts.